PDF

Published

2024-02-29

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 5 (2024)

Section

Research Articles

License

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Siyal, S., Khan, A. A., Saeed, M., Aghmiuni, S. K., & Ullah, R. (2024). Social entrepreneurship orientation and institutional pressures: Role of level of utilitarian identity and level of other regarding values. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i5.1676

Social entrepreneurship orientation and institutional pressures: Role of level of utilitarian identity and level of other regarding values

Saeed Siyal

School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Chemical Technology

Areeba Arif Khan

Institute of Strategic Studies

Maria Saeed

School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Institute of Technology

Samira Khodi Aghmiuni

University of Science and Technology of China

Rahmat Ullah

Center for Innovation and Competitiveness Studies, University of Sialkot


DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i5.1676


Keywords: social entrepreneurship orientation, institutional pressures, level of utilitarian identity, level of other-regarding values

Abstract

This paper intent to test the relationship between institutional pressure (regulatory, cognitive, and normative) and social entrepreneurship orientation in the presence of level of utilitarian identity, level of other-regarding values. The data collection was through a survey-based method from 270 social enterprises that participated. The comprehensive integrated model was designed to test the impact of institutional pressure (regulatory, cognitive, and normative) on social entrepreneurship orientation with moderating role of the level of utilitarian identity, and the level of other-regarding values. The findings of the study reveal that institutional pressure, level of utilitarian identity, and level of other-regarding values positively and significantly influence social entrepreneurship orientation. Furthermore, the level of utilitarian identity positively and significantly moderates the relationship between institutional pressure and social entrepreneurship orientation while, the level of other-regarding values negatively and significantly moderates the relationship. This study provides the pathway to social entrepreneurial orientation to an organization currently operating social enterprises domain.

References

[1]. Albert S, Whetten DA. Organizational identity. Organizational identity: A reader. 2004. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-02640-001

[2]. Brickson SL. Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review 2007; 32(3): 864–888. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275679

[3]. Busenitz LW, Gomez C, Spencer JW. Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena. Academy of Management Journal 2000; 43(5): 994–1003. doi: 10.2307/1556423

[4]. Case LP, Lingerfelt NB. Name-calling: The labeling process in the social work interview. Social Service Review 1974; 48(1): 75–86. doi: 10.1086/643085

[5]. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge; 1988.

[6]. Dees JG. Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Society 2007; 44(3): 24–31. doi: 10.1007/bf02819936

[7]. Defourny J. From the third sector to social enterprise. In: Borzaga C, Defourny J (editors). The Emergence of Social Enterprise. Routledge; 2001.

[8]. do Adro F, Fernandes CI, Veiga PM, Kraus S. Social entrepreneurship orientation and performance in non-profit organizations. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 2021; 17(4): 1591–1618. doi: 10.1007/s11365-021-00748-4

[9]. Estrin S, Mickiewicz T, Stephan U. Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 2013; 37(3): 479–504. doi: 10.1111/etap.12019

[10]. Finch DJ, Varella P, Foster W, et al. The business school scorecard: Examining the systematic sources of business school value. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 2016; 33(4): 277–289. doi: 10.1002/cjas.1391

[11]. Foreman P, Whetten DA. Members’ identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science 2002; 13(6): 618–635. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.6.618.493

[12]. Gali N, Niemand T, Shaw E, et al. Social entrepreneurship orientation and company success: The mediating role of social performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2020; 160: 120230. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120230

[13]. Gholami R, Sulaiman AB, Ramayah T, Molla A. Senior managers’ perception on green information systems (IS) adoption and environmental performance: Results from a field survey. Information & Management 2013; 50(7): 431–438. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2013.01.004

[14]. Gold AH, Malhotra A, Segars AH. Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 2001; 18(1): 185–214. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669

[15]. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006.

[16]. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, et al. Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2017; 45(5): 616–632. doi: 10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x

[17]. Halberstadt J, Kraus S. Social entrepreneurship: The foundation of tomorrow’s commercial business models? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 2016; 8(3): 261–279. doi: 10.1504/ijev.2016.078964

[18]. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2015; 43(1): 115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

[19]. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In: Sinkovics RR, Ghauri PN (editors). New Challenges to International Marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2009. pp. 277–319.

[20]. Hernndez Sampieri R, Fernndez Collado C, Baptista Lucio P. Research Methodology [Spanish]. McGraw-Hill Interamericana; 2006.

[21]. Karagozoglu N, Lindell M. Environmental management: Testing the win-win model. Journal of Environmental Planning Management 2000; 43(6): 817–829. doi: 10.1080/09640560020001700

[22]. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press; 2015.

[23]. Kraus S, Niemand T, Halberstadt J, et al. Social entrepreneurship orientation: Development of a measurement scale. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 2017; 23(6): 977–997. doi: 10.1108/ijebr-07-2016-0206

[24]. Law M, Stewart D, Letts L, et al. Guidelines for critical review of qualitative studies. Toronto: McMaster University occupational therapy evidence-based practice research Group.

[25]. Meyer JW, Rowan B. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 1977; 83(2): 340–363. doi: 10.1086/226550

[26]. Miller TL, Wesley CL. Assessing mission and resources for social change: An organizational identity perspective on social venture capitalists’ decision criteria. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 2010; 34(4): 705–733. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00388.x

[27]. Mittelstaedt JD, Shultz CJ, Kilbourne WE, Peterson M. Sustainability as megatrend: Two schools of macromarketing thought. Journal of Macromarketing 2014; 34(3): 253–264. doi: 10.1177/0276146713520551

[28]. Nyssens M. Social Enterprise. At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policy and Civil Society. Routledge; 2006.

[29]. Pathak S, Muralidharan E. Informal institutions and their comparative influences on social and commercial entrepreneurship: The role of in‐group collectivism and interpersonal trust. Journal of Small Business Management 2016; 54: 168–188. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12289

[30]. Peredo AM, Chrisman JJ. Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy of Management Review 2006; 31(2): 309–328. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.20208683

[31]. Rao P. Greening the supply chain: A new initiative in South East Asia. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 2002; 22(6): 632–655. doi: 10.1108/01443570210427668

[32]. Saebi T, Foss NJ, Linder S. Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management 45(1): 70–95. doi: 10.1177/0149206318793196

[33]. Sánchez-Mendiola M, Kieffer-Escobar LF, Marín-Beltrán S, et al. Teaching of evidence-based medicine to medical students in Mexico: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Medical Education 2012; 12(1): 107. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-107

[34]. Schaltegger S, Wagner M. Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment 2011; 20(4): 222–237. doi: 10.1002/bse.682

[35]. Scott WR. Institutions and Organizations (Foundations for Organizational Science). Sage Publications; 1995.

[36]. Scott WR. Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In: Smith KG, Hitt MA (editors). Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development. Oxford University Press; 2005.

[37]. Seelos C, Mair J, Battilana J, Tina Dacin M. The embeddedness of social entrepreneurship: Understanding variation across local communities. In: Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2010. pp. 333–363.

[38]. Sheehan, K. (2009). Institutional shareholder advocacy and executive remuneration: Rethinking the role of institutional shareholders as executive remuneration norm entrepreneurs. Conference Paper for UN Principles for Responsible Investment Academic Conference. Academic Conference.

[39]. Short JC, Ketchen DJ, Palmer TB. The role of sampling in strategic management research on performance: A two-study analysis. Journal of Management 2002; 28(3): 363–385. doi: 10.1177/014920630202800306

[40]. Short JC, McKelvie A, Ketchen DJ, Chandler GN. Firm and industry effects on firm performance: A generalization and extension for new ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 2009; 3(1): 47–65. doi: 10.1002/sej.53

[41]. Sinha P, Akoorie MEM. Sustainable environmental practices in the new zealand wine industry: An analysis of perceived institutional pressures and the role of exports. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 2010; 11(1): 50–74. doi: 10.1080/10599230903520186

[42]. Sivathanu B, Bhise PV. Challenges for social entrepreneurship. International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management Special (Issue), 1-9.

[43]. Siyal S, Peng X. Does leadership lessen turnover? The moderated mediation effect of leader-member exchange and perspective taking on public servants. Journal of Public Affairs 2018; 18(4): e1830. doi: 10.1002/pa.1830

[44]. Siyal S, Xin C, Peng X, et al. Why do high-performance human resource practices matter for employee outcomes in public sector universities? The mediating role of person-organization fit mechanism. SAGE Open 2020; 10(3): 1–12. doi: 10.1177/2158244020947424

[45]. Siyal S, Saeed M, Pahi MH, et al. They can’t treat you well under abusive supervision: investigating the impact of job satisfaction and extrinsic motivation on healthcare employees. Rationality and Society 2021; 33(4): 401–423. doi: 10.1177/10434631211033660

[46]. Siyal S, Xin C, Umrani WA, et al. How do leaders influence innovation and creativity in employees? The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Administration & Society 2021; 53(9): 1337–1361. doi: 10.1177/0095399721997427

[47]. Siyal S. Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Exploring the role of psychological safety and trust in leader in multiple organizational context. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility 2023; 32(4): 1170–1184. doi: 10.1111/beer.12556

[48]. Siyal S, Liu J, Ma L, et al. Does inclusive leadership influence task performance of hospitality industry employees? Role of psychological empowerment and trust in leader. Heliyon 2023; 9(5): e15507. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15507

[49]. Skoll foundation announces 2013 awards for social entrepreneurship. Available online: https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/skoll-foundation-announces-2013-awards-for-social-entrepreneurship (accessed on 30-01-2023).

[50]. Stephan U, Uhlaner LM, Stride C. Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies 2014; 46(3): 308–331. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2014.38

[51]. Stevens R, Moray N, Bruneel J. The social and economic mission of social enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation, and relation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 2015; 39(5): 1051–1082. doi: 10.1111/etap.12091

[52]. Dey P, Steyaert C. Social entrepreneurship: Critique and the radical enactment of the social. Social Enterprise Journal 2012; 8(2): 90–107. doi: 10.1108/17508611211252828

[53]. Teasdale S, McKay S, Phillimore J, Teasdal N. Exploring gender and social entrepreneurship: Women’s leadership, employment and participation in the third sector and social enterprises. Voluntary Sector Review 2011; 2(1): 57–76. doi: 10.1332/204080511x560620

[54]. Tzeng GH, Chiang CH, Li CW. Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications 2007; 32(4): 1028–1044. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2006.02.004

[55]. Voss ZG, Cable DM, Voss GB. Organizational identity and firm performance: What happens when leaders disagree about “who we are?”. Organization Science 2006; 17(6): 741–755. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0218

[56]. Zahra SA, Gedajlovic E, Neubaum DO, Shulman JM. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing 2009; 24(5): 519–532. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007

[57]. Zhu Q, Sarkis J. Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management 2004; 22(3): 265–289. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2004.01.005.

[58]. Wales, W. J., Covin, J. G., & Monsen, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a multilevel conceptualization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(4), 639-660.

[59]. Bouncken, R. B., Kraus, S., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Knowledge-and innovation-based business models for future growth: Digitalized business models and portfolio considerations. Review of Managerial Science, 15(1), 1-14.

[60]. Bullough, A., & Renko, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial resilience during challenging times. Business Horizons, 56(3), 343-350.

[61]. Khanna, M., Deltas, G., & Harrington, D. R. (2009). Adoption of pollution prevention techniques: the role of management systems and regulatory pressures. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44, 85-106.

[62]. Dampney, R. A. L., Coleman, M. J., Fontes, M. A. P., Hirooka, Y., Horiuchi, J., Li, Y. W., ... & Tagawa, T. (2002). Central mechanisms underlying short‐and long‐term regulation of the cardiovascular system. Clinical and experimental pharmacology and physiology, 29(4), 261-268.

[63]. Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2011). Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management. Journal of public administration research and theory, 21(2), 367-386.

[64]. Kabanoff, B., Waldersee, R., & Cohen, M. (1995). Espoused values and organizational change themes. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1075-1104.

[65]. Roskes, M., Elliot, A. J., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2013). Time pressure undermines performance more under avoidance than approach motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(6), 803-813.

[66]. Steinbruner, J. D. (2002). The cybernetic theory of decision: New dimensions of political analysis. Princeton University Press.

[67]. Conner, M., Smith, N., & McMillan, B. (2003). Examining normative pressure in the theory of planned behaviour: Impact of gender and passengers on intentions to break the speed limit. Current Psychology, 22, 252-263.

[68]. White, K. M., Hyde, M. K., Walsh, S. P., & Watson, B. (2010). Mobile phone use while driving: An investigation of the beliefs influencing drivers’ hands-free and hand-held mobile phone use. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 13(1), 9-20.

[69]. Wang, S., Gao, Y., Hodgkinson, G. P., Rousseau, D. M., & Flood, P. C. (2015). Opening the black box of CSR decision making: A policy-capturing study of charitable donation decisions in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 665-683.

[70]. Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of management, 29(3), 333-349.

[71]. Luke, B., & Verreynne, M. L. (2006). Exploring strategic entrepreneurship in the public sector. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3(1), 4-26.

[72]. Haugh, H. (2007). Community–led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(2), 161-182.

[73]. Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of world business, 41(1), 21-35.

[74]. Harjula, L. (2005). Tensions between venture capitalists' and business-social entrepreneurs' goals: Will bottom-of-the-pyramid strategies offer a solution?. Greener Management International, (51), 78-87.

[75]. Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to Ceos? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corpate performance, and Ceo values. Academy of management journal, 42(5), 507-525.

[76]. Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of business ethics, 111(3), 335-351.

[77]. Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of management journal, 43(5), 909-924.



21 Woodlands Close #02-10 Primz Bizhub Singapore 737854

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com