Graduate Students’ Behavioral Intention towards Social Entrepreneurship: Role of Social Vision, Innovativeness, Social Proactiveness, and Risk Taking

Abstract

In prior studies, several researchers have adopted entrepreneurial orientation (EO) in determining students’ intention toward entrepreneurship, although the application of EO is scant in determining intention toward social entrepreneurship in existing literature. Hence, in consideration of this research gap, the current study empirically examines the influence of the dimensions of social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO): social vision, social proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk-taking motive on graduate students’ entrepreneurial intention toward social entrepreneurship-based business start-up. An online-based survey method was used to collect data from a sample of 465 students purposively who were studying at different universities in Bangladesh. A PLS-based SEM was applied to analyze the data and examined the proposed relationships in the conceptual model. The findings reveal that Graduate students’ social proactiveness, innovativeness, and risk-taking motive significantly affect their social entrepreneurial intention. However, students’ social vision does not have direct influence but has indirect influence on social entrepreneurial intention through their social entrepreneurial attitudes. The research contributes to the body of knowledge in the existing social entrepreneurship literature as well as provides practical implications for the policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders working toward flourishing of social-based entrepreneurship, venture, and start-up.

1. Introduction

In the 21st century, the fulfillment of the goals of sustainable development (SDGs) is being treated as an utmost and urgent priority in many nations; and it, therefore, has become a major concern for the governments to put special focus on dealing with SDGs [1,2]. In this context, social entrepreneurship is perceived to play a quintessential role in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and is getting more policy attention, especially in developing countries [3,4]. The concept of social entrepreneurship reflects such an entrepreneurial business venture which aims to fundamentally deal with social problems, create employment opportunities, and facilitate the venture development through earning the profit [5]. Social entrepreneurship is regarded as one of the prominent growing research fields as it offers innovative approaches to address socio-economic agendas [6]. Globally, policymakers and research scholars have acknowledged the significance of social entrepreneurship in creating social value for the society [7,8]. The foremost role of this entrepreneurship is not only to scan business opportunities, but also to create social and economic value for the society. Social entrepreneurs, particularly, strive to address and solve various social and economic problems and are more inclined to work on various societal issues like access to education, unemployment, poverty, drug abuse, human right issues, environmental degradation which might have negative impact on achieving goals of sustainable development for a country [9]. Therefore, to foster an individual’s social entrepreneurial involvement and activities, it is crucial to explore and understand what factors might affect an individual’s behavioral propensity and willingness to get involved into social entrepreneurial activities as a means of creating socio-economic value for the country. While the social entrepreneurship concept has captured much attention from research and policy intervention viewpoint [6], the lack of empirical studies, however, especially on the behavioral aspects of entrepreneurs’ intention to work in social-based venture and start-up is still evident in the literature.

In business and social science literature, a number of studies [10,11,12] have been found focusing on various aspects of social entrepreneurship, social venture, and social start-up in various socio-cultural contexts. These studies, especially, highlighted social entrepreneurial behavioral characteristics such as personality traits [1], emotional intelligence [13], individual initiative [10], pro-social motivation [14], social identity [12], moral obligation and self-efficacy [11], and personal background [15] to envisage social entrepreneurial intention. In addition, very scanty studies examined the influence of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) on the entrepreneurial intention [14,15]. However, the relationship between the dimensions of social entrepreneurial orientation and individual behavioral intention to start social entrepreneurship-based venture has merely been empirically investigated in literature. Therefore, there has been still a knowledge gap regarding the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and individual behavioral intention in social entrepreneurship context. EO, a behavioral and attitudinal aspect, is expected to strengthen the predictability of a person’s intention to become an entrepreneur [16]. Argument also establishes that EO could explore a person’s disposition and eagerness toward entrepreneurial attitudes and actions [17]. It is said that understanding EO from individualistic viewpoint, would be helpful to gauge a person’s entrepreneurial action [18].

In addition, scholars claimed that a realistic understanding of entrepreneurial orientation of the students will be critical in evaluating their eagerness to choose an entrepreneurial career in the future [19]. Furthermore, it was found that the dimensions of EO have been significantly connected with college student’s intention toward entrepreneurship [20]. EO is crucial in predicting student’s intention to becoming an entrepreneur. Researchers investigated the impact of various dimensions of EO on entrepreneurial intention and found that except innovativeness, risk-taking and pro-activeness have been significant in directing student’s intention to go for entrepreneurial activities as a future career choice [20]. Similarly, examiners reported that both risk-taking and innovativeness were the determining drivers of women’s entrepreneurial intention in Zimbabwe context [21]. It is, therefore, firmly argued that studying university students’ EO can be considered as a useful tool to understand their attitudes and behavioral intention toward entrepreneurial activities [22,23].

As it is noticed that a number of studies explored the role of students’ EO in driving their intention toward entrepreneurial actions in different contexts [24,25,26,27]. However, empirical studies, focusing on the effect of EO on students’ entrepreneurial attitudes and entrepreneurial intention especially in social-based venture and start-up contexts, are still lacking in literature. In addition, the effect of some EO dimensions namely risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness on individual entrepreneurial intention even though have been investigated in a few prior studies [28,29]; nevertheless, the influence of having social vision toward solving social issues on an individual’s inclination and behavioral willingness toward social entrepreneurship has yet to be investigated in literature. Moreover, Satar and Natasha [30] developed and revised scales on the four dimensions of an individual’s social entrepreneurial orientation (ISEO), such as social passion, innovativeness, risk-taking, and pro-activeness. Likewise, Sulphey and Salim [31] also conceptually developed and validated the scale on social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO) components including social vision, risk-taking, and social pro-activeness as a predictor of an individual’s attitude and behavior toward social entrepreneurship. As the studies of Satar and Natasha [30], and Sulphey and Salim [31] developed and validated the measure scales on SEO conceptually, and replaced EO by SEO in social entrepreneurship context; they, moreover, recommended future research to empirically examine and robustly evaluate the reliability and validity of the instrument using student samples. Therefore, the current study explores the following research questions:

• What is the role of SEO dimensions in measuring students’ attitudes toward “social entrepreneurial-based venture and start-up?
• How do the dimensions of SEO trigger students’ behavioral intention toward social entrepreneurial-based venture?

More specifically, in recent times, a few studies have attempted to determine entrepreneurial intention by considering the influence of EO. For instances, Martins and Perez [32] considered individual EO as the mediating variable in the relationship between close environmental factors and entrepreneurial intention, and found the mediating impact of EO on the given relationship. Their findings also indicate the positive impact of EO on entrepreneurial intention. Likewise, the studies of Hassan, et al. [33], Sahoo and Panda [34], Chafloque-Cespedes, et al. [35], and Kruja [36] have also exhibited a positive connection between EO and entrepreneurial intention. However, all of these studies have been conducted in regard to entrepreneurship field. In contrast, to the best of authors’ knowledge no empirical studies have been conducted by adopting the dimensions of SEO to determine an individual’s attitude and intention toward social entrepreneurship, which leads to a research gap in the existing literature. Therefore, taking the aforementioned issues into account, the current study steps out to address the research questions and fill up the research gap. This study aims at examining how the SEO dimensions—social vision, social pro-activeness, innovativeness, and risk-taking motive—of the university students determine and shape their social entrepreneurial attitude and behavioral intention toward social entrepreneurship-based venture in Bangladesh. The novelty of the paper lies in the context by demonstrating how dimensions of SEO shape students’ behavioral intention toward social entrepreneurship, which is rarely investigated, and this research is one of the very first efforts to establish an empirical relationship between SEO and behavioral intention toward social entrepreneurship. The current paper has made several contributions to the existing social entrepreneurship literature. First, the paper has adopted newly developed dimension: “SEO” at individual level, and showcased the influence of SEO on students’ attitude and intention toward social entrepreneurship, which is merely investigated in the literature. Second, the paper has analyzed the influence of each dimension of SEO on the attitude and intention toward social entrepreneurship, through which the paper establishes the empirical relationship between the dimensions of SEO. Lastly, we’ve examined the impact of “social vision” as a dimension of SEO on the attitude and intention toward social entrepreneurship, which is also underexplored in the current state of social entrepreneurship literature. Importantly, the paper strives to add value to the literature by presenting a new research model by adopting dimensions of SEO to analyze the influence of four dimensions of SEO on the attitude and intention toward social entrepreneurship.

The study was carried out with the under-graduate and post-graduate students studying at different universities in Bangladesh. A purposive sampling technique was used to collect data from a sample of 465 students. A PLS-based SEM was used as a method of data analysis and model assessment. The findings reveal that the university graduates’ SEO especially social vision, innovativeness, and risk-taking motive directly influence their social entrepreneurial attitude, as well as their behavioral intention to start social entrepreneurship-based venture and start-up. This study expects that alongside offering theoretical contribution application of SEO dimensions in attitude–behavior paradigm, the findings would also provide policy implications for young entrepreneur, practitioners, and policymakers, which would also contribute to encouraging the stakeholders’ involvement in social-based entrepreneurial venture and start-up in various industries in developing countries, particularly in Bangladesh.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Background

Theory of planned behaviors (TPB), as one of the leading attitude–behavior theories, was proposed by Ajzen [37] to study attitude and behavior. Since the inception of TPB, it has been used to measure an individual’s behavioral intention in various contexts of business and social science researches. TPB emphasizes that human behavioral intentions are governed by an individual’s attitude along with social influence (SN) and a sense of perceived abilities and constraints (PBC) [38]. Nowadays, the creation and formation of successful business venture entities has been very complicated in nature [39], where entrepreneurial intention (EI) is regarded as a significant predictor since entrepreneurship is characterized as planned behavioral action [39,40]. Moreover, EI is viewed as an initial step that would lead to the formation of entrepreneurial venture [41]. In order to explain entrepreneurial intention, till date, two main theoretical models developed by Shapero [42], the entrepreneurial event model (EEM), and by Ajzen, [43] TPB, have been considerably applied to understand the entrepreneurial attitudinal behaviors and intentions. The current study has considered the TPB by Ajzen [43] to examine students’ attitudes and behavioral intention toward social-based entrepreneurship. Ajzen [43] argued that individual’s behavior was influenced by attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control.

The TPB has extensively been examined in the domain of entrepreneurship literature and exhibited that a person’s behavioral intention is well explained by his/her attitude, that is also a strong predictor of behavioral action [44]. Yukongdi and Lopa [45] claimed that TPB is a well-acknowledged model to gauge a person’s behavioral intention toward entrepreneurship. In the TPB, attitude for entrepreneurship is regarded as a powerful tool to understand entrepreneurial behavioral action [46], and the behavioral intention has been the result of favorable attitude which is activated by individual or personal characteristics [47]. The applications of the TPB, in entrepreneurship domain, have also been found in the recent studies [5,48,49]. Zaremohzzabieh et al. [48] conducted a meta-analytic of considering 31 journal articles to analyze the applicability of TPB model in predicting social entrepreneurial intention (SEI). The study reported a meaningful and robust connection of attitude with SEI. Kruse et al. [49] considered TPB framework to measure German university students’ intention toward social entrepreneurship, and revealed a strong influence of attitude on SEI. Likewise, Ruiz-Rosa et al. [5] examined the influence of TPB dimensions on social entrepreneurial intention of the Spanish university’s students. Their study revealed that students’ attitude and other factors had greater influence on affecting their intention toward social entrepreneurship. Therefore, it has been noticed that an individual’s attitude is one of the strongest predictors of his/her behavioral intention to get involved into social entrepreneurship-based ventures.

Alongside, an individual’s entrepreneurial orientation is considered as the strategic initiative to start a new business, to enter into new business market, and to comprehend entrepreneurial behavior from organizational viewpoint [50,51]. From an attitudinal and behavioral aspect, EO is expected to strengthen the predictability of a person’s intention to become entrepreneur [16], and that could explore a person’s disposition and eagerness toward entrepreneurial attitudes and actions [17]. A number of studies in entrepreneurship domain discussed the relationship of EO dimensions, such as proactiveness [52], innovativeness [53], and risk-taking motive [54] with individual’s entrepreneurial attitude as well as with entrepreneurial intention in various contexts [24,25,26,55]. In addition, in literature, some studies developed and validated the properties of social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO) and called for future research to test the robustness of the scales in different contexts. Satar and Natasha [30] answered the call for a scale development of ISEO in social entrepreneurial intention literature, and developed a scale on the four dimensions (e.g., social passion, innovativeness, risk-taking and pro-activeness) of an individual’s social entrepreneurial orientation. This study recommended the future research to robustly evaluate the reliability and validity of the instrument using student samples. Moreover, Sulphey and Salim [31] developed the measure scales of social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO) such as social vision, risk-taking, and social pro-activeness and argued that the dimensions of SEO could be empirically tested to measure an individual’s behavioral intention in social entrepreneurship contexts. However, to-date, studies were barely found focusing on the empirical effect of SEO dimensions such as social vision, social-proactiveness, social-innovativeness, and risk taking motive on the attitude–behavior paradigm in a single framework using the TPB. Thus, the current study intends to integrate the components of SEO within the framework of TPB for examining attitude and behavioral aspects of graduate students to get involved into social-entrepreneurship-based business venture.

2.2. Social Entrepreneurial Orientation (SEO) and Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)

Entrepreneurial orientation is considered as a salient measure in management and entrepreneurship context in analyzing firm performance [56,57]. Lumpkin and Dess [58] described the concept of “EO” as “the methods, practices, and decision-making styles managers use to act entrepreneurially.” EO encompasses strategic initiatives of a business venture to exhibit insightful information to start a new business, to enter into new business market, and to comprehend entrepreneurial behavior from organizational viewpoint [50,51]. Initially, Miller [59] proposed three dimensions: risk taking, innovativeness, and pro-activeness to measure EO at the organizational level. Later on, Lumpkin and Dess [58] included two more components: autonomy and aggressiveness in individual EO. In recent literature, Satar and Natasha [30] considered social passion, innovativeness, risk-taking, and pro-activeness to conceptualize “SEO” to predict an individual’s propensity to engage into social entrepreneurial actions.

Entrepreneurial intention (EI), however, might be explicated as a person’s desire and eagerness to pursue his/her entrepreneurial opportunities [11]. It is an individual’s sequels of approach that arises from his or her discernment of own ability to start entrepreneurial activities [60]. In addition, social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) can be described as a predictor of a person’s entrepreneurial behavior or a personal resolution and craving for setting up a new social entrepreneurial business [61,62]. In literature, the study of EO, EA, and EI has been discussed simultaneously in various contexts. The studies argued that understanding of EO from individualistic viewpoint would be helpful to gauge a person’s entrepreneurial actions [17,18,63,64]. EO is generally applied to explore a person’s disposition and eagerness toward entrepreneurial attitudes and actions [17], and SEO to understand an individual’s behavior toward social entrepreneurship, considering social vision, risk-taking, social entrepreneurial intention, and social pro-activeness [31]. Therefore, the current study has considered a SEO construct by considering social vision, risk-taking motive, innovativeness, and social pro-activeness as components of SEO to understand student’s attitude and intention toward social entrepreneurship.

2.3. Hypotheses Development

2.3.1. The Relationship of Social Vision (SV) with Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes (SEA), and Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)

The social vision navigates the capacity of a person to view any possibility over current times with a determination of broadening the stewardship arm to emerge as a representative of social transformation [65]. Social vision (SV) has been considered as the leading and determining aspect that distinguishes social entrepreneurial actions from other forms of entrepreneurial actions [66]. Importantly, social entrepreneurs have been more concerned and committed to developing and keeping up social value, which is stirred up visionary goals to address societal problems [67]. Dedication and engagement for confronting a social cause is generally developed with some sentiments of emotional feelings and awareness of social responsibilities [68]. The social entrepreneurial mindset has naturally been activated by a form of irresistible social vision which envelops a powerful feeling of commitment and devotion in favorable or unfavorable way to satisfy fundamental human wants [69]. The development of either favorable or unfavorable social entrepreneurship attitude begins with maintaining an active connection with different stakeholders in the society and has been led by the social vision of offering value for societal change [70]. Hence, we propose that:

Hypothesis 1.1. 

Graduate Students’ SV has a significant positive influence on their social entrepreneurial attitude (SEA).

Hypothesis 1.2. 

Graduate Students’ SV has a significant positive influence on their social entrepreneurial intention (SEI).

2.3.2. The Relationship of Innovativeness (INNO) with Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes (SEA), and Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)

Innovativeness (INNO) has been identified as one of the distinguishing characteristics that a person, who starts a social business, is supposed to develop within him/herself [70]. In the domain of social entrepreneurial studies, innovativeness is treated as a significant variable through which a possible solution can be fostered in tackling social problems [1]. A number of studies in the literature have exhibited the positive association between innovativeness and entrepreneurial intention [71,72]. As social entrepreneurship is conceived as an innovative approach, individual innovativeness might have an essential function in relation to social entrepreneurial tasks [73]. Since social enterprises are being treated as knowledge-oriented organizations, innovativeness has a critical role in furthering the development process of social enterprises [74]. Hence, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2.1. 

Graduate Students’ innovativeness (INNO) has a significant positive influence on their social entrepreneurial attitude (SEA).

Hypothesis 2.2. 

Graduate Students’ innovativeness (INNO) has a significant positive influence on their social entrepreneurial intention (SEI).

2.3.3. The Relationship of Social Proactiveness (SPro) with Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes (SEA), and Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)

Proactiveness is found as one of the critical success factors in shaping and forming a social entrepreneurial venture [75]. Proactive functions refer to scanning and searching opportunities, forecasting future obstacles, and overcoming those presumed obstacles [1]. According to Dwivedi and Weerawardena [76], “pro-activeness entails readiness for unexpected events and attempts at avoiding unexpected shocks.” Firm inclination toward scaling up a social entrepreneurial business might be influenced by a person’s pro-activeness [52]. Moreover, proactive personality helps social entrepreneurs move forward with their visionary objectives to make a social impact [77]. Pro-activeness has become an essential feature in the social entrepreneurial context through which social entrepreneurial people effectively seek to solve social problems [78]. Therefore, it can be said that the person who is proactive is more likely to show social entrepreneurial attitude and intention in social enterprise contexts. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3.1. 

Graduate Students’ social pro-activeness (SPro) has a significant positive influence on their social entrepreneurial attitude (SEA).

Hypothesis 3.2. 

Graduate Students’ social pro-activeness (SPro) has a significant positive influence on their social entrepreneurial intention (SEI).

2.3.4. The Relationship of Risk-Taking Motive (RTM) with Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes (SEA), and Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)

Risk-taking is one of the vital factors in entrepreneurial ventures as the existence of high uncertainty is common in entrepreneurial activities [79]. Risk-taking motive refers to the inclination of a person to take risk [80]. By nature, entrepreneurial people are perceived as risk-taker individuals as they begin their ventures rather than looking for formal employment [1]. Risk taking is regarded as a pivotal competency for social businesses [81]. Although social entrepreneurs are less likely to adopt high risky attitudes [82] and risk-taking is found as the least but important factor in founding and developing a social venture [54]; risk-taking, however, is one of the defining characteristics for both social and profit-oriented entrepreneurs [61,83]. Moreover, risk-taking behavior is notably linked with an individual’s attitude to start a social entrepreneurial setup [84]. Hence, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4.1. 

Graduate Students’ risk-taking motive (RTM) has a significant positive influence on their social entrepreneurial attitude (SEA).

Hypothesis 4.2. 

Graduate Students’ risk-taking motive (RTM) has a significant positive influence on social entrepreneurial intention (SEI).

2.3.5. The Relationship Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes (SEA) with Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)

Attitude refers to the combined form of a person’s beliefs and the methods of assessments connected with those beliefs [13]. The behavioral aspect of a person relies on his or her attitudes and eventually, his or her attitude extends a critical part in forming a person’s behavioral action [85]. Generally, attitude toward behavior measures a person’s motivation toward a specific aimed behavior [86]. In entrepreneurship literature, attitude toward behavior is regarded as an influential element that ultimately impacts the intention sportively [87], and in a number of research, attitude has been found as a powerful influential and determining variable that affected entrepreneurial intention [88,89]. Ernst [90] documented that there is an affirmative association between attitude and social entrepreneurial intention. Tiwari et al. [13] found a positive connection between attitude toward social entrepreneurship and intention to start social entrepreneurship. Thus, taking the prior research findings into account, the current study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5. 

Graduate Students’ attitude social entrepreneurial attitude (SEA) has a significant positive influence on their social entrepreneurial intention (SEI).

The following Figure 1, represents the conceptual model of the current research which is based on the study hypotheses.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Context of the Study

Social entrepreneurship has specifically been exercising much in developing country context, where social and economic disparity coexist and social entrepreneurs continuously strive to minimize the extent of disparity through contributing to the socio-economic development of the nation [13]. This study is carried out in a developing country perspective, Bangladesh. Bangladesh, a South-Asian country, has currently been progressing toward transforming into a developing economy, although the prevalence of illiteracy rate among adult people, re-occurrence of various infectious diseases, and incidence of natural calamities might hinder this economic progress rate. In recent years, the country has also undertaken several development initiatives to overcome those socio-economic problems, and the positive changes are getting noticeable. Nonetheless, the employment generation has remained as an acute challenge for the nation, since unemployment has been one of the burning issues for this country for a long time. In the face of these circumstances, a Bangladeshi Nobel Laureate, Professor Muhammad Yunus, a proud founder of the world-leading micro-credit-based NGO—Grameen Bank, has introduced new form of entrepreneurship in the name of “Social Business” [91]. Thenceforth, Bangladesh has started setting up a convenient entrepreneurial environment to encourage and promote social-entrepreneurship-based business. Currently, social entrepreneurship has gained notable momentum in Bangladesh even though the acceptance rate of it has still been low among the public. It requires a more in-depth call for research action to understand people’s behavioral aspects toward social entrepreneurship. This condition poses an important question to Bangladesh: how will the practices of social entrepreneurship be fostered and enhanced across the country. In addition, the ratio of young population aged between sixteen and twenty-five years in Bangladesh is near about one-fifth [92]. As the young population tends to have strong intent and propensity to start entrepreneurial activities, hence it has become a research urgency to investigate what factors might trigger the young population’s intention toward social entrepreneurship in Bangladesh. Moreover, in current times in Bangladesh, unemployment has appeared as a burning issue as the number of students has been graduating at an increasing pace than the available jobs in the existing market [93]. Moreover, amid this pandemic situation, several socio-economics issues have started to emerge within the societal system in Bangladesh [94], which need to be addressed. As social entrepreneurship is believed to offer possible and innovative solutions to tackle various socio-economic problems, and a large number of students are to become graduate in Bangladesh, who will face career choice once they become graduate; henceforth if the Bangladeshi university students’ intention toward social entrepreneurial activities can be stirred up, then by promoting social entrepreneurship among university students might become a potential solution to unemployment and other societal problems in Bangladesh. Thus, in realization of the current context of the country, considering university students as potential sample respondents, it would be worth investigating their behavioral attitude and intention toward social entrepreneurship in Bangladesh context.

3.2. Sampling Procedure

The study aims to investigate University Graduates’ social entrepreneurial intention toward social entrepreneurial ventures (SEI). Previous studies in entrepreneurship advocated that university graduates are more likely to start their careers with start-up ventures [39,95]. Therefore, taking the prior references into account, university graduates have been considered as samples to measure their intention to start social entrepreneurial activities and entrepreneurial ventures. A total of 465 graduate students from different private and public universities in Bangladesh were selected as the sample population of this study. Study data have been collected between October 2020 and December 2020. A purposive sampling technique was used to select the sample respondents since particular information is required to achieve the objectives of this study.

3.3. Measures and Survey Instrument

The current study is conducted through online survey method. To conduct the survey, a typical structured questionnaire was prepared as an instrument of data collection including the validated measures items adopted from prior studies. A total of 33 items under six constructs were included in the questionnaire (

Table A1. Item wise Questionnaires of all constructs.

Construct Items		Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Social Vision (SV)
SV1	I have a strong will to solve social problems.
SV2	I have a focused stand on social issues.
SV3	I am strongly committed to social needs.
SV4	I am determined to be an agent of social change.
SV5	I tend to be more passionate about any societal crisis.
Social Pro-activeness (SPro)
SPro1	I am willing to be at the forefront for making the society a better place to live in.
SPro2	I am able to clearly identify social problems ahead of others.
SPro3	I am ahead of others in addressing the social needs.
SPro4	I like to act quickly in tackling the social problems.
SPro5	Usually, any societal problem more actively drives me to take necessary actions to address.
Innovativeness (INNO)
INNO1	I often like to try new, innovative, and unusual activities.
INNO2	In general, I prefer a strong emphasis in projects which are unique.
INNO3	I prefer to try my own unique way when learning new things rather than doing it like everyone else.
INNO4	I like to apply innovative and experimental approaches to solve problems.
INNO5	I believe there are always new and better ways of doing things.
Risk-taking Motive (RTM)
RTM1	I am willing to involve in ventures that benefit the society.
RTM2	I am willing to take risks for the benefit of the society.
RTM3	I am willing to make sacrifices for the welfare of the society.
RTM4	I believe that all individuals should be willing to take risks for the welfare of the society.
RTM5	I tend to act/work actively to solve the socio-economic problems in society.
Social Entrepreneurial Attitudes (SEA)
SEA1	I find the idea of being a social entrepreneur very attractive.
SEA2	Given the opportunity and resources, I would like to create an independent social business.
SEA3	Being a social entrepreneur would generate in me a feeling of great satisfaction.
SEA4	I am always very positive toward any kind of social business.
SEA5	I think if I decide to start an independent social business then it would succeed.
Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)
SEI1	I am determined to create a social entrepreneurial venture in the future.
SEI2	I have very seriously thought of starting a social venture in the future.
SEI3	I have a strong intention to start a social venture in the future.
SEI4	My professional goal is to be a social entrepreneur.
SEI5	I will make every effort to start and run my own social venture.
SEI6	I do not have doubts about ever starting my own social venture in the future.
SEI7	I am ready to do anything to be a social entrepreneur.
SEI8	I had a strong intention to start my own social venture before I started studying.

). The construct, namely social entrepreneurial intention was measured by eight items that were adopted from Urban and Kujinga [96]. The attitude toward social entrepreneurial (SEA) contained five measure items that were adopted from Miranda et al. [97]. However, the scale was measured by only five items and slightly modified to fit the study context. Risk-taking motive (RTM) was measured by five items, social proactiveness (SPro) was measured by five items, and social vision (SV) was also measured by five items. The measurement items for these three constructs were adopted from Sulphey and Salim [31]. Innovativeness (INNO) was measured by five items, which were adopted from Satar and Natasha [30].

A draft questionnaire was prepared incorporating the adopted measure items and then, it was first offered to the academic experts for pre-testing, and then, a pilot test was conducted to refine and cross-check the validity of the measure items as they are applied to different socio-cultural contexts. The measure items for some constructs were modified based on the pre-test and pilot test results. The original measure item of social entrepreneurial attitude was like “I find the idea of being an entrepreneur attractive.” However, the study added the term “Social” with each item of this construct and modified as “I find the idea of being a social entrepreneur attractive.” After addressing the expert suggestions and pilot test results, a final questionnaire was developed. The final questionnaire consisted of three parts, first part exhibited the statement and description of the notions of social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurial intention, second part contained the basic demographic information of the respondents. All measure items in the questionnaire were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (7 = strongly agree, to 1 = mostly disagree).

3.4. Data Collection and Analysis

An online-based survey through social media platform was conducted to collect the data using the final questionnaire from the target respondents. The authors adopted online-based survey approach as data were collected amid pandemic situation when all educational institutions in Bangladesh were shut; hence we inspire from very recent similar studies [5,23,98]. The researchers first contacted different universities’ student groups on social media and requested them to voluntarily participate in this research. In Bangladesh, every university has different groups of students in social media platform such as in Facebook. Therefore, first we identified such student groups in Facebook who were active online, and after that we requested the moderator of each group to circulate our online survey questionnaire link among the group members and informed them that the participation in the survey was totally voluntary. We contacted those student groups which had a large number of active students in the online group. Initially, a total of 500 students voluntarily participated in this survey from several private universities in Bangladesh. After scrutinizing online survey forms, 465 responses were deemed as considerable for this research, and the response rate was 95% that is highly acceptable for the social science research [99]. Being an online-based survey, a brief written introduction about the researchers’ background, the aim of the research, and other ethical issues was given to the respondents. Moreover, a short explanation on some notions namely, social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurial intention was also given to the respondents so that they could easily comprehend the overall essence of the research and participate more effectively. After collecting the data, necessary data processing activities were performed to make the data suitable for final analysis. Partial Least Square-based Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS software, version 3.2 was used to analyze the data. PLS-based SEM is a stronger and more robust statistical technique of structural model estimation that works with high complexity models and non-normal data distributions. To determine the issues of reliability and validity of the constructs, the convergent, construct and discriminant validity were examined through SmartPLS software. Moreover, hypotheses were tested through SmartPLS on the basis of SEM. Prior to testing the measurement model and SEM model, a few initial analyses have been run, such as data normality test and outlier test to confirm that study data did not have any statistical errors. The study results were validated based on conducting the measurement model analysis and estimating path analysis of all constructs in the structural model.

4. Results

4.1. Respondents’ Profile

In this study, among the 465 respondents, over eighty percent of respondents were male students (n = 376), and only twenty percent were female students (n = 89). In terms of age group, around eighty-nine percent were aged between 18 and 25 years (n = 411), while eleven percent were aged between 26 and 40 years. Additionally, more than half of the respondents were business graduates (n = 247; 53.1 percent) and the rest were non-business graduates, art and social science, and engineering, and others. Moreover, about 60% of the respondents had experience with social activities in their student life.

4.2. Measurement Model Analysis

As the conceptual model of this study contains the reflective constructs, therefore, the primary step is to assess the reliability and validity of the measures of the model [100].

Table 1. Measurement model results.

Constructs	Items	Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	CR	AVE
Social Vision (SV)	SV1	0.810	0.859	0.899	0.640
	SV2	0.772
	SV3	0.796
	SV4	0.819
	SV5	0.801
Innovativeness (INNO)	INNO1	0.793	0.881	0.913	0.679
	INNO2	0.837
	INNO3	0.840
	INNO4	0.854
	INNO5	0.794
Social Pro-activeness (SPro)	SPro1	0.784	0.875	0.909	0.667
	SPro2	0.807
	SPro3	0.838
	SPro4	0.814
	SPro5	0.839
Risk-Taking Motive (RTM)	RTM1	0.795	0.891	0.92	0.697
	RTM2	0.869
	RTM3	0.853
	RTM4	0.821
	RTM5	0.834
Social Entrepreneurial Attitude (SEA)	SEA 1	0.809	0.87	0.906	0.658
	SEA 2	0.861
	SEA 3	0.820
	SEA 4	0.803
	SEA 5	0.761
Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)	SEI1	0.850	0.935	0.946	0.688
	SEI2	0.830
	SEI3	0.718
	SEI4	0.847
	SEI5	0.805
	SEI6	0.871
	SEI7	0.863
	SEI8	0.840

exhibits the results of analysis of the measurement model that reveal that the value of both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) for each construct is above the cut-off value of 0.70, indicating that all latent constructs are reliable [100]. In addition, the loading of all items ranged between 0.718 and 0.871 that exceeds the cut-off value of 0.70 [101], and the AVE values of all constructs are within the recommended cut-off value of 0.50 [100], representing the satisfactory convergent validity for all constructs in the measurement model.

To analyze the discriminant validity, Fornell–Larcker measure was extensively used [100]. Nonetheless, recent studies have condemned the credibility of Fornell–Larcker method [102] and instead recommend to apply Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT) criterion—the ratio of the between-trait correlations to the within-trait correlations.

Table 2. Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) criterion.

	SEA	INNO	SEI	RTM	SPro	SV
SEA
INNO	0.802
SEI	0.860	0.596
RTM	0.801	0.804	0.706
SPro	0.803	0.883	0.694	0.868
SV	0.788	0.786	0.643	0.806	0.889

presents that the HTMT value of each construct ranged between 0.596 and 0.889; which lucidly displayed that the HTMT values of all constructs are below the threshold of 0.90 [102]. We also analyzed the cross loadings of all items and found all values valid (

Table 3. Cross-loading values of all items under each construct.

Constructs	Items	INNO	RTM	SEA	SEI	SPro	SV
Innovativeness (INNO)	INNO1	0.793	0.572	0.529	0.462	0.628	0.547
	INNO2	0.837	0.577	0.609	0.477	0.632	0.574
	INNO3	0.840	0.559	0.557	0.434	0.619	0.550
	INNO4	0.854	0.625	0.590	0.461	0.672	0.601
	INNO5	0.794	0.604	0.611	0.407	0.649	0.546
Risk Taking Motive (RTM)	RTM1	0.615	0.795	0.576	0.460	0.638	0.634
	RTM2	0.605	0.869	0.615	0.583	0.655	0.586
	RTM3	0.559	0.853	0.574	0.583	0.620	0.580
	RTM4	0.537	0.821	0.563	0.492	0.603	0.551
	RTM5	0.658	0.834	0.614	0.576	0.683	0.593
Social Entrepreneurial Attitude (SEA)	SEA1	0.582	0.597	0.809	0.606	0.589	0.574
	SEA2	0.639	0.605	0.861	0.676	0.600	0.584
	SEA3	0.615	0.549	0.820	0.600	0.551	0.563
	SEA4	0.549	0.601	0.803	0.620	0.564	0.546
	SEA5	0.469	0.508	0.761	0.664	0.543	0.500
Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)	SEI1	0.449	0.554	0.673	0.850	0.509	0.491
	SEI2	0.504	0.560	0.695	0.830	0.577	0.520
	SEI3	0.363	0.421	0.484	0.718	0.471	0.376
	SEI4	0.461	0.589	0.642	0.847	0.518	0.516
	SEI5	0.388	0.524	0.570	0.805	0.474	0.453
	SEI6	0.508	0.557	0.703	0.871	0.535	0.505
	SEI7	0.460	0.538	0.691	0.863	0.549	0.498
	SEI8	0.452	0.534	0.678	0.840	0.521	0.469
Social Pro-activeness (SPro)	SPro1	0.686	0.650	0.596	0.454	0.784	0.613
	SPro2	0.643	0.581	0.576	0.506	0.807	0.610
	SPro3	0.600	0.621	0.562	0.554	0.838	0.658
	SPro4	0.586	0.620	0.542	0.513	0.814	0.605
	SPro5	0.653	0.658	0.584	0.534	0.839	0.664
Social Vision (SV)	SV1	0.553	0.565	0.583	0.496	0.636	0.810
	SV2	0.498	0.520	0.503	0.449	0.574	0.772
	SV3	0.502	0.505	0.536	0.440	0.590	0.796
	SV4	0.587	0.626	0.575	0.490	0.658	0.819
	SV5	0.595	0.601	0.527	0.439	0.625	0.801

). Hence, no discriminant validity issues are observed among the constructs regarding Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT) criterion and cross loadings.

4.3. Structural Model Analysis

In PLS-SEM, the structural model is generally evaluated on the basis of the robustness of path coefficients, R² value (strength of the prediction), Q² value (predictive consistency), and f² value (the effect size).

Table 4. Path coefficients.

Path Direction		β-Value	t-Value	p-Values	Decision
Direct Relationship
H1.1	SV --> SEA	0.216	3.078	0.002	Accepted
H1.2	SV --> SEI	0.013	0.224	0.823	Rejected
H2.1	INNO --> SEA	0.276	4.215	0.000	Accepted
H2.2	INNO --> SEI	0.178	2.948	0.003	Accepted
H3.1	SPro --> SEA	0.113	1.472	0.142	Rejected
H3.2	SPro --> SEI	0.166	2.222	0.027	Accepted
H4.1	RTM --> SEA	0.270	4.204	0.000	Accepted
H4.2	RTM --> SEI	0.188	3.45	0.001	Accepted
H5	SEA --> SEI	0.665	11.805	0.000	Accepted

presents the results of the path coefficient values in which social vision (SV) (H1.1: β = 0.216; p = 0.002), innovativeness (INNO) (H2.1: β = 0.276; p = 0.000), and risk-taking motive (RTM) (H4.1: β = 0.270; p = 0.000) pose a significant positive influence, whereas social pro-activeness (SPro) (H3.1: β = 0.113; p = 0.142) does not have any significant influence on social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA) toward starting social entrepreneurship. Although social vision (SV) does not directly affect social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) (H1.2: β = 0.013; p = 0.823), however, innovativeness (INNO) (H2.2: β = 0.178; p = 0.003), social pro-activeness (SPro) (H3.2: β = 0.166; p = 0.027), and risk-taking motive (RTM) (H4.2: β = 0.188; p = 0.001) have a significant influence on SEI. Table 4 also points out that social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA) toward starting social entrepreneurship (H5: β = 0.665; p = 0.000) have a strong positive influence on an individual’s social entrepreneurial intention (SEI). These results confirm that H1.1, H2.1, H2.2, H3.2, H4.1, H4.2, and H5 are supported while H1.2 and H3.1 were rejected.

Table 5. Results of R² and Q² analysis.

Endogenous Constructs	R2	Q2
Social EntrepreneurshipAttitude (SEA)	0.612	0.393
Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)	0.609	0.413

reports the findings of both R² (strength of the prediction) and Q² (predictive consistency) analysis in which SV, INNO, SPro, and RTM explain 61.2% of variance in explaining the social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA) toward starting a social entrepreneurship-based venture, and social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA) also explain 60.9% of the variance in social entrepreneurial intention (SEI). Table 4 also indicates that Q2 value of SV, INNO, SPro, and RTM to explain social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA), and Q2 value of social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA) to explain social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) are more than 0.00; meaning that the structural model consists of sufficient predictive consistency and relevance.

Table 6. Results of f² effect analysis.

Path Relationships	f2	Effect Size
SV --> SEA	0.044	Small effect
INNO --> SEA	0.070	Small effect
SPro --> SEA	0.008	No effect
RTM --> SEA	0.067	Small effect
SV --> SEI	0.000	No effect
INNO --> SEI	0.020	Small effect
SPro --> SEI	0.029	Small effect
RTM --> SEI	0.033	Small effect
SEA --> SEI	0.477	Large effect

presents the effect size (f²) of all direct path relationships between independent and dependent variables to measure the degree of impact of independent variables on dependent variables. Within PLS-SEM framework, the f² value of 0.02 as a small effect, f² value of 0.15 as medium effect, and f² value of 0.35 as large effects of the impact of independent variables on dependent variables are regarded according to Hair et al. [100]. Table 6 depicts that social vision (SV), innovativeness (INNO), and risk-taking motive (RTM) have a small effect on social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA) toward starting social entrepreneurship ventures; whereas social pro-activeness (SPro) does not affect SEA. Moreover, innovativeness (INNO), social pro-activeness (SPro), and risk-taking motive (RTM) have a small effect on SEI while social vision (SV) does not have any significant effect on SEI. However, SEA has a large effect on social entrepreneurial intention (SEI).

5. Discussion

The aim of this study is to examine the influence of the dimensions of social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO): social vision, innovativeness, social pro-activeness, and risk-taking motive, and social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA) on an individual’s social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) in social-based venture and start-up settings. To explore the empirical evidence, the researchers looked into the direct effect of exogenous variables on the endogenous variables in the conceptual model. The conceptual model of this study is inclined with the underpinning theory, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [37].

The structural model results, first, report that university students’ social vision (SV) has a strong positive effect on their SEA (H1.1). It does imply that having a strong social vision of students would sufficiently press their attitude toward social entrepreneurship. However, social vision surprisingly does not directly stir up an individual’s behavioral intention to start a social entrepreneurial venture (H1.2), but it has an indirect influence on entrepreneurial intention via SEA (Figure 2). The findings evince that an individual’s social vision may not actively influence his or her entrepreneurial intention to start social entrepreneurship-based venture until or unless the attitude toward social entrepreneurship becomes positive. Moreover, it does point out that if a university student has a strong attitude for getting him/herself into social entrepreneurship, his/her social vision would lead to have a positive intention for starting a social entrepreneurial venture.

The findings are partially supported in this study, as these relationships have hardly been investigated in literature. Nga and Shamuganathan [103] claimed that social vision stirred up undergraduate students’ propensity to engage into social entrepreneurial activities. Second, an individual’s innovativeness (INNO) has been evident in this study as a strong predictor of positive SEA toward social entrepreneurship-based venture (H2.1). Moreover, the research found a positive link between innovativeness and social entrepreneurial intention (H2.2). These findings postulate that the more a student will be innovative in nature, the more s/he will have favorable attitudes and behavioral intention to start a social entrepreneurial venture. The findings are relevant with the recent studies of Wathanakom, et al. [104], Samydevan, et al. [105], and Efrata, et al. [106], in which students’ innovativeness was found to be a potential determinant of entrepreneurial intention. In contrast, third, students’ social pro-activeness (SPro) was revealed as a non-significant predictor of their social entrepreneurial attitude (H3.1), and the hypothesis was not supported. This result, however, is surprising and inconsistent with the prior studies of Zampetakis et al. [88] who found a direct and positive correlation between proactivity and individual’s attitude toward entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, SPro was reported as it does have a direct influence on students’ social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) (H3.2). This means that if a person is proactive in nature, s/he will be more intended to starting a social entrepreneurial venture even if s/he does not have a strong positive attitude toward social entrepreneurship. This finding is also supported by the recent study of Hossain and Asheq [107], in which they reported that proactive students tend to have higher level of social entrepreneurial intention.

Fourth, university students’ risk-taking motive (RTM) was found to trigger their social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA) and behavioral intention (SEI) to get involved in social entrepreneurial business (H4.1 and H4.2). The hypotheses were supported, meaning that a higher risk-taking mentality would positively foster a student’s perception of starting a social entrepreneurial venture in the future. This result is in line with the findings of the studies of Chipeta and Surujlal [29], Adu, et al. [108], Zisser, et al. [109], and Yukongdi and Lopa [45]. These studies provide solid evidence of the influential role of risk-taking motive on encouraging a person’s attitude and intention to start entrepreneurial venture.

Finally, students’ social entrepreneurship attitude (SEA) was explored to have a positive effect on their social entrepreneurial intention (SEI), and the results indicate that if a student has positive attitude toward social entrepreneurial venture, s/he will be more inclined to start a social entrepreneurial venture as a future career. The result is also in agreement with the findings of previous few scholars studies namely Luc [1], Tiwari, Bhat and Tikoria [13], Law and Breznik [55], Liguori, et al. [110], Fellnhofer [111], Kusmintarti, et al. [112]; in which Luc [1], and Tiwari, Bhat and Tikoria [13] documented a strong association between an individual’s attitude and behavioral intention to start social entrepreneurial venture; Law and Breznik [55], Liguori, Winkler, Vanevenhoven, Winkel and James [110], Fellnhofer [111], and Kusmintarti, Asdani and Riwajanti [112] have found a positive influence of attitude on entrepreneurial intention in different contexts.

6. Implication

In recent years, the study on social-based entrepreneurship and its scope has received a significant interest of the academia, researchers, and industry. However, the examination of the effect of social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO) dimensions on social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA) and social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) in social entrepreneurship context is quite untouched in literature. Taking the aforementioned issues into account, the current study is an ample step to make a significant contribution in the body of knowledge in social business and entrepreneurship literature. To the best of our knowledge, this study has been exclusive within the domain of social entrepreneurship examining the empirical relationship of social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO) dimensions such as individual’s social vision (SV), innovativeness (INNO), social pro-activeness (SPro), and risk-taking motive (RTM) with social entrepreneurial attitudes (SEA), and social entrepreneurial intention (SEI).

From the theoretical point of view, this study contributes to extend the body of knowledge in the attitude–behavior paradigm in social-based entrepreneurship research. A number of studies in business and social science strengthened and enriched the attitude–behavior relationship; however, the dimensions of SEO on the attitude–behavior paradigm in a single framework using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) have barely been examined in literature. In addition, the application of two concepts, social vision and social pro-activeness in the attitude–behavior paradigm is still lacking in the context of social business and entrepreneurship literature. This paper examined the relationship of SEO dimensions—social vision, social pro-activeness, innovativeness, and risk taking motive—with social entrepreneurial attitudes and social entrepreneurial intention in which social vision, innovativeness, and risk-taking motive were found to be the key predictors of students’ social entrepreneurial attitude formation as well as their behavioral intention to start social entrepreneurial-based venture. It, therefore, claims that the empirical findings on the relationship of SEO dimensions, especially individual’s social vision, innovativeness, and risk-taking motive with the behavioral intention toward social entrepreneurship-based venture have contributed to new dimension of knowledge in the attitude–behavior paradigm in social business and entrepreneurship literature.

The findings of this study also offer several significant implications for academics, researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders who are directly and indirectly engaged in the flourishing of social entrepreneurship-based venture. This study, first, has revealed that students’ social vision is one of the key indicators of developing their social entrepreneurial attitude as well as behavioral intention to start a social entrepreneurial-based venture. This result implies a significant implication for the educationist, facilitators, and donors in higher educational institutions, to promote and enhance their students’ social entrepreneurial endeavors and inclinations. Higher educational institutions, especially universities may now think of integrating social issues-related courses, exercises, field works into the academic curriculum so that students would get a chance to deal with societal problems, and track those societal problems which could be helpful to develop social vision within students’ learning process. In addition, the policymakers concerning higher education should offer social entrepreneurship-based pedagogy by replacing the traditional entrepreneurship-based pedagogy to unleash the students’ innovativeness, creativity, and visionary system to address and act on societal problems. Traditional entrepreneurship-based pedagogy typically focuses on economic aspects of entrepreneurial venture, whereas social entrepreneurship-based pedagogy embraces both economic and societal aspects of an entrepreneurial venture in order to maximize the profit for both business ventures and society at the same time. Second, students’ innovativeness also has been found to be an antecedent of their social entrepreneurship attitudes and social entrepreneurial intention to social-based start-up. Therefore, entrepreneurship-focused academicians could leverage the findings to formulate social entrepreneurship-based pedagogy in their curriculum for the graduate students. Universities may design a variety of social entrepreneurship-based projects and programs which will be focused to build innovative mind setup and visionary attitudes among students to understand societal issues and act on it. By engaging students in such social class exercises and activities to drive their innovativeness and social vision toward tackling societal problems, students’ social entrepreneurial behavior can be triggered that might transform their intent into action in real life. In line with this, universities could introduce and develop a social entrepreneurial orientation chart by updating and rearranging university resources, and transforming the academic curriculum to inspire and stimulate students, and offer them with necessary training modules so that they could undertake social entrepreneurial ventures after their graduation. Third, risk is part and parcel of any entrepreneurship-based venture and it, however, is more likely to be higher with social entrepreneurship due to its non-profit nature. The study, however, has found students’ risk-taking motive as another strong influential factor of their social entrepreneurial attitude development and behavioral intention to social entrepreneurship-based venture. Therefore, special courses on social entrepreneurship can be offered at university level to foster and accelerate student’s risk-taking motive. In addition, students should be taught the costs and benefits of social entrepreneurship as well as cost-minimizing strategies for the social entrepreneurship-based venture.

Moreover, students can be provided with necessary financial supports along with long-term relaxed refundable conditions to start social-based venture after completing their graduations. Finally, this study also claims that individual’s social entrepreneurial attitude significantly influences his/her behavioral intention to start social entrepreneurship -based venture. These findings imply that improving favorable attitudes toward social-based entrepreneurship can be an effective way to enhance students’ behavioral intention toward social entrepreneurship-based venture. Hence, social entrepreneurship-based special academic curriculum and programs such as workshops, seminar, training, and internship facilities can be offered at university level to create and foster student’s positive attitudes as well as their behavioral intention to social entrepreneurship-based venture. These educational activities would create a social entrepreneurial learning environment within the university, which will deepen the bonding between academia and social venture capitalists to help students adopt a social entrepreneurship-based career. Moreover, university administrations periodically may invite business owners, social entrepreneurs, and managers of the social ventures to classrooms to let students interact with them and create such interactive platforms. In these programs, successful social entrepreneurs can share their social entrepreneurial journey with students, and also provide a sound idea about to what extent a person needs to be innovative, proactive, visionary, and a risk taker to turn a social entrepreneurial project into a running venture. Furthermore, as social entrepreneurship is regarded to bring positive changes in the socio-economic condition within an economy and as it is not possible for any government alone to address socio-economic issues such as increasing population, destitution, unemployment; hence corporate sectors may come up with such educational projects for the students to foster their willingness to start social entrepreneurial activities during their university period.

7. Conclusions and Future Research Directions

The current study has empirically established the role of university graduates’ social vision, innovativeness, social pro-activeness, and risk-taking motive to create favorable social entrepreneurial attitudes and behavioral intention to start a social entrepreneurship-based venture. By doing this, this study claims to make a significant contribution to the body of social entrepreneurship knowledge and insights regarding social entrepreneurial behavior. Thereafter, the current study acknowledges several research limitations which would open up new research opportunities in the domain of social entrepreneurship research. This study, first, only considers university students as samples who are doing their bachelor’s or master’s program, which might restrict the generalization of the findings of this current study. Future researchers are suggested to consider individuals who have already completed their graduation and looking to be employed. Next, the study considers social entrepreneurial attitude and intention as consecutively dependent variables; however, other significant factors such as green or sustainable entrepreneurial behavior can be adopted as dependent variables in a single framework. In addition, future cross-discipline and cultural research in the form of comparative study (business versus non-business graduates; developed versus developing country) would be an interesting research attempt to examine and verify result generalization of the current study. Finally, future research would be intended to investigate the mediating role of social entrepreneurial attitude, as well as the moderating role of academic background on the current study’s framework to understand whether students’ educational background has any impact on the path relationship. To conclude, despite some unavoidable limitations, the findings, no doubt, can be a source of contemporary knowledge, insights, and implications for the researchers, entrepreneur, practitioners, managers, and policymakers of the social ventures and enterprises to transform an individual’s willingness and intention into action toward adopting social entrepreneurship-based future career.