Impact of Social Entrepreneurial Factors on Sustainable Enterprise Development: Mediating Role of Social Network and Moderating Effect of Government Regulations

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship is the procedure of social mission that helps the society using innovative ideas and merging resources to develop economic and social values. This study aims to identify the role of social mission and social innovation on sustainable enterprise development with the mediating role of social network, and the moderating role of government regulations. The nature of our study is cross-sectional, and structural equation modeling is used on a sample of 486 social entrepreneurs from 27 countries with the help of online survey data. The results illustrate that social mission and social innovation are positively related to sustainable enterprise development. Besides, findings indicate that social network has a partially mediating role in the relationship between social mission and social innovation on sustainable enterprise development. Moreover, this study states that government regulations also have a positive influence and significant moderating effect on sustainable enterprise development. Our findings might be helpful for social entrepreneurs to create a more positive social impact on society and business enterprise’s growth.

Keywords

social entrepreneurship social mission social innovation social network sustainable enterprise development government regulations

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is the essential driver of economic growth, employment creation, and wealth for any nation (Akter et al., 2020; Li, Murad, Shahzad, Khan, Ashraf, & Dogbe, 2020). Several countries focus on enhancing entrepreneurial activities to increase financial and economic development (Javed et al., 2019; Rehman et al., 2019). The term social entrepreneurship is illuminating and getting fame in its regions of improvement, but it could be innovative in developed countries’ environment (Saebi et al., 2019). Social entrepreneurship is a vital element in the business education environment and contributes to the overall welfare of society, even in epidemic situations (Littlewood & Holt, 2018; Weerawardena & Mort, 2006). Social entrepreneurship is producing social and economic values (Alvord et al., 2004). It is associated with individuals and teams by developing the social and environmental needs of society in normal and abnormal ecological situations. However, in previous studies, the importance of social entrepreneurship has been acknowledged by researchers and practitioners (Chell et al., 2016; Wu & Si, 2018; Zhao & Wry, 2016).

The role of social entrepreneurship emphasizes the unsettled social issues at the international level, increases human progress all around the world, and enlightens the quality of life span (Alarifi et al., 2019; Noruzi et al., 2010). Prior researchers acknowledged that social entrepreneurship is a powerful instrument to decrease unemployment and poverty, solve environmental problems, and empower human resources in the world (Wu & Si, 2018; Zahra et al., 2009). Prior researchers have encouraged social entrepreneurs to highlight the issues of society and solve these issues where it is more prominent (Bacq & Eddleston, 2018; Booth et al., 2019).

The main objective of social organizations has been linked to attaining organizational sustainability (Hockerts, 2018). Sometimes organizations are facing the issue of funds that motivate organizations to shift in other commercial activities to produce essential economic and financial resources (B. Lee & Kelly, 2019). Enterprise sustainability is associated with social entrepreneurship. As suggested by Doherty et al. (2014), for the achievement of social and economic sustainability, social enterprises must struggle to raise and enlarge their businesses conferring to commercial organizations. Organizational sustainability is attaining business victory in today’s industrial world without compromising the current and future needs, and it involves social, environmental, and economic sustainability.

The gap of this study consists of a different perspective. There are many factors of social entrepreneurship that are emphasized by several researchers (Bandyopadhyay & Ray, 2019; Jenner, 2016). Prior studies demonstrated that social networking contributes to sustainable enterprise development (Edgeman & Eskildsen, 2012; Michael & Pearce, 2009; Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010). Meanwhile, Javed et al. (2019) stated that social innovation, social mission, and financial retunes have a positive and significant influence on sustainable enterprise development. However, previous literature broadly ignored the impact of social entrepreneurship as a different label having a unique way of managing the organizations and their effect on enterprise development (Roy & Karna, 2015).

Numerous studies examined social entrepreneurship’s role in business sustainability using qualitative methods (Braunerhjelm & Hamilton, 2012; Pangriya, 2019; Sundaramurthy et al., 2013), and quantitative studies have empirically less examined in the existing literature. Therefore, to fill this gap, this study aims to extend the social entrepreneurship model using the quantitative method by testing the social entrepreneurship factors, social mission, and social innovation on the mediating role of social network and moderating effect of governmental support on sustainable enterprise development.

Literature Review

Social Entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneurship is an approach by individuals, teams, and start-up companies in which they develop, fund, and implement solutions to economic, political, social, cultural, and environmental issues (Dees, 1998; Rawhouser et al., 2019; Salman, 2018). Social entrepreneurship also refers to the commercialization of the environment, leading to developing the global economies and addressing the social problems and leverage resources (Ashraf et al., 2019). Social entrepreneurship is a procedure of social mission to help the society using innovative ideas and to merge resources to develop economic and social values (Rey-Martí et al., 2016). Looking into previous literature, social entrepreneurship has integrated into an essential area of research in the field of entrepreneurship and sustainable enterprise development (Ali et al., 2019; Choi & Majumdar, 2014). According to Ferreira et al. (2017), social entrepreneurship has a common heritage for developing economic and social values among individuals and groups. Social entrepreneurship is also called a social economy organization (E. S. Lee & Jung, 2018). However, in recent decades, governments and other institutions are even stepping up to support social enterprises for creating jobs and managing social issues from different hazards. As suggested by Steinerowski and Steinerowska-Streb (2012), social enterprise combines other entrepreneurship resources with the aid of positive change in the system. It offers an innovative organization that is more effective and socially acceptable.

Sustainable Enterprise Development

Sustainable enterprise is an organization that can expect and meet the desire of current and future generations of individuals and stakeholders by making and innovating new business strategies that accelerate positive social change and reserve ecological integrity as well as improving business performance (Danubianu & Teodorescu, 2017). However, every organization makes the best strategy to achieve sustainable business growth. According to Schaltegger and Burritt (2018), sustainable enterprise development defined as enterprise ability to meeting the stakeholder's current needs without compromising on fulfilling their future needs. Prior researchers indicated that sustainable enterprise development is the procedure to develop shareholders’ worth by economic, social, and environmental perfection (Bansal et al., 2019; Rahdari et al., 2016). Sustainable enterprise development is also called a triple bottom line because it not only focuses on economic sustainability and productivity; it also focuses on social, economic, and environmental sustainability (Elkington & Rowlands, 1999). Therefore, every enterprise must accomplish financial targets without harming society and the environment (Ali et al., 2020).

Enterprises with sustainable development strategies are getting a competitive advantage, worthy reputation, superior performance, maximum profitability, effective value creation, and operational supply chain (Ageron et al., 2012; Bos-Brouwers, 2010; Garay & Font, 2012). Hence, for achieving better sustainable enterprise development in the context of global social entrepreneurship, such factors, namely, social mission, social innovation, social network, and governmental policies, are neglected in the previous literature. As suggested by existing studies, sustainable enterprise development incorporated three dimensions; social sustainability, economic sustainability, and environmental sustainability (Dwyer, 2005; Gallo & Christensen, 2011; Marconatto et al., 2019).

Social sustainability is a process that stimulates happiness within the organization and its members while supporting the ability of future generations to sustain a healthy society (Sudusinghe & Seuring, 2020). In social sustainability, enterprises are responsible for their employees and stakeholders (Morrison, 2003). Numerous studies argued that social sustainability is related to business social issues with shareholder’s demands; economic, environmental, and health safety issues; child labor; working hours; and social well-being (Desa & Kotha, 2006; Zahra et al., 2014). Enterprises are giving more attention to social sustainability because of their stakeholder’s pressure and their demands regarding the current and future needs.

Economic sustainability discusses the practices that support long-term economic growth without damaging the social, economic, and environmental characteristics of the community (Spangenberg, 2005). According to Common and Perrings (1992), financial sustainability is defined as an ability to gain revenue for its long-term survival. However, economic viability is also considered internal economic stability and enterprise productivity (Shyle, 2018). Therefore, for achieving financial sustainability, social enterprises must adopt the policy of cost recovery mechanism and the actual mission of social value creation.

Environmental sustainability is defined as responsible interaction with the environment to evade natural resource reduction and allow for ecological eminence (Ellram & Murfield, 2017). It is also associated with protecting the natural environment from where enterprises get their inputs and deliver their output for maintaining its sustainability (Kandaurova et al., 2015). There are some adverse effects of business enterprises on the natural environment in noise, pollution, and exploitation of natural resources (Winn et al., 2011). According to Standing et al. (2008), environmental sustainability contains three paths: eco-efficiency, eco-equity, and eco-effectiveness. Eco-efficiency refers to a minimum or no ecological destruction in the natural environment, whereas eco-equity refers to a fair distribution of natural environment and resources among present and future peers. Eco-effectiveness relates to conformity to natural environment standards that the enterprises adopt to maintain its sustainability. Thus, enterprises with sustainable environmental practices gain a more competitive advantage compared with those enterprises that create pollution in the natural environment.

Research Model and Development of Hypotheses

Social Mission and Sustainable Enterprise Development

Social mission is a process of developing a social enterprise with the aim of social practices (Landrum & Edwards, 2009; Prabhu, 1999). Social organizations are working under the boundaries for gaining profit and nonprofit-oriented activities (Salman & Jamil, 2017). The relationship between social enterprises and sustainable enterprise development is consistent with profit-oriented ventures (Beckmann et al., 2014). The social mission has an exceptional trait of social entrepreneurship and associated with the aim of an active and robust mission; if the social mission is not clear, it will create a problem in social enterprises and decrease the profitability ratio (Felício et al., 2013).

Social mission is helpful for sustainable enterprises to run smoothly and create social impact on society development (Fortier & Viens, 2018). Social enterprises have several objectives and they frequently need to show their social implications and viable enterprises. For the achievement of sustainable enterprise development, social enterprises must address all the relevant practices that are associated with the economic, social, and environmental factors of the social entrepreneurial mission.

Furthermore, the social mission delivers an effective strategy to connect to the external people while keeping internal people safe and sound during environmental disaster situations (Sonnenwald & Pierce, 2000). The social mission provides an effective direction to achieve sustainable enterprise development without damaging the natural environment (Kolk & van Tulder, 2010). Hence, social mission helps individuals in questionable circumstances, community development, and protects the natural environment. Thus, based on the following discussion, we have predicted the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Social mission is positively related to sustainable enterprise development.

Social Innovation and Sustainable Enterprise Development

Social innovation is related to new social practices that meet social needs and desires in a better way than the existing solutions (Pol & Ville, 2009). It is also linked with the process of innovation in products, services, and technology to meet social needs in different environmental concerns (Weerawardena et al., 2021). Social innovation plays a vital role in solving social problems with novel and innovative ideas that contribute to social value results (Sharma, 2017).

Social innovation helps tackle the economic, social, and environmental challenges faced by enterprises and follow the critical community needs during the disasters (Betts et al., 2018). Moreover, the objective of social entrepreneurship is to generate new and innovative ways for sustainable enterprise development, and social innovation helps organizations in achieving its social innovation through new value creation, innovative product, and process (Guclu et al., 2002). Social innovation influences sustainable enterprise development and attains social needs without harming the natural environment (Baker & Mehmood, 2015). Therefore, enterprises with the aim of social innovation are more likely to create economic and social values. Hence, we have proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Social innovation is positively related to sustainable enterprise development.

Social Network and Sustainable Enterprise Development

Social networks are the process of expanding the number of one’s business and making social contacts by using different social media to interact with others or find people with similar interests to one’s own (Weber & Kratzer, 2013). According to Greve and Salaff (2003), social network is associated with a group of individuals and enterprises where they can share innovative ideas and resources. However, many enterprises did not sustain, which cannot focus on information regarding the market and did not connect socially with the environment (Barraket et al., 2017). Furthermore, due to changes in the environment by different uncertainties, enterprises are focusing on developing individuals’ partnerships with the help of social network for achieving competitive advantage (Anderson et al., 2019). Enterprises with social networking could help entrepreneurs stay connected with finding opportunities and resources in the available market as well as supporting in forming connections with individuals and society (Suryandharu et al., 2019). Social network also contributes to create an environment where individual and enterprises can share information for attaining sustainable enterprise development (Ülgen, 2019).

A social network is an essential factor that influences the performance of social enterprises. It helps individuals to provide an opportunity for social business start-ups and create values for society (Dempsey et al., 2011). Therefore, enterprises with social networks are more innovative, cost-efficient, time-efficient, and provide effective solutions to stakeholders in the process of achieving sustainable business growth (Bellostas et al., 2016). Thus, social network offers an opportunity to use social media as a tool to accomplish economic and social sustainability (Farooq et al., 2018).

Mediating of Social Network

Previous literature argued that social networking positively influenced social entrepreneurship and sustainable enterprise devolvement (Meyskens et al., 2010). According to Chen et al. (2018), social networking is the best tool for achieving maximum sustainable development. Based on a resource-based view, studies have focused on the impact of social network on sustainable enterprise development (Mercedes Leon-Sanchez & Jaen Jimenez, 2013; Neumeyer & Santos, 2018). It is believed that resource-based view firms possess resources, a subset that assists them in achieving a competitive advantage, and a subset of those that lead to more significant long-term performance (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003). Therefore, social network organizes valuable resources, including the construction of valuable connections, direction, and resource allocation in intensive systems, which in turn can help the individuals to accomplish their personal and organizational goals.

Moreover, social network and enterprise development have gradually focused on the degree of closeness between social mission and social innovation, which enable social entrepreneurship to identify opportunities (Singh et al., 1999). Furthermore, M. Lee (2015) measured social network as a predictor to determine the influence of business sustainability. The findings suggest that social networks are positively associated with the development of business enterprises. Likewise, Zuwarimwe and Kirsten (2010) examined the role of social network on sustainable enterprise development growth from social entrepreneurship. The results indicate that secure social network enhances social entrepreneurs’ level to create a positive influence on sustainable enterprise growth. Javed et al. (2019) believed that social networks were formed through information sharing and group cooperation and encouraged social entrepreneurs to promote the social mission, social innovation, and enterprise development. Thus, we have the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3 (H3a): Social network is positively related to sustainable enterprise development.

Hypothesis 3a (H3b): Social network positively mediates the relationship between social mission and sustainable enterprise development.

Hypothesis 3b (H3c): Social network positively mediates the relationship between social innovation and sustainable enterprise development.

Moderating of Government Regulations

Previous studies demonstrated that the role of government regulations has a positive effect on countries’ sustainable enterprise development (Lamoureux et al., 2019; Obaji & Olugu, 2014; Songling et al., 2018). The prior study examined the moderating role of government regulations in the relationship between business start-up and entrepreneurship development ((Li, Ahmed, et al., 2020). The findings suggest that government regulations for entrepreneurship have a significant moderating effect on entrepreneurship development. According to Smallbone et al. (2010), governments are involved in the social entrepreneurship process and help individuals to build a social network for the sustainability of enterprises. Sometimes due to uncertain environmental situations, enterprises are facing many issues in productivity, and governments help them to sustain their worth through providing necessary facilities, for example, rebate in tax collection. Moreover, van Stel et al. (2007) studied the relationship between entrepreneurship and governmental regulations among 41 countries and found that minimum capital is a prerequisite to start a new business and its sustainability of enterprise development. Therefore, government regulations and policies are essential factors in developing social entrepreneurship and all business-related actions necessary for sustainable enterprise development (Oni, 2012).

Furthermore, government regulations are varying in different countries for the development of social entrepreneurship; for example, some countries support social entrepreneurship to produce jobs and decrease unemployment, and meanwhile, others focus on creating competition and innovation in the enterprise (Michael & Pearce, 2009). Thus, it suggested that government regulations have to enhance in favor of entrepreneurs for developing social entrepreneurship and sustainable enterprise development. Therefore, we have proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4a (H4a): Government regulations positively related to sustainable enterprise development.

Hypothesis 4b (H4b): Government regulations positively moderate the relationship between social network and sustainable enterprise development.

Based on the development of hypotheses, we have drawn Figure 1, which highlights the role of social mission, social innovation, and social network to strengthen sustainable enterprise development with the support of government regulations.

Figure 1.

Proposed research model.

Research Methodology

Context Selection

The nature of this study was cross-sectional and purely based on the web-based questionnaire. Primary data were collected from 27 different countries using Google Docs, as recommended by Granello and Wheaton (2004) that this is the latest technique used for data collection and an effective way of collecting data in minimum time and scarce resources. A list of more than 150 social entrepreneurs and enterprises was found on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. The relevant groups of social entrepreneurs and social enterprises were 49, and every group has more than 100 members of social entrepreneurs. For data collection, we sent a request to group administrators, and after their approval, we sent a questionnaire link and asked them to share this link in their groups. A total of 20 group admins shared questionnaire link in their groups. We ensured them that data are solely used for academic purposes and the information would be kept confidential. The total number of members of these 20 groups were 3,271. Furthermore, we collected data of 512 social entrepreneurs, and after the screening of data, 26 questionnaires were discarded due to incomplete filling of forms. Finally, 486 surveys were marked adequate by social entrepreneurs and considered for further analysis with a participation rate of 15.65% of the total population.

Sample Description

Table 1 shows the sample description of the respondents; concerning gender, there were 290 (59.7%) males and 196 (40.3%) females. The age range of respondents was categorized into four groups: 18 to 30 (137 [28.2%]), 31 to 40 (192 [39.5%]), 41 to 50 (126 [25.9%]), and 51 and above (31 [6.4%]). According to their education, Concerning the education of the respondents, we have classified them into four categories: undergraduate (238 [49.0%]), master’s (140 [28.8%]), diploma and others (98 [20.2%]), and MS/PhD (10 [2.1%]). Moreover, the job experience of participants was also classified into four categories: 1 to 3 years (217 [44.7%]), 3 to 6 years (162 [33.3%]), 6 to 9 years (93 [19.1%]), and more than 9 years (14 [2.9%]). Furthermore, 250 (51.4%) participants were married, and 236 (48.6%) were single. The majority of the participants from Pakistan (54 [11.1%]), America (37 [7.6%]), and Canada (29 [6.0%]). Furthermore, other nationality participants were also reported in the demographical information section.

Table 1.

Demographic Information.

Demographics	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	290	59.7
Female	196	40.3
Age (years)
18–30	137	28.2
31–40	192	39.5
41–50	126	25.9
51 and above	31	6.4
Education
Graduate	238	49.0
Master’s	140	28.8
Diploma and others	98	20.2
MS/PhD	10	2.1
Experience (years)
1–3	217	44.7
3–6	162	33.3
6–9	93	19.1
9 and above	14	52.9
Marital status
Single	236	48.6
Married	250	51.4
Nationalities
Bangladesh	25	5.1
Canada	29	6.0
China	21	4.3
Egypt	10	2.1
Ghana	11	2.3
Ethiopia	12	2.5
Hong Kong	11	2.3
Indonesia	16	3.3
India	12	2.5
Iran	13	2.7
Iraq	12	2.5
South Korea	27	5.6
Malaysia	10	2.1
America	37	7.6
Nigeria	16	3.3
Pakistan	54	11.1
Serbia	19	3.9
Singapore	21	4.3
Sri Lanka	10	2.1
Sudan	17	3.5
Switzerland	13	2.7
Taiwan	23	4.7
Thailand	26	5.3
Uganda	12	2.5
Uzbekistan	8	1.6
Vietnam	11	2.3
Zimbabwe	10	2.1
Total	486	100

Scales

To measure the social mission, we have adapted four items. A sample item is, “It is important for our enterprise to addressing the societal issues.” To measure social innovation, we have adopted four items. A sample item is, “Our enterprise always looks for a sustainable solution to social society.” To measure social network, we have adapted five items. A sample item is, “Our enterprise’s social network can disseminate social information.” To measure the variable of sustainable enterprise development, we adapted 11 items, including social, environmental, and economic sustainability. A sample item is, “Our enterprises address unsolved problems on a priority basis.” Social mission, social innovation, social network, and sustainable enterprise development measures were taken from the study by Javed et al. (2019). Government regulation was measured using four items and adapted from the study by Li, Ahmed, et al. (2020). A sample item is, “Government regulations are consistently favoring new companies of social entrepreneurship.” All the responses were measured through a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Furthermore, we have controlled gender, age, education, experience, and marital status.

Results

To test the hypotheses, structural equation modeling (partial least squares structural equation modeling [PLS-SEM]) is used. This technique is widely used in management research to estimate the theoretical and casual modeling relationship analysis (Hair et al., 2012; Li et al., 2019; Li, Murad, Ashraf, Syed, & Riaz, 2020).

Measurement Model

The measurement of the model includes factor loading, Cronbach’s alpha, and composite reliability. The results of the factor loading, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted are shown in Table 2. As suggested by previous researchers, the values of Cronbach’s alpha should be greater than .70, and the values of composite reliability must be greater than .80 (Li, Murad, Shahzad, Khan, & Ashraf, 2020; Neneh, 2019; Verkijika & De Wet, 2018). Therefore, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability for the social mission were .941 and .958, respectively; for social innovation .933 and .952, respectively; for social network .926 and .945, respectively; for sustainable enterprise development .950 and .956, respectively; and for government regulation .908 and .935, respectively. Thus, all the values met the suggested criteria for assessing the reliability of the measurement model. Moreover, convergent validity was evaluated through the average variance extracted (AVE) using standards set by Bagozzi and Yi (1989), and the values of AVE should be greater than 0.50. Hence, the AVE for the social mission was 0.851, for social innovation was 0.833, for social network was 0.774, for sustainable enterprise development was 0.666, and for government regulation was 0.783. Consequently, all the values of AVE were greater than 0.50 and thus met the suggested criteria as well.

Table 2.

Measurement of Model.

Constructs	Factor loading	Cronbach’s α	rho_A	CR	AVE	VIF
Social Mission		.941	0.943	.958	0.851	1.427
SM 1	0.946
SM 2	0.938
SM 3	0.921
SM 4	0.883
Social Innovation		.933	0.935	.952	0.833	1.607
SI 1	0.907
SI 2	0.897
SI 3	0.919
SI 4	0.925
Social Network		.926	0.936	.945	0.774	1.502
SN 1	0.866
SN 2	0.785
SN 3	0.886
SN 4	0.935
SN 5	0.919
Government Regulations		.908	0.909	.935	0.783	1.314
GR 1	0.901
GR 2	0.891
GR 3	0.869
GR 4	0.880
Sustainable Enterprise Development		.950	0.952	.956	0.666	—
SED 1	0.762
SED 2	0.811
SED 3	0.839
SED 4	0.811
SED 5	0.778
SED 6	0.847
SED 7	0.869
SED 8	0.847
SED 9	0.785
SED 10	0.800
SED 11	0.818

Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; VIF = variance inflation factor.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was assessed using both Fornell–Larcker and Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio criteria, and the results are shown in Tables 3 and 4. According to Fornell–Larcker criteria, square root of the AVE is called discriminant validity and the values of correlations were below the output of discriminate validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Per HTMT ratio criteria, the values must be less than 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2016). Thus, the highest achieved HTMT value was 0.507, which was below the suggested value of 0.85. Hence, all the measurement constructs meet the criteria for discriminant validity.

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity (Fornell–Larcker Criteria).

Constructs	GR	GR × SN and SED	SED	SI	SM	SN
GR	0.885
GR × SN and SED	−0.283	1.000
SED	0.366	−0.043	0.816
SI	0.372	−0.002	0.456	0.912
SM	0.241	−0.184	0.425	0.477	0.923
SN	0.345	−0.300	0.399	0.422	0.403	0.880

Note.Values with diagonals are the square root of AVE.

Values under diagonals are correlations.

SM = social mission; SI = social innovation; SN = social network; SED = sustainable enterprise development; GR = government regulations.

Table 4.

Discriminant Validity (Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio Criteria).

Constructs	GR	GR × SN and SED	SED	SI	SM
GR
GR × SN and SED	0.297
SED	0.393	0.046
SI	0.405	0.015	0.481
SM	0.260	0.191	0.448	0.507
SN	0.375	0.313	0.416	0.451	0.428

Note. GR = government regulations; SN = social network; SED = sustainable enterprise development; SI = social innovation; SM = social mission.

Common Method Bias

Harman’s single-factor test was applied to check the common method bias variance in the study (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Per Harman (1976), common method bias exists only when one factor emerges from factor analysis and explains greater than 50% of the eigenvalue of the variance. Therefore, we have used the un-rotated matrix and produced five factors and first-factor eigenvalue, explaining 40.95% of the variance. Thus, common method bias was not considered a problem in this study.

Structural Model

The structural model assessed 5,000 subsamples using bootstrap method through Smart-PLS software (Chin, 1998; Hair et al., 2012). The fitness of the structural model was evaluated by the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value and determination coefficient (R²). According to Henseler et al. (2016), a good model must have an SRMR value of less than 0.08. Therefore, the value of SRMR was 0.050, which shows an acceptable and adequate level of structural model fitness. Besides, Table 5 shows the results of the structural model, which explained 23.1% variance in social network and 34.2% variance explained in sustainable enterprise development. As suggested by Chin (1998), desired R² values must be greater than .1 or 0.

Table 5.

Strength of Model.

Constructs	R ²	Adjusted R²
SN	.231	.228
SED	.342	.328

Note. SN = social network; SED = sustainable enterprise development.

Furthermore, for the predictive relevance of the model, we have applied cross-validated redundancy measure Q² for assessing the model (Stone, 1974). According to Falk and Miller (1992), Q² should be greater than zero. Table 6 shows that the values of Q² exceeded 0.1 and the positive predictive significance level of the model.

Table 6.

Cross-Validated Redundancy.

Constructs	SSO	SSE	Q² (1 − [SSE / SSO])
SN	2,430.000	2,005.582	0.175
SED	5,346.000	4,165.488	0.221

Note. SN = social network; SED = sustainable enterprise development; SSO = sum of squares of observations; SSE = sum of squares of prediction errors.

Testing of Hypotheses

The results of the structural model are shown in Table 7 and Figure 2. H1 demonstrates that social mission positively related to sustainable enterprise development. The findings reveal that social mission has a positive and significant effect on sustainable enterprise development (β = 0.235, t = 4.882, p = .000). Thus, H1 was accepted. Moreover, H2 explains that social innovation positively associated with sustainable enterprise development. The outputs illustrate that social innovation has a positive and significant impact on sustainable enterprise development (β = 0.178, t = 3.005, p = .003). Hence, H2 was supported. Meanwhile, H3 indicates that social network positively linked to sustainable enterprise development, and results show that social network has a positive and significant impact on sustainable enterprise development (β = 0.197, t = 3.922, p = .000). Therefore, H3 was accepted. Furthermore, H4 illustrates that government regulations positively related to sustainable enterprise development. The findings specify that government regulations also have a positive and significant influence on sustainable enterprise development (β = 0.208, t = 3.957, p = .000). Thus, H4 also supported it. Finally, our results present that all the control variables have an insignificant effect on sustainable enterprise development.

Table 7.

Path Coefficients and Hypotheses Testing.

Hypotheses	Relationships	β	M	SD	t	p	Decision
Direct effects
H1	SM→SED	0.235	0.233	0.048	4.882	.000	Supported
H2	SI→SED	0.178	0.181	0.059	3.005	.003	Supported
H3	SN→SED	0.197	0.197	0.050	3.922	.000	Supported
H4	GR→SED	0.208	0.207	0.053	3.957	.000	Supported
Mediating effects
H3b	SM→SN→SED	0.052	0.052	0.017	2.962	.003	Supported
H3c	SI→SN→SED	0.059	0.059	0.020	2.886	.004	Supported
Moderating effect
H4b	GR × SN→SED	0.086	0.089	0.029	3.016	.003	Supported

Note. SM = social mission; SED = sustainable enterprise development; SI = social innovation; SN = social network; GR = government regulations.

Figure 2.

Structural model.

Mediation Analysis

To test hypotheses, H3b and H3c positively mediate the relationship between social mission, social innovation, and sustainable enterprise development. The results show that social network positively and significantly has an indirect effect on the relationship between social mission, social innovation, and sustainable enterprise development (β = 0.052, t = 2.962, p = .003; β = 0.059, t = 2.886, p = .004). In addition, mediation analysis also assessed through variance accounted for (VAF), which indicates the ratio of indirect effect to the total effect. According to Hair et al. (2010), if the value of VAF is more excellent below 0.8, it represents the partial mediation. If the value of VAF is more significant than 0.8, it indicates the full mediation. Therefore, Table 8 highlights the results of VAF, which is within the threshold value below 0.8. Thus, we can confirm that the social network partially mediates the relationship between social mission, social innovation, and sustainable enterprise development. Hence, H3b and H3c were accepted.

Table 8.

Mediation Analysis (Social Network as Mediator).

Exogenous variable	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Total effect	VAF range	Mediation	Endogenous variable	Confidence interval (2.5%)	97.5%
SM	0.235	0.052	0.287	18.11	Partial	SED	0.021	0.090
SI	0.191	0.056	0.247	22.67	Partial	SED	0.024	0.104

Note. VAF = variance accounted for; SM = social mission; SED = sustainable enterprise development; SI = social innovation.

Moderation Analysis

We have predicted that government regulations positively moderate the relationship between social network and sustainable enterprise development (H4b). The findings indicate that government regulations have a positive and significant moderating effect on the relationship between social network and sustainable enterprise development (β = 0.086, t = 3.016, p = .003). Therefore, H4b was supported. Figure 3 shows that government regulations moderated the slope for the connection between social network and sustainable enterprise development reflected by the fact that the relationship became more robust when government regulations for sustainable enterprise development are high.

Figure 3.

Interaction of GR × SN and SED.

Discussion and Implications

Our findings suggest that social mission is the most influential factor in enhancing sustainable enterprise development. Individuals with a high commitment to social mission perform are more likely to perform well in the social organizations and help achieve a competitive advantage. These kinds of social entrepreneurs are motivated to perform their tasks, and it is hard for the market forces to avert them from their social mission. Similarly, we found that social mission is a positive predictor for sustainable enterprise development, and our results are consistent with the prior study (Muscat & Whitty, 2009). Moreover, a recent cross-sectional quantitative study examined the role of the social mission on sustainable enterprise development and found that social mission positively influenced sustainable enterprise development. Therefore, our findings suggest that social mission has a strong influence on sustainable enterprise development and results are commented (Javed et al., 2019), which indicated that social enterprises assist social entrepreneurs in solving economic and social issues.

Meanwhile, we found that social innovation positively influenced sustainable enterprise development. Social innovation is the dynamic factor of social entrepreneurship. Social innovation is the strongest element for measuring economic sustainability and helpful in tackling the economic, social, and environmental challenges faced by enterprises (Melville, 2010). This result aligns with the previous findings (Aksoy et al., 2019; Dawson & Daniel, 2010). Furthermore, our findings show that social network positively affects sustainable enterprise development and the results are in line with Dempsey et al. (2011) and Littlewood and Holt (2018), who outlined that social network is the necessary factor of social entrepreneurship for achieving competitive advantage.

Consequently, social network enterprises help entrepreneurs connect with identifying opportunities and resources in the available market. Social network supports the entrepreneur’s social mission and social innovation in forming connections with the individual to tackle social and environmental issues. Finally, our findings indicate that government regulations moderate the relationship between a social network and sustainable enterprise development. This result is also in line with the previous outcome by Songling et al. (2018) who proposed that governments are involved in the social entrepreneurship process through social network to sustain business enterprises.

The study has practical implications for policymakers, researchers, and social entrepreneurs. Our study tested the social entrepreneurship factors that help sustainable enterprises achieve maximum profitability and protect organizations from different environmental hazards. The study found that social mission has an exceptional trait of social entrepreneurship, which is associated with the aim of capable and robust mission. Therefore, individuals with a high commitment to social mission are more likely to perform well in the social organizations and are helpful in achieving the competitive advantages. It is also indicated that social entrepreneurs resolve social issues that are directed by governments or business sectors during epidemic situations with the help of human resource innovative ideas, new product development, and competencies to accomplish sustainable enterprise solutions. Social entrepreneurs can influence on social innovation through social networking among enterprises, which enhances their market value. Finally, our findings will assist the social entrepreneurs in creating competitive pressure in the market through social missions, innovative environment, and practices that will boost the economy and social enterprise development.

Conclusion

This study aimed to address the importance of social entrepreneurship factors, social mission, social innovation, and social network on achieving sustainable enterprise development with the support of government regulations during social and uncertain environment situations. This study collected data through online survey from the social entrepreneurs of several countries who are involved in social development activities. The overall results of the study show that social mission, social innovation, and social networks are the critical factors for sustainable enterprise development. Moreover, enterprise sustainability is the best predictor to solve all social, economic, and environmental issues. In this modern era, every enterprise wants to achieve sustainability through effective and efficient business activities and become a business necessity to stay competitive. Furthermore, this study suggested that sustainable enterprises are not limited to environmental development; they are also related to social and economic sustainability. Many researchers have examined the importance of sustainable enterprise using different factors such as marketing, human resources, and strategic management to contribute to social entrepreneurship literature. However, minimal empirical studies have investigated the importance of social entrepreneurship and its factors on sustainable enterprise development.

Limitations and Future Direction

This study has some limitations and future directions for upcoming researchers. First, we have measured only three social entrepreneurship factors and one moderating indicator to address the importance of sustainable enterprise development. Future researchers can take other social entrepreneurship elements, such as the need for achievement, locus of control, and risk-taking in the upcoming studies. Second, we have used the social network as a mediator and government regulation as a moderator variable. Future researchers can take other sustainable human resource and management practices to add more knowledge to the existing research. Third, ours was a cross-sectional study and was purely based on a questionnaire collected from an online survey. Future research can use this model on longitudinal design research to more generalize the results.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

“A Study on the Type Preference, Influencing Factors, and School-Based Policies of Academic Entrepreneurship of University Teachers” was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Leading Talent Cultivation Project (No. 21QNYC20ZD).

Author Contributions

W.J. and M.M. conceived the study, edited the data, performed the analysis and interpretation, and drafted skeleton of the manuscript and critically review the manuscript. C.L. and F.S. contributed to constructing the model, performing the analysis, and interpreting model results, and S.F.A. intensively edited the language of the manuscript. All authors approved and read the final manuscript and participated in the critical appraisal as well as revision of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association (APA). All participants gave consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The review board of Jiangsu University exempted the research from ethical approval, as it was a survey-based study. The authors are affiliated to a Chinese institution although they are Pakistani by origin, and the study was conducted under the supervision of a Chinese professor.

ORCID iDs

Majid Murad

Fakhar Shahzad

Availability of Data and Material

The data set supporting the conclusions of this article is available upon request.

References

Ageron

Gunasekaran

Spalanzani

(2012). Sustainable supply management: An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 168–182.

Aksoy

Alkire

Choi

Kim

P. B.

Zhang

(2019). Social innovation in service: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 30, 429–448.

Akter

Jamal

Ashraf

M. M.

McCarthy

Varsha

(2020). The rise of the social business in emerging economies: A new paradigm of development. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11, 282–299.

Alarifi

Robson

Kromidha

(2019). The manifestation of entrepreneurial orientation in the social entrepreneurship context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 307–327.

Ali

Salman

Yaacob

Parveen

(2019). Financial cost and social influence: Factors affecting the adoption of halal cosmetics in Malaysia. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 25(2), 1–17.

Ali

Salman

Yaacob

Zaini

Abdullah

(2020). Does big data analytics enhance sustainability and financial performance? The case of ASEAN banks. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(7), 1–13.

Alvord

S. H.

Brown

L. D.

Letts

C. W.

(2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282.

Anderson

A. R.

Younis

Hashim

Air

(2019). Social enterprising informing our concept: Exploring informal micro social enterprise. Social Enterprise Journal, 15, 94–110.

Ashraf

M. M.

Razzaque

M. A.

Liaw

S.-T.

Ray

P. K.

Hasan

M. R.

(2019). Social business as an entrepreneurship model in emerging economy. Management Decision, 57, 1145–1161.

10.

Bacq

Eddleston

K. A.

(2018). A resource-based view of social entrepreneurship: How stewardship culture benefits scale of social impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), 589–611.

11.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 271–284.

12.

Baker

Mehmood

(2015). Social innovation and the governance of sustainable places. Local Environment, 20(3), 321–334.

13.

Bandyopadhyay

Ray

(2019). Marketing in social enterprises: The role of value creation through relationship marketing. In Strategic marketing for social enterprises in developing nations (pp. 32–52). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/marketing-in-social-enterprises/232376

14.

Bansal

Garg

Sharma

G. D.

(2019). Social entrepreneurship as a path for social change and driver of sustainable development: A systematic review and research agenda. Sustainability, 11(4), 1091.

15.

Barraket

Douglas

Eversole

Mason

McNeill

Morgan

(2017). Classifying social enterprise models in Australia. Social Enterprise Journal, 13, 345–361.

16.

Beckmann

Zeyen

Krzeminska

(2014). Mission, finance, and innovation: The similarities and differences between social entrepreneurship and social business. In Grove

Berg

G. A.

(Eds.), Social business (pp. 23–41). Springer.

17.

Bellostas

A. J.

López-Arceiz

F. J.

Mateos

(2016). Social value and economic value in social enterprises: Value creation model of Spanish sheltered workshops. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(1), 367–391.

18.

Betts

S. C.

Laud

Kretinin

(2018). Social entrepreneurship: A contemporary approach to solving social problems. Global Journal of Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 31–40.

19.

Booth

Shin

Slavec

(2019). Human resource management challenges in a Slovenian social enterprise: A case study. International Journal of HRD Practice, Policy & Research, 4(2), 65–81.

20.

Bos-Brouwers

H. E. J.

(2010). Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: Evidence of themes and activities in practice. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(7), 417–435.

21.

Braunerhjelm

Hamilton

U. S.

(2012, September). Social entrepreneurship [Paper presentation]. A study of current research, Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum. https://entreprenorskapsforum.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WP_09.pdf

22.

Chell

Spence

L. J.

Perrini

Harris

J. D.

(2016). Social entrepreneurship and business ethics: Does social equal ethical? Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 619–625.

23.

Chen

F.-W.

L.-W.

Wang

Tsai

S.-B.

C.-H.

(2018). The influence of entrepreneurship and social networks on economic growth—From a sustainable innovation perspective. Sustainability, 10(7), 2510.

24.

Chin

W. W.

(1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides

G. A.

(Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum.

25.

Choi

Majumdar

(2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.

26.

Common

Perrings

(1992). Towards an ecological economics of sustainability. Ecological Economics, 6(1), 7–34.

27.

Danubianu

Teodorescu

(2017). Impact of corporate social responsibility on sustainable enterprise development. Present Environment and Sustainable Development, 11(1), 129–139.

28.

Dawson

Daniel

(2010). Understanding social innovation: A provisional framework. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 9–21.

29.

Dees

J. G.

(1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.

30.

Dempsey

Bramley

Power

Brown

(2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300.

31.

Desa

Kotha

(2006). Ownership, mission and environment: An exploratory analysis into the evolution of a technology social venture. In Mair

Robinson

Hockerts

(Eds.), Social entrepreneurship (pp. 155–179). Springer.

32.

Doherty

Haugh

Lyon

(2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.

33.

Dwyer

(2005). Relevance of triple bottom line reporting to achievement of sustainable tourism: A scoping study. Tourism Review International, 9(1), 79–938.

34.

Edgeman

R. L.

Eskildsen

J. K.

(2012). Viral innovation: Integration via sustainability and enterprise excellence. Journal of Innovation and Business Best Practices, 2012, 13.

35.

Elkington

Rowlands

I. H.

(1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Alternatives Journal, 25(4), 42.

36.

Ellram

L. M.

Murfield

M. L. U.

(2017). Environmental sustainability in freight transportation: A systematic literature review and agenda for future research. Transportation Journal, 56(3), 263–298.

37.

Falk

R. F.

Miller

N. B.

(1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.

38.

Farooq

M. S.

Salam

ur Rehman

Fayolle

Jaafar

Ayupp

(2018). Impact of support from social network on entrepreneurial intention of fresh business graduates. Education + Training, 60, 335–353.

39.

Felício

J. A.

Gonçalves

H. M.

da Conceição Gonçalves

(2013). Social value and organizational performance in non-profit social organizations: Social entrepreneurship, leadership, and socioeconomic context effects. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2139–2146.

40.

Ferreira

J. J.

Fernandes

C. I.

Peres-Ortiz

Alves

(2017). Conceptualizing social entrepreneurship: Perspectives from the literature. International Review on Public Nonprofit Marketing, 14(1), 73–93.

41.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

42.

Fortier

Viens

(2018). Leadership education and sustainable development: Guidelines for updating the curriculum. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(4), 53.

43.

Gallo

P. J.

Christensen

L. J.

(2011). Firm size matters: An empirical investigation of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors. Business & Society, 50(2), 315–349.

44.

Garay

Font

(2012). Doing good to do well? Corporate social responsibility reasons, practices and impacts in small and medium accommodation enterprises. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 329–337.

45.

Granello

D. H.

Wheaton

J. E.

(2004). Online data collection: Strategies for research. Journal of Counseling Development, 82(4), 387–393.

46.

Greve

Salaff

J. W.

(2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 1–22.

47.

Guclu

Dees

J. G.

Anderson

B. B.

(2002). The process of social entrepreneurship: Creating opportunities worthy of serious pursuit. Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship.

48.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Babin

B. J.

Black

W. C.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). Pearson.

49.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2012). Partial least squares: The better approach to structural equation modeling? Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 312–319.

50.

Harman

H. H.

(1976). Modern factor analysis. The University of Chicago Press.

51.

Helfat

C. E.

Peteraf

M. A.

(2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010.

52.

Henseler

Hubona

Ray

P. A.

(2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20.

53.

Hockerts

(2018). The effect of experiential social entrepreneurship education on intention formation in students. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 9(3), 234–256.

54.

Javed

Yasir

Majid

(2019). Is social entrepreneurship a panacea for sustainable enterprise development? Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 13(1), 1–29.

55.

Jenner

(2016). Social enterprise sustainability revisited: An international perspective. Social Enterprise Journal, 12, 42–60.

56.

Kandaurova

Ashmarina

Khasaev

Zotova

(2015). The integral assessment of sustainable development of the enterprise. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(6). https://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/8261

57.

Kolk

van Tulder

(2010). International business, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development. International Business Review, 19(2), 119–125.

58.

Lamoureux

S. M.

Movassaghi

Kasiri

(2019). The role of government support in SMEs’ adoption of sustainability. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 47(1), 110–114.

59.

Landrum

N. E.

Edwards

(2009). Sustainable business: An executive’s primer. Business Expert Press.

60.

Lee

Kelly

(2019). Cultural leadership ideals and social entrepreneurship: An international study. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 108–128.

61.

Lee

E. S.

Jung

. (2018). Dynamics of social economy self-organized on social media: Following social entrepreneur forum and social economy network on Facebook. Quality & Quantity, 52(2), 635–651.

62.

Lee

(2015). Fostering connectivity: A social network analysis of entrepreneurs in creative industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 21(2), 139–152.

63.

Ahmed

Khan

S. A. Q. A.

Naz

(2020). Role of business incubators as a tool for entrepreneurship development: The mediating and moderating role of business start-up and government regulations. Sustainability, 12(5), 1822.

64.

Murad

Ashraf

S. F.

Syed

Riaz

(2020). Entrepreneurial nascent behaviour: The role of causation process in opportunity discovery and creation. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 8(4), 183–200.

65.

Murad

Shahzad

Khan

M. A. S.

Ashraf

S. F.

(2020). Dark tetrad personality traits and counterproductive work behavior among doctors in Pakistan. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 35(5), 1173–1192.

66.

Murad

Shahzad

Khan

M. A. S.

Ashraf

S. F.

Dogbe

C. S. K.

(2020). Entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial behavior: Role of entrepreneurial alertness, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and proactive personality. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1611.

67.

Naz

Khan

M. A. S.

Kusi

Murad

(2019). An empirical investigation on the relationship between a high-performance work system and employee performance: Measuring a mediation model through partial least squares–structural equation modeling. Psychology Research Behavior Management, 12, 397–416.

68.

Littlewood

Holt

(2018). Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: Exploring the influence of environment. Business & Society, 57(3), 525–561.

69.

Marconatto

Ladeira

W. J.

Wegner

(2019). The sustainability of solidarity economy organizations: An empirical investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 1122–1130.

70.

Melville

N. P.

(2010). Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 1–21.

71.

Mercedes Leon-Sanchez

Jaen Jimenez

. (2013). Entrepreneurship and social capital: Sources of local development, the jewelery industry in Jalisco. Ra Ximhai, 9(1), 47–64.

72.

Meyskens

Carsrud

A. L.

Cardozo

R. N.

(2010). The symbiosis of entities in the social engagement network: The role of social ventures. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(5), 425–455.

73.

Michael

S. C.

Pearce

J. A.

(2009). The need for innovation as a rationale for government involvement in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(3), 285–302.

74.

Morrison

J. L.

(2003). Organizational change for corporate sustainability: A guide for leaders and change agents of the future. Journal of Education for Business, 79(2), 124–126.

75.

Muscat

Whitty

(2009). Social entrepreneurship: Values-based leadership to transform business education and society. Business Renaissance Quarterly, 4(1), 31–44.

76.

Neneh

B. N.

(2019). From entrepreneurial alertness to entrepreneurial behavior: The role of trait competitiveness and proactive personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 273–279.

77.

Neumeyer

Santos

S. C.

(2018). Sustainable business models, venture typologies, and entrepreneurial ecosystems: A social network perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4565–4579.

78.

Nga

J. K. H.

Shamuganathan

(2010). The influence of personality traits and demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 259–282.

79.

Noruzi

M. R.

Westover

J. H.

Rahimi

G. R.

(2010). An exploration of social entrepreneurship in the entrepreneurship era. Asian Social Science, 6(6), 3–10.

80.

Obaji

N. O.

Olugu

M. U.

(2014). The role of government policy in entrepreneurship development. Science Journal of Business and Management Decision, 2(4), 109–115.

81.

Oni

E. O.

(2012). Development of small and medium scale enterprises: The role of government and other financial institutions. Oman Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 34(962), 1–14.

82.

Pangriya

(2019). Hidden aspects of social entrepreneurs’ life: A content analysis. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1), 1–19.

83.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

84.

Pol

Ville

(2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878–885.

85.

Prabhu

G. N.

(1999). Social entrepreneurial leadership. Career Development International, 4, 140–145.

86.

Rahdari

Sepasi

Moradi

(2016). Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social entrepreneurship: The role of social enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 347–360.

87.

Rawhouser

Cummings

Newbert

S. L.

(2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115.

88.

Rehman

Khurshid

M. K.

Saleem

(2019). Financial and economic indicators of economic advancement: Evidence from Asian countries. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 10(11), 1–15.

89.

Rey-Martí

Ribeiro-Soriano

Palacios-Marqués

(2016). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1651–1655.

90.

Roy

Karna

(2015). Doing social good on a sustainable basis: Competitive advantage of social businesses. Management Decision, 53, 1355–1374.

91.

Saebi

Foss

N. J.

Linder

(2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70–95.

92.

Salman

(2018). Micro-finance: A driver for entrepreneurship. In Brito

S. M.

(Ed.), Entrepreneurship—Trends and challenges. IntechOpen. https://www.intechopen.com/books/entrepreneurship-trends-and-challenges/micro-finance-a-driver-for-entrepreneurship

93.

Salman

Jamil

(2017). Entrepreneurial finance and its impact on e-business. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 15(3), 24–41.

94.

Schaltegger

Burritt

(2018). Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability: Differentiating ethical motivations. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 241–259.

95.

Sharma

(2017). Antecendents of social entrepreneurs behaviors on scaling up of social enterprise impact. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 13(1), 28–50.

96.

Shyle

(2018). Awareness of individuals and businesses in Albania for sustainable development. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(1), 46–54.

97.

Singh

R. P.

Hills

G. E.

Lumpkin

Hybels

R. C.

(1999). The entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process: Examining the role of self-perceived alertness and social networks. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1999. https://journals.aom.org/doi/pdf/10.5465/apbpp.1999.27600505

98.

Smallbone

Welter

Voytovich

Egorov

(2010). Government and entrepreneurship in transition economies: The case of small firms in business services in Ukraine. The Service Industries Journal, 30(5), 655–670.

99.

Songling

Ishtiaq

Anwar

Ahmed

(2018). The role of government support in sustainable competitive position and firm performance. Sustainability, 10(10), 3495.

100.

Sonnenwald

D. H.

Pierce

L. G.

(2000). Information behavior in dynamic group work contexts: Interwoven situational awareness, dense social networks and contested collaboration in command and control. Information Processing & Management, 36(3), 461–479.

101.

Spangenberg

J. H.

(2005). Economic sustainability of the economy: Concepts and indicators. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1–2), 47–64.

102.

Standing

Jackson

Chen

A. J.

Boudreau

M. C.

Watson

R. T.

(2008). Information systems and ecological sustainability. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 10, 186–201.

103.

Steinerowski

A. A.

Steinerowska-Streb

(2012). Can social enterprise contribute to creating sustainable rural communities? Using the lens of structuration theory to analyse the emergence of rural social enterprise. Local Economy, 27(2), 167–182.

104.

Stone

(1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 36(2), 111–133.

105.

Sudusinghe

J. I.

Seuring

(2020). Social sustainability empowering the economic sustainability in the global apparel supply chain. Sustainability, 12(7), 2595.

106.

Sundaramurthy

Musteen

Randel

A. E.

(2013). Social value creation: A qualitative study of Indian social entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 1350011.

107.

Suryandharu

Sanusi

Harsono

(2019). The influence of the motivation, leadership and social networking for the formation of social entrepreneurship. International Journal of Advances in Social Economics, 1(1), 6–15.

108.

Ülgen

(2019). The social entrepreneur: Personality traits and motivation factors in social entrepreneurship. In Creating business value and competitive advantage with social entrepreneurship (pp. 48–68). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/the-social-entrepreneur/208402

109.

van Stel

Storey

D. J.

Thurik

A. R

. (2007). The effect of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 171–186.

110.

Verkijika

S. F.

De Wet

(2018). E-government adoption in sub-Saharan Africa. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 30, 83–93.

111.

Weber

Kratzer

(2013). Social entrepreneurship, social networks and social value creation: A quantitative analysis among social entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 5(3), 217–239.

112.

Weerawardena

Mort

G. S.

(2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35.

113.

Weerawardena

Salunke

Haigh

Mort

G. S.

(2021). Business model innovation in social purpose organizations: Conceptualizing dual social-economic value creation. Journal of Business Research, 125, 762–771.

114.

Winn

Kirchgeorg

Griffiths

Linnenluecke

M. K.

Günther

(2011). Impacts from climate change on organizations: A conceptual foundation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(3), 157–173.

115.

(2018). Poverty reduction through entrepreneurship: Incentives, social networks, and sustainability. Asian Business & Management, 17(4), 243–259.

116.

Zahra

S. A.

Gedajlovic

Neubaum

D. O.

Shulman

J. M.

(2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.

117.

Zahra

S. A.

Newey

L. R.

(2014). On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 137–158.

118.

Zhao

E. Y.

Wry

(2016). Not all inequality is equal: Deconstructing the societal logic of patriarchy to understand microfinance lending to women. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1994–2020.

119.

Zuwarimwe

Kirsten

(2010). The role of social networks in development of small-scale enterprises in the Chimanimani district of Zimbabwe. Agrekon, 49(1), 17–38.