Family businesses and entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic review of inputs, process, and outcomes

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to develop theory, thereby attending to the existing knowledge gap regarding the impact of family firms on entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs). Reducing such a gap is both timely and relevant given the ubiquity of family firms across the globe and the lack of theoretical development at the intersection of EE and family firm literatures. By employing social capital theory in a propositional theorizing approach, this article presents unique propositions that enrich current understanding of the EE phenomenon.Design/methodology/approachOur method adopts a three-step propositional theorizing approach. The first step outlines our conceptualization, drawing on social capital theory and identifying multiple levels of analysis pertaining to EEs and family firms. The second step precisely identifies the constructs used for the theorization process, drawing upon relevant literature. The third step involves proposition building, which produces our findings.FindingsAs a result of our propositional theorizing method, we developed 10 theoretical propositions to explain interactions between family members, nonfamily entrepreneurs, family firms and new ventures in the EE, thereby focusing on the social elements of the EE and reducing its conceptual complexity while extending the explanatory power of family social capital in the EE.Research limitations/implicationsDespite being increasingly relevant in research, policy and practice discourse, EEs remain under theorized. By theorizing in this context, we provide explanations of the mechanisms to explain social interactions between family members, nonfamily entrepreneurs, family firms and new ventures and how such interactions are likely to provide better access to the untapped resources in the EE. Furthermore, our theorization also identifies underexplored research areas paving the way for future scholars.Practical implicationsThis article is relevant to practitioners and policymakers interested in creating balanced, inclusive and effective EE policies and interventions. Our theorization generates insights that complement a bottom-up approach where the state assumes a facilitating role for actors such as family firms to positively impact their EE. This research is both timely and necessary because, if unaddressed, it will lead to ineffective and potentially exclusionary policies and EE interventions.Originality/valueWe contribute to the literature by synthesizing the two domains and thereby advancing knowledge at the intersection of EE and family firm literatures. We strengthen the link between two burgeoning research areas through a propositional theorizing mode of theory development. Under the assumptions of a grand theory, social capital theory, we highlight the benefits that derive from social interactions in the EE between family firms and other EE actors.

Both the entrepreneurship and the family business fields are reaching their momentum (Melin, Nordqvist, & Sharma, 2014; Venkataraman, Sarasvathy, Dew, & Forster, 2012) and scholars acknowledge the importance of considering not only the family business dimension, but also the individual and family dimensions of entrepreneurship phenomena (e.g., Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Marchisio, Mazzola, Sciascia, Miles, & Astrachan, 2010; Nordqvist & Zellweger, 2010). The idea of looking at the intersection of the family business and entrepreneurship fields has become relatively common in the early 2000s, thanks to some scholars (e.g., Chrisman, Chua, & Steier, 2003; Habbershon & Pistrui, 2002; Hall, Melin, & Nordqvist, 2001; Rogoff & Heck, 2003; Zahra, Hayton, & Salvato, 2004) whose efforts have encompassed promising new perspectives. While several papers have focused on themes that can be considered as part of the Family Entrepreneurship field, rare are the cases where an explicit definition of Family Entrepreneurship can be found. For example, among the first special issues dedicated to the topic, Rogoff and Heck (2003) compare entrepreneurship and family business research and conclude that families are the oxygen that feed the entrepreneurial fire. In the same issue, Aldrich and Cliff (2003) demonstrate the interrelatedness of family and entrepreneurship by showing how changes in the family have altered the landscape of entrepreneurship. Among the first inspiring contributions, Habbershon, Williams, and MacMillan (2003) define enterprising families as those with a vision forged by the controlling family which “directs the enterprising activities of the family unit, business entity, and individual family members so as to pursue the maximum potential wealth for current and future generations of family members.” This paper was one of the first to introduce also a robust theorizing about transgenerational wealth creation, a concept to which we will return later. A few years later, in their seminal work, Heck and colleagues define Family Entrepreneurship as a phenomenon involving “the underpinnings and interactions of two systems, namely, the family system and the business system” and show how promising could be studying these fields as well as the overlap between them (Heck, Hoy, Poutziouris, & Steier, 2008: 324). Later on, Nordqvist and Melin (2010), contributed by identifying two separate, yet related dimensions – the dimensions of the entrepreneurial family and the entrepreneurial family business. They use the concept of the entrepreneurial family to refer to “the family as an institution, or social structure, that can both drive and constrain entrepreneurial activities,” while they consider the entrepreneurial family business as “a type of organization, or organizational context, with certain characteristicsthat can facilitate or constrain entrepreneurial activities, processes and outcomes” (Nordqvist & Melin, 2010: 214). In the same vein, Uhlaner, Kellermanns, Eddleston, and Hoy (2012), examined the intersection of entrepreneurship and family business and offer a paradigm to explain the entrepreneurial behaviors of family firms. In this case the authors specifically focused on entrepreneuring families, defined as “the subset of business-owning families focused on entrepreneurial objectives or motives” (Uhlaner, Kellermanns, Eddleston, & Hoy, 2012: 2). Thus, in the general literature, the concepts of entrepreneurial families and/ or family businesses seem to be quite common, and perceived as fascinating. For example, Poutziouris, Steier, and Smyrnios (2004) talk about “family business entrepreneurial development” while Campbell calls for more transgressive research that aims at revealing the full entrepreneurial potential of family firms and shifts away from the paradigm of the single, heroic entrepreneur to legitimize approaches that also take into account emotional resources, shared values, and underlie “the integration of head and heart” (2011: 41). A sub-theme − and probably one of the most studied recently − of Family Entrepreneurship is transgenerational entrepreneurship which links entrepreneurship and family business theory (Nordqvist & Zellweger, 2010) and is defined as “the processes through which a family uses and develops entrepreneurial mindsets and family-influenced resources and capabilities to create new streams of entrepreneurial, financial and social value across generations” (Habbershon, Nordqvist, & Zellweger, 2010: 1). In this vein, to explore the entrepreneurial process within business families across the globe both qualitatively and quantitatively, the STEP (Successful Transgenerational Entrepreneurship Practices) project has been founded and involves now more than 30 countries and 125 researchers. Kraus and colleagues (2012: 135) similarly to the works mentioned above, do not define Family Entrepreneurship explicitly but stress that family business and entrepreneurship are not contradictory or exact synonyms. For the authors, “family businesses are entrepreneurial . . . they just go about it differently by leveraging their distinct familiness (Habbershon et al., 2003).” As Kraus and colleagues (2012) note, family firms are a unique form of ownership which relies heavily on the overlap among family, business, and ownership systems (Gersick, Davis, McCollom, & Lansberg, 1997). These authors implicitly talk about Family Entrepreneurship by stressing that successful family firms are the ones that are able to keep the entrepreneurial spirit alive and vigorous for the next generations. Recently, Fayolle and Begin (Begin & Fayolle A., 2014; Fayolle & Begin, 2009) have focused their attention on the family dimension of individual and organizational entrepreneurial behaviors and the entrepreneurial dimension of family businesses. Building on and extending this perspective, in this volume we define Family Entrepreneurship as the research field that studies entrepreneurial behaviors of family, family members, and family businesses (Bettinelli, Fayolle, & Randerson, 2014). We accompany this definition with two visual frameworks that (hopefully) help us offer a clearer view of the concept (Figure I.1). This conceptualization (represented in Figure I.1) presents three loci (i.e., individual, family, and family business) and identifies the main nexus, between the individual and the family, between the family and the family business, and between the individual and the family business. Each nexus – represented by the arrows – symbolizes the influences on the entrepreneurial behaviors of each loci.With the framework illustrated in Figure I.1 we aim at adopting a holistic view and to take into consideration that not only entrepreneurial behaviors of an individual are in most of the cases rooted in the family context, the sustainability of the family firm depends on individual and/or collective entrepreneurial behaviors. Additionally, family firms are qualified as such by virtue of family ownership, management, or participation in an entrepreneurial firm. Finally, both entrepreneurial behaviors and the success or failure of the family firm impact the family unit (Bettinelli, Fayolle, & Randerson, 2014). This broad definition allows us to incorporate the previously mentioned concepts and to integrate them into a framework that should help scholars systematize knowledge on the topic. By focusing on behaviors, this definition takes into proper consideration the dynamic nature of Family Entrepreneurship, additionally by considering different loci (i.e., the individual, the family, and family business) it allows us to disentangle the intrinsic complexity of the phenomena under study (Bettinelli, Fayolle, & Randerson, 2014). While previous research has tended to focus on entrepreneurial phenomena that occur where family and family business overlap, this conceptualization underscores the importance of Family Entrepreneurship as a holistic phenomenon that affects, and is affected by, the three different loci above identified. Thus, not only the family and the family firms are considered, but also the individual, and circular effects are presented in the figure (e.g., family firms are affected by the family but also the family can be affected by family firms’ behaviors, individuals’ behaviors affect family firms, and vice versa, and so on). This is in line with research that has acknowledged that a large part of

Programme, with his son Maitland, The Lancashire Forum, The Global Eco-Innovation Forum. He is currently sitting on an Eco-I Taskforce to challenge and recommend ways the SME Food & Drink sector in Lancashire can achieve Net Zero Carbon by 2030. In his award-winning blog, one of the Top 40 Coffee Blogs on the Planet, he writes about his Travels to Origin to source traceable coffees that develop into long-term relationships with family farms. He works in 'Speciality' coffee from farm gate to coffee cup and has built Atkinsons into a much-loved brand made up of a Shop and Roastery, four Cafés, a Wholesale B2B and online business.

IntroductionBusiness goals commonly include survival, profit, and growth. In order to survive, a business needs to be profitable to replenish its resources and to grow to avoid stagnation and to keep abreast of competition. Complicating this process, family businesses may add goals such as enhancing family welfare to this equation. Family goals may not be performance-oriented in nature and may take precedence over the business goals of growth or profitability (Chrisman, Chua, and Steier, 2003). For instance, providing employment for less than fully productive family members may be most important to family business leaders.Scholars have recognized the duality of family businesses, referring to the family side and business side of family firms (Stafford, Duncan, Dane, and Winter, 1999) and hypothesizing that the success of such companies lies in the interplay and management of the two components. While the family side is often considered to be full of emotion and perhaps detrimental to the business, instances occur wherein the family may save the business. For example, the family may use personal savings to help the business through a financial crisis (Stafford et al., 1999). Although the business side is important for firm survival, it is not acceptable to sacrifice the family for the good of the business. This reciprocal impact of the family and the business distinguishes family business studies from all others (Sharma, 2004). Both the family and the business must respond to external disturbances. Therefore, if the family is content, the business is successful, and ifthey both respond appropriately to external events, the family business will be successful.Although there are many definitions of family businesses in the literature, we employ the following definition in this study. A family business isgoverned and/or managed with the intention to shape and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant coalition controlled by members of the same family or a small number of families in a manner that is potentially sustainable across generations of the family or families (Chua, Chrisman, and Sharma, 1999, p. 25).The focus of our study is on small family businesses. The Small Business Administration defines small businesses in the U.S. as companies with less than 500 employees (or $7.5 million in average annual sales for many nonmanufacturing industries); however, there are exceptions (SBA, 2015).This study addresses how family factors may affect the business goal of growth in small family firms. Is it true that family involvement limits family firm growth? For instance, family firm leaders may entangle family and business goals and relationships (Kidwell, Eddleston, Cater, and Kellermanns, 2013). Relationship conflict may be detrimental in the family firm (Davis and Harveston, 2001), and family members may feel trapped in their family business (Schultze, Lubatkin, and Dino 2003). Conversely, family involvement may strengthen family firm growth. Family firms are known to: rely on idiosyncratic knowledge to improve firm performance (Bjuggren and Sund, 2001); employ more informal decision making than non-family firms (Daily and Dollinger, 1992); utilize a more centralized decision-making process and less formalized control systems (Morris, Williams, Allen, and Avila, 1997); have greater flexibility in decision making (Poza, Alfred, and Maheshkwari, 1997); make quick decisions when required (Ward, 1997); and respond quickly to their business environment (Dreux, 1990). Therefore, this research was guided by the following question. Why do some small family firms grow and add multiple outlets across a geographic area, while others remain in one location? Although we recognize that many factors, such as family, business, and macro-environmental, affect small family business growth, the focus of our study is on the family factors that lead to company growth. These family factors separate small family businesses from non-family concerns. …

A New Era for EJFB

Digital transformation has become a necessity for many organizations, including family firms. Understanding the role and impact of digital transformation is crucial to guarantee family firms' survival and long-term prosperity in an uncertain and constantly developing environment. This study aims to synthesize the limited existing body of knowledge on digital transformation in family firms and identify future research directions. We employed a systematic literature review to address the goals and identified 30 relevant peer-reviewed papers published between 2019 and 2023. The limited number of existing family firm studies indicates the nascent state of research in this area and highlights the increasing research need in the rapidly expanding and evolving field of digital transformation and digitalization. The studies identify and provide insights into the drivers, challenges, strategies, and outcomes of the digital transformation process in family firms. Moreover, the review highlights challenges family firms face during digital transformation, such as the development, activation, or reconfiguration of new and existing capabilities and the deployment of resources by the family. Based on the findings, this systematic literature review identifies several promising avenues for future research. Within the particularities of the family business context, these include the role of family influence, possible antecedents to the process, enablers and barriers, explanatory mechanisms, and performance outcomes and implications. Although the number of identified studies is relatively limited, this review contributes to the literature by consolidating the current knowledge on digital transformation in family firms and highlighting areas for further investigation. Practitioners and policymakers can draw insights from this review to inform their decision-making processes regarding digital transformation strategies for family firms. Researchers are encouraged to address the identified research directions to advance our understanding of issues related to digital transformation in family firms and pave the way for future theoretical and practical advancements.

Purpose of the paper: According to most previous research, family businesses tend to internationalize less than non-family businesses. However, previous research has been conducted mainly in developed countries, where strong institutions support non-family businesses more than family businesses. Conversely, in developing countries with weak institutions, family businesses may conceivably have a comparative advantage for internationalization, especially if they are innovative. This paper focuses on how innovation may mediate and moderate the effect of governance upon internationalization in the form of exporting, as this dynamic is embedded in developing societies with weak institutions. Methodology: The research method is quantitative data analysis. Our account is based on a representative sample of 4,004 family and non-family businesses in Egypt, Madagascar, Morocco, and Turkey, surveyed for the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Findings: Analyses show that governance hardly affects innovativeness, but affects internationalization, in that exporting is especially high for family businesses in Morocco. Moreover, innovativeness boosts exporting in family business more than in non-family business. Furthermore, the comparative advantage of family businesses is larger in Morocco than in Egypt, Madagascar, and Turkey. Research limits: Although an essential feature of our research design is based on a comparative approach, rather than the typical single-country studies, we compared four similar societies in developing countries with weak institutions. Therefore, a significant limitation is that our findings concerning the internationalization of family businesses should not be generalized to all kinds of societies. Moreover, due to the small number of countries (four developing countries), it is statistically impossible to test the effects of the macro-institutional factors affecting family firms exporting. Therefore, we can only measure country contexts' overall impact without elaborating effects of specific institutional factors enhancing or hampering the internationalization process. Practical implications: The practical implication is relevant for family firms' policies to know that innovation in family firms is not a waste of investment, but innovation especially can boost exporting in family business more than in non-family firms, thereby enhancing the economic performance of family firms. Originality of the paper: These results contribute to understanding internationalization in family businesses as shaped by innovation and as embedded in society's context.

Purpose of the paper: According to most previous research, family businesses tend to internationalize less than non-family businesses. However, previous research has been conducted mainly in developed countries, where strong institutions support non-family businesses more than family businesses. Conversely, in developing countries with weak institutions, family businesses may conceivably have a comparative advantage for internationalization, especially if they are innovative. This paper focuses on how innovation may mediate and moderate the effect of governance upon internationalization in the form of exporting, as this dynamic is embedded in developing societies with weak institutions. Methodology: The research method is quantitative data analysis. Our account is based on a representative sample of 4,004 family and non-family businesses in Egypt, Madagascar, Morocco, and Turkey, surveyed for the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Findings: Analyses show that governance hardly affects innovativeness, but affects internationalization, in that exporting is especially high for family businesses in Morocco. Moreover, innovativeness boosts exporting in family business more than in non-family business. Furthermore, the comparative advantage of family businesses is larger in Morocco than in Egypt, Madagascar, and Turkey. Research limits: Although an essential feature of our research design is based on a comparative approach, rather than the typical single-country studies, we compared four similar societies in developing countries with weak institutions. Therefore, a significant limitation is that our findings concerning the internationalization of family businesses should not be generalized to all kinds of societies. Moreover, due to the small number of countries (four developing countries), it is statistically impossible to test the effects of the macro-institutional factors affecting family firms exporting. Therefore, we can only measure country contexts' overall impact without elaborating effects of specific institutional factors enhancing or hampering the internationalization process. Practical implications: The practical implication is relevant for family firms' policies to know that innovation in family firms is not a waste of investment, but innovation especially can boost exporting in family business more than in non-family firms, thereby enhancing the economic performance of family firms. Originality of the paper: These results contribute to understanding internationalization in family businesses as shaped by innovation and as embedded in society's context.

The purpose of the research process was to assess the state of knowledge on the use of Industry 4.0 postulates in the context of Engineer 4.0 and Manager 4.0 competencies in family firms, identify research gaps and outline future research directions. We conducted a systematic literature review of 21 articles from the Scopus database that relate to the topic of Industry 4.0 and Engineer 4.0 and Manager 4.0 in family firms. To identify the state of the art, keyword co-occurrence analysis using VosViewer software was used as an analytical tool. We identified the most influential journals and subject areas. The study allowed us to identify consistent clusters that show a wide variety of topics in the discussion of the mentioned topic. The results showed a wide dispersion of research interests and the lack of a single, in-depth or dominant research area dealing with the phenomenon worldwide. We recommend further research on family businesses and Industry 4.0. In addition, the lack of comparative research on family and non-family businesses should be addressed. Contribution and added value: Our systematic literature review systematizes the existing literature on Industry 4.0 in family firms, isolates key research interests, identifies future research directions and provides important insights for researchers.

The concept of inclusion is a timeless issue that is increasingly relevant for Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EEs) and the European policy agenda in general. EEs are dynamic and highly complex structures which are shaped by external and internal forces, and a variety of stakeholders. They present the types of cultural, social, economic, and political resources that surround and support entrepreneurs. Even within the same EE, entrepreneurs with different social and economic profiles (e.g., female entrepreneurs, disabled persons, refugees, etc.) may encounter vastly different support services and opportunities. Many studies also highlight that most current ecosystem approaches do not pay enough attention to factors that structurally exclude and marginalize certain groups in entrepreneurship. Inclusion as a term refers to the process where secure citizens have the same opportunities to participate fully in economic, social and cultural life. Hence, it highlights having a certain standard of living and well-being, considered as normal in the society and context in which they live. Additionally, it encompasses equal access to the labor market, facilities, services, and resources. Applying this approach in the context of contemporary EEs is crucial to provide opportunities for every citizen and capitalize on the capabilities of a more diverse workforce. In this context, the U.N. has called for a review of ecosystems addressing the challenge of developing enterprises by the underserved. Consequently, the question arising is how current literature addresses inclusion in the context of EEs. This study aims to identify the contemporary academic understanding around inclusion in entrepreneurship, provide insights on the challenges for inclusion in EEs, and suggest actions that can enhance EEs in terms of inclusion. This work starts from gender inclusion and expands across the spectrum of excluded groups. To address this issue, a systematic literature review was carried out encompassing the research topic concerning the relationship between EEs and inclusion followed by an analysis of the main topic and issues identified. Using this approach, this work identifies gaps in the existing EE literature around the concept of inclusion while also providing a mapping of under-researched topics and highlighting under-represented groups and their current and potential connection to EEs.

Introduction to the Special Issue

Academic researchers have recently recognised the impact of family firms’ idiosyncrasies and characteristics on financial accounting practices, and identified distinctions between family and non-family businesses. However, this issue still needs appropriate systematisation and discussion. It is important to understand how family businesses’ features shape financial accounting phenomena, but the most authoritative review on the topic dates back more than 10 years. We therefore conducted a systematic review of 133 articles on financial accounting in family firms published in peer-reviewed journals up to 2023. We aimed to assess what scholars have explored so far on this topic, interpreting findings using three levels of analysis: family, business, and individual. The novelty of our paper comes from using this framework to create a thematic map that provides a comprehensive overview of the current research on this topic and developing an extensive research agenda for future studies. The article also provides practical implications for family firm managers, practitioners, and regulators by clarifying the influence of characteristics of family businesses on accounting practices.

The entrepreneurial ecosystem, a prominent subject in entrepreneurship, plays a pivotal role in fostering creativity, expediting the entrepreneurial process, and contributing to social development and economic progress. Despite growing research on entrepreneurial ecosystems, a comprehensive review is lacking. To fill this research gap and obtain insights into the current research status, emphasis, and prospective future research directions, this study adopts a bibliometric approach to conduct a comprehensive review of entrepreneurial ecosystem research in the Web of Science Core Collection. The analysis reveals a consistent annual increase in articles on entrepreneurial ecosystems, with a significant surge after 2016. Developed nations, particularly the United States and United Kingdom, are the primary locations for this research, with universities serving as the principal conduits. Keyword analysis highlights the prevalence of such terms as “economic growth” and “education,” indicating their close association with studies on entrepreneurial ecosystems and their impact on economic development. Furthermore, the topic of education encompasses student entrepreneurship, university entrepreneurial ecosystems, and innovative entrepreneurial education systems. The literature can be categorized into two main areas: studies elucidating the concept of digital entrepreneurial ecosystems, including their compositional frameworks and construction pathways; and research examining sustainable development within entrepreneurial ecosystems, which involves broader investigations into entrepreneurial ecosystems and the cultivation of sustainable dynamics within core entrepreneurial landscapes. This study sheds light on current research progress and suggests future research trajectories in entrepreneurial ecosystem studies, thereby advancing the field.

The Portuguese economy needs new growth engines based on entrepreneurship and innovation, inducing new products and services capable of competing on a global scale. This article aims to understand the role of entrepreneurial ecosystems and knowledge management within the scope of competitiveness and economic development, as well as their benefits for economies that need innovation to prosper, as is the case of the Portuguese economy. In addition, it is also intended to fill the gap identified in the literature, related to the scarcity of systematic literature reviews on this subject. Thus, a systematic literature review and a bibliometric analysis were carried out, following the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009). The survey was conducted in two databases (Web of Science and Scopus). The final sample consists of 33 articles, published between 1996 and 2024 and in English. Data analysis is carried out qualitatively (systematic literature review) and quantitatively (bibliometric analysis) to ensure the validity of the obtained results (Bhandari, 2022). The integrity of the study is related to the presentation of all the data gathered, including those that may contradict the author’s perspective, resulting in an unbiased and factual study. The results demonstrate that the main themes addressed in the literature regarding entrepreneurial ecosystems and knowledge management are five: Technological innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystems, exploitation of knowledge in entrepreneurial ecosystems, collaboration as an essential tool for knowledge management, financing, and business incubator. Most of the existing research was carried out in the UK, Italy, the USA, China, and Finland, focusing on the theme of ecosystems, entrepreneurial ecosystems, innovation ecosystems, and innovation. The business model is the most discussed in existing studies. Knowledge is currently the most valued intellectual asset and innovative and entrepreneurial strategies. Most companies with entrepreneurial ecosystems have effective innovation networks, which helps their economic development and innovative entrepreneurship, positively affecting their competitiveness globally. Moreover, as organizations navigate increasingly complex environments influenced by digitalization and socioenvironmental challenges, the integration of knowledge management practices becomes critical in enhancing collaboration and innovation within these ecosystems. Innovation networks, entrepreneurship, knowledge management, and technology are the key elements of entrepreneurial ecosystems, culminating in organizations’ economic growth and competitiveness. Future investigations should further analyze the business model adopted by successful entrepreneurial organizations, quantitatively corroborating the qualitative results obtained in this study. In this way, the validity and relevance of the key elements identified in this study can be consolidated, providing more insights for entrepreneurial organizations in the future, aiming at economic development and the creation of business value.

Research background: This paper explores the approach that focuses on entrepreneurial activities suppressed by restraining forces or different barriers. We investigated a particular type of obstacles reported by entrepreneurs, i.e., those which prevented their gaining access to support instruments. This paper delved into the specificity of family businesses and explained why perceptions of access to support could differ between family and non-family firms. Purpose of the article: This paper seeks to identify the differences between family and non-family businesses in terms of their perceptions of different barriers that hinder access to support instruments. Methods: The main research processes were based on logistic regression models with a dependent variable: 0 for a non-family firm and 1 for a family firm. As dependent variables 13 barriers to the access of public support instruments were adopted. The study was conducted on a sample of 386 Polish business entities. Findings & value added: The results confirmed the existence of differences between family and non-family businesses in perceptions of barriers towards gaining support in entrepreneurial endeavours. Obstacles, such as overly-complex bureaucratic procedures and requirements, lack of access to information disseminated by business support institutions, and complicated support settlement procedures, were perceived as far less crucial by family businesses than non-family businesses. Family businesses demonstrated a lower propensity to use real property as collateral for transactions. Additionally, family businesses with financial resources that overlap with their own familial resources declared that they found it easier to make their own contributions to satisfy the requirements for support programmes or services. This paper makes several novel and significant contributions to the field. First, we add to existing research focusing exclusively on family entrepreneurial activity by drawing a comparison between family and non-family firms in terms of the perceived barriers towards gaining support. Second, we address different types of barriers. Our findings provide further evidence that different types of businesses perceive certain types of barriers differently. Third, we extend current knowledge on family businesses study in Poland.