IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i7p1204-d1440287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Attractiveness of Employee Benefits in Agriculture from the Perspective of Generation Z

Author

Listed:
  • Michaela Heřmanová

    (Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Kateřina Kuralová

    (Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Michal Prokop

    (Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Ladislav Pilař

    (Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic)

Abstract

This article addresses the pressing issue of attracting Generation Z to the agriculture sector in the Czech Republic, a vital issue given its crucial role in ensuring food security and sustainability. During demographic changes and declining interest from younger generations to work in agriculture, it is essential to understand and meet the specific needs of this generation. This article examines the alignment between advertised employee benefits and the preferences of Generation Z, offers a new employee benefits categorization, and highlights possible interventions to increase the attractiveness of the agricultural sector in the labor market. Based on a literature review, quantitative content analysis of job advertisements, and a questionnaire survey, the research aims to evaluate the current offers of employee benefits in the agricultural sector in the Czech Republic in terms of their attractiveness and how they are perceived by Generation Z before then categorizing these employee benefits. The results show that benefits from the “Holiday and times off” category have the highest value for Generation Z and that, on the contrary, they value benefits from the “Benefits for work–life balance” category the least. A total of seven categories of employee benefits have been newly identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Michaela Heřmanová & Kateřina Kuralová & Michal Prokop & Ladislav Pilař, 2024. "The Attractiveness of Employee Benefits in Agriculture from the Perspective of Generation Z," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-29, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:7:p:1204-:d:1440287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/7/1204/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/7/1204/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angela Steward, 2007. "Nobody farms here anymore: Livelihood diversification in the Amazonian community of Carvão, a historical perspective," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(1), pages 75-92, March.
    2. Jiří Duda, 2018. "Requirements of University Students of Agricultural Focus on Employee Benefits," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 66(2), pages 479-486.
    3. Alexandre Mas & Amanda Pallais, 2017. "Valuing Alternative Work Arrangements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(12), pages 3722-3759, December.
    4. Jorge Vieira & Carla Gomes da Costa & Vasco Santos, 2024. "Talent Management and Generation Z: A Systematic Literature Review through the Lens of Employer Branding," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, March.
    5. Anya Johnson & Shanta Dey & Helena Nguyen & Markus Groth & Sadhbh Joyce & Leona Tan & Nicholas Glozier & Samuel B Harvey, 2020. "A review and agenda for examining how technology-driven changes at work will impact workplace mental health and employee well-being," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(3), pages 402-424, August.
    6. D. Spěšná & P. Pospěch & F. Nohel & J. Drlík & M. Delín, 2009. "Aging of the agricultural workforce in relation to the agricultural labour market," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 55(9), pages 424-435.
    7. Miller, Danny & Steier, Lloyd & Le Breton-Miller, Isabelle, 2003. "Lost in time: intergenerational succession, change, and failure in family business," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 513-531, July.
    8. Áron József Borda & Balázs Sárvári & Jeremiás Máté Balogh, 2023. "Generation Change in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Coyle-Shapiro, Jacqueline A-M. & Shore, Lynn M, 2007. "The employee-organization relationship: where do we go from here?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 4887, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Michelle Wallace & Neroli Sheldon, 2014. "Women and Engineering: A Workforce Development Issue," Springer Books, in: Roger Harris & Tom Short (ed.), Workforce Development, edition 127, chapter 7, pages 113-129, Springer.
    11. Querbach, Stephanie & Waldkirch, Matthias & Kammerlander, Nadine, 2022. "Benefitting from benefits—A comparison of employee satisfaction in family and non-family firms," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2).
    12. Hana URBANCOVA & Petr RICHTER & Lenka KUCIRKOVA & Martina JARKOVSKA, 2017. "Employer branding in the agricultural sector: making a company attractive for the potential employees," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 63(5), pages 217-227.
    13. Makridis, Christos A. & Han, Joo Hun, 2021. "Future of work and employee empowerment and satisfaction: Evidence from a decade of technological change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    14. Divanbeigi,Raian & Saliola,Federica, 2017. "Regulatory constraints to agricultural productivity," Policy Research Working Paper Series 8199, The World Bank.
    15. Huang, Minjie & Li, Pingshu & Meschke, Felix & Guthrie, James P., 2015. "Family firms, employee satisfaction, and corporate performance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 108-127.
    16. Anne M. Foreman & Margaret K. Glenn & B. Jean Meade & Oliver Wirth, 2017. "Dogs in the Workplace: A Review of the Benefits and Potential Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-21, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Querbach, Stephanie & Waldkirch, Matthias & Kammerlander, Nadine, 2022. "Benefitting from benefits—A comparison of employee satisfaction in family and non-family firms," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2).
    2. Piotr Lewandowski & Katarzyna Lipowska & Mateusz Smoter, 2022. "Working from home during a pandemic – a discrete choice experiment in Poland," IBS Working Papers 03/2022, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    3. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Van Gils, Anita & Huybrechts, Jolien & Minola, Tommaso & Cassia, Lucio, 2019. "Unraveling the impact of family antecedents on family firm image: A serial multiple-mediation model," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 17-27.
    5. Labanca, Claudio & Pozzoli, Dario, 2022. "Hours Constraints and Wage Differentials across Firms," IZA Discussion Papers 14992, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Wissmann, Daniel, 2020. "Finally a Smoking Gun," Discussion Papers in Economics 73026, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    7. Claudia Hupkau & Barbara Petrongolo, 2020. "Work, Care and Gender during the COVID‐19 Crisis," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 623-651, September.
    8. Louis-Philippe Beland & Abel Brodeur & Taylor Wright, 2020. "COVID-19, Stay-at-Home Orders and Employment: Evidence from CPS Data," Carleton Economic Papers 20-04, Carleton University, Department of Economics, revised 19 May 2020.
    9. Non, Arjan & Rohde, Ingrid & de Grip, Andries & Dohmen, Thomas, 2022. "Mission of the company, prosocial attitudes and job preferences: A discrete choice experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    10. Etienne Lalé, 2019. "Search and Multiple Jobholding," Upjohn Working Papers 19-305, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    11. Michele Giannola, 2024. "Parental Investments and Intra-household Inequality in Child Human Capital: Evidence from a Survey Experiment," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(658), pages 671-727.
    12. Oladipo, Oluwasheyi S. & Platt, Katarzyna & Shim, Hyoung Suk, 2020. "Managerial Performance of a Female-Owned and Home-Based Firm," IZA Discussion Papers 13981, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Rodrigo Basco & Andrea Calabrò, 2017. "“Whom do I want to be the next CEO?” Desirable successor attributes in family firms," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(4), pages 487-509, May.
    14. Vij, Akshay & Souza, Flavio F. & Barrie, Helen & Anilan, V. & Sarmiento, Sergio & Washington, Lynette, 2023. "Employee preferences for working from home in Australia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 782-800.
    15. Boris Rumanko & Zuzana Lušňáková & Monika Moravanská & Mária Šajbidorová, 2021. "Succession as a Risk Process in the Survival of a Family Business—Case of Slovakia," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-20, September.
    16. Carreño Bustos, José Gabo & Huizinga, Harry & Uras, Burak, 2024. "Flexible Labor Contracts, Firm-specific Pay, and Wages," Discussion Paper 2024-010, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    17. Cody Cook & Rebecca Diamond & Jonathan V Hall & John A List & Paul Oyer, 2021. "The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers [Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(5), pages 2210-2238.
    18. Virginia Sanchez Marcos & Ezgi Kaya & Nezih Guner, 2017. "Labor Market Frictions and Lowest Low Fertility," 2017 Meeting Papers 1015, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. David Card & Ana Rute Cardoso & Joerg Heining & Patrick Kline, 2018. "Firms and Labor Market Inequality: Evidence and Some Theory," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(S1), pages 13-70.
    20. Mi Luo & Simon Mongey, 2019. "Assets and Job Choice: Student Debt, Wages and Amenities," NBER Working Papers 25801, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:7:p:1204-:d:1440287. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.