The Effect of Institutional Environment, General SelfEfficacy and Desirability On Social Entrepreneurship Intentions in Turkey

Kayabasi, Aydin; Karavelioglu, Ceren; Ozler, N. Derya Ergun Article The Effect of Institutional Environment, General SelfEfficacy and Desirability On Social Entrepreneurship Intentions in Turkey Istanbul Business Research (IBR) Provided in Cooperation with: Istanbul University, Business School Suggested Citation: Kayabasi, Aydin; Karavelioglu, Ceren; Ozler, N. Derya Ergun (2021) : The Effect of Institutional Environment, General SelfEfficacy and Desirability On Social Entrepreneurship Intentions in Turkey, Istanbul Business Research (IBR), ISSN 2630-5488, Istanbul University Press, Istanbul, Vol. 50, Iss. 2, pp. 411-434, https://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2021.50.859186 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/250267 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ RESEARCH ARTICLE Istanbul Business Research Istanbul Business Research, 50(2), 411-434 DOI: 10.26650/ibr.2021.50.859186 http://ibr.istanbul.edu.tr/ http://dergipark.gov.tr/ibr Submitted: 20.09.2021 Revision Requested: 24.09.2021 Last Revision Received: 30.09.2021 Accepted: 30.09.2021 Published Online: 27.10.2021 The Effect of Institutional Environment, General Self- Efficacy and Desirability On Social Entrepreneurship Intentions in Turkey Aydın Kayabaşı1 , Ceren Karavelioğlu2 , N. Derya Ergün Özler3 Abstract The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of the institutional environment on general self-efficacy and desirability as well as the impact of general self-efficacy and desirability on social entrepreneurship intentions. For data collection a structured questionnaire was used. In total 500 questionnaires were distributed among university students and 367 usable questionnaires were returned and analysed. The structural equation modelling was used to investigate the relationship between the study variables. The findings revealed significant relationships among the research variables. It was found that the dimension of the regulatory environment has a positive impact on desirability and the dimension of the cognitive environment has a positive impact on general self-efficacy. The findings also showed a positive relationship among general self-efficacy, desirability and social entrepreneurship intentions. This study was carried out by using a convenience sampling method on university students. Within the scope of the research, the variables of the institutional environment, general self-efficacy and desirability are discussed in terms of social entrepreneurship intention. The study provides a new understanding of the factors that affect the intention of social entrepreneurship and provides an insight into which variables can be prioritized in countries with problems such as environmental pollution, migration and unemployment. Keywords Institutional Environment, General Self-Efficacy, Desirability, Social Entrepreneurship Intentions 1 Corresponding Author: Aydın Kayabaşı (Prof.), Kütahya Dumlupınar University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Kütahya, Turkey. E-mail: aydin.ka[email protected].tr ORCID: 0000-0001-6955-7948 2 Ceren Karavelioğlu (Prof.), Kütahya Dumlupınar University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Kütahya, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-3984-6703 3 N. Derya Ergün Özler (Asst. Prof.), Kütahya Dumlupınar University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Kütahya, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected].tr ORCID: 0000-0001-9020-0206 To cite this article: Kayabasi, A., Karavelioglu, C., & Ergun Ozler, N. D. (2021). The Effect of Institutional Environment, General Self-Efficacy and Desirability on Social Entrepreneurship Intentions in Turkey. Istanbul Business Research, 50(2), 411-434. http://doi.org/10.26650/ibr.2021.50.859186 This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License Introduction Although innovative management and efficient operations can ensure financial sustainability, they alone are not enough to initiate social change. Nevertheless, with increasing interest in the social economy, it is recognized that these factors have the potential to provide a new or more equitable social balance (Urban, 2015). With the increase in social uncertainties around the world, the attention of researchers has been drawn to individuals’ and institutions’ developing innovative ideas for the creation and realization of social enterprises in order to achieve the long-term social welfare needed by societies (Omorede, 2014). Based on soci- Istanbul Business Research 50/2 412 al value creation and providing necessary funding and market-based strategies and tasks, social entrepreneurship has been tried to be used by almost all organizations (Helvacıoğlu, 2013). The classical literature on social entrepreneurship states that the achievement of longstanding social gains is one of the sole goals of social entrepreneurship, which emphasizes various factors (Omorede, 2014). Social entrepreneurship can be considered as a process that activates social change and varies according to socio-economic, institutional and cultural environments (Urban, 2015). Social entrepreneurship is thought to be a catalyst in the form of social capabilities, especially in terms of social welfare and economic inequalities. In this way, social entrepreneurship plays various roles (social, economic and political) in closing the gaps that may arise in order to achieve the desired social and economic development (Tiwari, Bhat and Tikoria, 2017; Zebryte and Hector, 2017; Hockerts, 2015). Social entrepreneurship has become a global phenomenon that influences society by using innovative approaches to solve social problems (Jiao, 2011). When macro-level business activities and social trends in the world are evaluated, it is stated that there is a significant change towards the reintegration of business-related activities into deeper social and environmental contexts (Urban and Kujinga, 2017). Works related to social entrepreneurship can be handled in the form of private sector, public sector and non-profit organizations or a hybrid of these (Roper and Cheney, 2005; Jiao, 2011; Petrella and Richez-Battesti, 2014). Identifying the factors that have an influence on social entrepreneurship behavior is especially important (Hockerts, 2015). Some studies in the literature include the way the institutional environment influences entrepreneurial families and the access to social capital (Estrada-Robles, Williams and Vorley, 2018), the role of gender in entrepreneurial intentions (Miranda et al., 2017), pioneers of social entrepreneurship (Lacap, Mulyaningsih and Ramadani, 2018), organizational social entrepreneurship (Kannampuzha and Hockerts, 2019), sustainable decision-ma- king in entrepreneurship (Muñoz, 2018), the impact of institutional environment on social entrepreneurship intentions (Urban and Kujinga, 2017) ), the relationship between individual self-efficacy beliefs and social activities (Urban, 2015), the effect of individual motivational factors on social entrepreneurship (Omorede, 2014), the factors that motivate and prevent entrepreneurship (Lee and Tai, 2010), the impact of institutional environment on entrepreneurship (Pinho and Thompson, 2017) and overcoming a challenging and weak institutional environment (Estrada-Robles, Williams and Vorley, 2018). Social and community entrepreneurship has started to attract further attention in recent years (Sundin, 2011). It is stated that most of the studies related to entrepreneurship focus on micro level explanations, namely behavioral factors such as cognition, emotions and being influenced (or their combination). It is also clear that there is a need to interpret entrepreneurship in the context in which it occurs. This includes the institutional context of the economic, political and cultural environment in which the entrepreneur operates (Welter and Smallbone, 2011). In recent years it is stated that attention for social entrepreneurship increases in Turkey as well (Taş and Şemşek, 2017). Kayabaşı, Karavelioğlu, Ergün Özler / The Effect of Institutional Environment, General Self-Efficacy and Desirability On Social... 413 Although there is no unity in the social entrepreneurship policies in Turkey, there has been a promising trend thanks to the support of the European Union (British Council, 2019). However, due to the lack of legal and institutional infrastructure social entrepreneurship activities have been carried out in a limited way in Turkey (Işık, 2015). Thus, there are some theoretical and practical contributions of this study in the context of Turkey by analysing both individual and institutional subjects. As being the variables important for social entrepreneurship, the institutional environment, general self-efficacy and desirability are dealt with relationally. In this way, a different perspective can be gained in terms of understanding and applying the factors for social entrepreneurship. This study aims to examine the effect of perceptions to institutional environment and general self-efficacy on social entrepreneurship intentions. In this respect, answers to the following research questions will be sought: RQ1: Do the elements of an institutional environment have an impact on general selfefficacy? RQ2: Do the elements of the corporate environment have an impact on desirability? RQ3: Does perceived general self-efficacy have an impact on social entrepreneurship intentions? RQ4: Does desirability have an impact on social entrepreneurship intentions? Literature Review and Research Hypotheses Social entrepreneurship, institutional environment and general self-efficacy concepts will be attempted to be explained in order to form the theoretical structure of the research. Following theoretical explanations, the relational structure between social entrepreneurship and institutional environment and psychological self-efficacy perception will be established, and research hypotheses will be developed. The Concepts of Social Entrepreneurship and Social Entrepreneurship Intentions The concept of social entrepreneurship has gained popularity in the US and Europe starting from the 1990s (Petrella and Richez-Battesti, 2014) and it is deemed a sub-discipline of entrepreneurship (Tran and Von Korflesch, 2016). Social entrepreneurship is a comprehensive concept on which there is no consensus (Hockerts, 2006; Omorede, 2014; Politis et al., 2016). This concept has been defined differently in various studies and its boundaries are not clear-cut (Mair and Marti, 2006). Conceptually, it appears that social entrepreneurship can be used in various fields such as economy, education, welfare and social activities (Urban and Kujinga, 2017). According to Weerawardena and Mont (2006), social entrepreneurship is Istanbul Business Research 50/2 414 dealt within the context of non-profit organizations and defined as a behavioral phenomenon which aims to provide social value by taking advantage of perceived opportunities. According to Hockerts (2006), social entrepreneurship at the individual level focuses on those who drive social change and innovation. In their study, Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern (2012) describe social entrepreneurship as an innovative and social value-creating activity that can take place in non-profit organizations, businesses or the public sector. Social entrepreneurs, by definition, focus on problems stemming from deficiencies in existing markets and social welfare systems and strive to create systematic changes and sustainable improvements (Urban and Kujinga, 2017). Social entrepreneurship is often referred to as a collective process, which depends on the participation of many different actors (Sundin, 2011). It is understood that the common point in the definitions is the focus on social value in various fields (Petrovskaya and Mirakyan, 2018; Tillmar, 2009; Petrella and Richez-Battesti, 2014). Therefore, the results of social entrepreneurship and the measurement of results differ from traditional entrepreneurship (El Ebrashi, 2013). Accordingly, it is possible to construct a social value framework. The Social Value Creation Framework (SVCF) is presented as a Venn diagram in Figure 1 below. In the figure, opportunity, which is a starting point for entrepreneurship, is located in the upper circle. The other two circles, which are human and capital, are elements that activate resources. This scheme displays the interdependent structure of the three elements, namely opportunity, human and capital. The Social Value Creation Framework (SVCF) stands in the centre as the unifying variable. Others consist of contextual forces that surround and shape the three circles and require analysis by the entrepreneur (Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern, 2012). Figure 1. Social Value Creation Framework (SVCF) Source: Adapted from Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern (2012). Kayabaşı, Karavelioğlu, Ergün Özler / The Effect of Institutional Environment, General Self-Efficacy and Desirability On Social... 415 Social entrepreneurship is defined as downsizing ideas to the organizational dimension in order to create social change and value (Helvacıoğlu, 2013: 200). Here, the attention should be paid to how opportunities are defined and exploited, what these entrepreneurs will do, what will be achieved for the community, what similarities and differences exist with traditional entrepreneurs, the meaning of individual social entrepreneurship and the determination of the characteristics of entrepreneurs (Omorede, 2014). Researchers argue that in addition to the economic purpose that encourages entrepreneurs’ innovation and activates structural changes in the economy, entrepreneurs have also begun to target a social component as well as business goals (Urban and Kujinga, 2017). Studies related to entrepreneurship intentions are conducted on the axis of the theory of planned behavior, expectation theory, temporal construal theory (Hallam et al., 2012), behavior oriented theories such as cognitive psychology (Welsh and Krueger, 2012) and entrepreneurial motivation theory (Solesvik, 2013), entrepreneurial activity model, entrepreneurial attitude focus model, entrepreneurial potential model, Davidson model (Guerrero, Rialp and Urbano, 2008) and Shapero model (Veciana, Aponte and Urbano, 2005). It is stated that there is no generally accepted theory to explain the intentions of individuals to become an entrepreneur (Solesvik, 2013). Social entrepreneurship is based on intentions. Entrepreneurship intentions are known to be a precursor of future entrepreneurship activities of individuals (Hallam et al., 2016). Entrepreneurship intentions are defined as the mental orientation (desire, wish and hope) that triggers the choice of entrepreneurship (Shahab et al., 2019). Intentions have been proven to be the best predictors of individual behaviour, especially when behaviour is rarely observed and when it includes unpredictable time delays that are difficult to observe (Miranda et al., 2017). A person’s willingness to act is almost always influenced by our perceptions of how important people in our lives will support our decision (Welsh and Krueger, 2012). Considering that intent is a precursor of behaviour, it is very important to analyse the relevance of social entrepreneurship intentions tending to behaviours related to activities that create social value individually and institutionally. Institutional Environment Entrepreneurship is an important issue that has been extensively studied from a variety of perspectives at the micro level (Welter and Smallbone, 2011; Estrada-Robles, Williams and Vorley, 2018). Studies on entrepreneurship have recently focused on the relationship betwe- en institutional factors or environmental factors and entrepreneurship (Diaz-Casero, 2012; Urban and Kujinga, 2017). The main reason underlying this is the increasing efforts by the state institutions to promote entrepreneurship (Shahab et al., 2019) and the emphasis on social entrepreneurship as a concept (Urban and Kujinga, 2017). The institutional structure in the society is seen as informal and formal (Urban and Kujinga, 2017; Urban, 2013; Welter and Smallbone, 2011). Institutions constitute the “rules of the game in a society.” This situation Istanbul Business Research 50/2 416 can significantly reduce uncertainty and risk for entrepreneurs when used consistently and efficiently. At the same time, transaction costs related to entrepreneurship may decrease. While in the formal institutional structure, the constitutional, legal and organizational framework is defined, codes of conduct, values and norms are referred to in the informal institutional structure (Welter and Smallbone, 2011; Toledano, 2011). It is stated that environmental factors with various social, economic and institutional components affect entrepreneurship intentions (Miranda et al., 2017; Otache, 2019). Governments try to support and ensure the initiatives’ success through training programs which address attitudes towards businesses in terms of economic development, unemployment, social value and solving social problems, resources, regulatory and institutional barriers, and obstacles in front of entrepreneurs (Solesvik, 2013). In a country, institutional structure plays a very important role in carrying out some activities. The institutional structure ranges from the mass media to the education system, from the press to the trade unions and the government. Researchers argue that entrepreneurial behavior is integrated into the institutional structure. Transparent legal frameworks are therefore largely dependent on the entrepreneurship opportunities supported by the protection of property rights and so on (Turkina, and Thi Thanh Thai, 2013). The interpretation of entrepreneurship in the context in which it takes place involves the institutional context of the economic, political and cultural environment where entrepreneurs operate (Welter and Smallbone, 2011). The institutional framework of a society encompasses the basic political, social and legal rules that form the basis of production and distribution. Individuals and organizations must abide by the basic rules if they intend to receive support and legitimacy for their social activities (Urban, 2013). It is widely recognized that entrepreneurial activities are enabled or restricted by government agencies (i.e. laws, regulations and policies) and informal institutions within an economy (e.g. norms, values and codes of conduct) (Estrada-Robles, Williams and Vorley, 2018). It is stated that institutional environmental elements are one of the important precursors for social entrepreneurship (Jiao, 2011). It is argued that the institutional environment generally includes three main components: regulative, normative and cognitive (Urban and Kujinga, 2017; Urban, 2013; Seelos et al., 2011; Sine and David, 2010; Pinho and Thompson, 2017). These three dimensions of the institutional environment are guided by various elements (cultures, structures and routines) and function within more than one jurisdiction (Gupta et al., 2014). Regulative Institutional Environment: It includes the capacity to create laws, taxes, regulations, and government programs that promote and regulate certain behaviours and restrict others (Pinho and Thompson, 2017). These are determined, monitored and implemented through government policies, when necessary, by formal and informal rules (Amine and Staub, 2009). Uncertainties regarding the regulatory context may affect the entrepreneur’s level of motivation for the sustainability of the activity (Seelos et al., 2011). It is stated that well- Kayabaşı, Karavelioğlu, Ergün Özler / The Effect of Institutional Environment, General Self-Efficacy and Desirability On Social... 417 thought policies have significant effects on entrepreneurship (Farooq et al., 2018). Regulatory factors have been found to affect the feasibility and desirability of social entrepreneurship (Urban and Kujinga, 2017). If a person has the perception that entrepreneurship is difficult and risky, useless or unattractive in his/her country, his/her attitude towards entrepreneurship may be negative (Solesvik, 2013). It has been determined that there is a positive relationship between the government regulations on entrepreneurship programs and starting a business (Pinho and Thompson, 2017). In addition, it is stated that the institutional environment has an influence on entrepreneurship (Gökbulut Özdemir, 2013). The research hypotheses to be tested within the scope of this research related to regulatory environment are as follows: H1: Regulatory environment affects general self-efficacy. H2: Regulatory environment affects desirability. Normative Institutional Environment: Entrepreneurs exist in a social environment. Individuals are highly likely to adhere to acceptable behaviours in their environment (Solesvik, 2013). The normative dimension of the institutional environment explains the norms of behavior that individuals must obey and show what is valued in a particular society (Sambharya and Musteen, 2014). According to another definition, a normative environment expresses the perspectives of people living in a country towards entrepreneurship and innovative activities (Urban and Kujinga, 2017). Therefore, countries try to shape the values and behaviours of individuals towards entrepreneurship positively (Urban, 2013). Individuals are influenced by two kinds of norms in their decisions. One of these is prudential social norms, which refer to the perception of behaviours endorsed by others. The other is descriptive social norms, which refer to one’s perception of what others are actually doing. Although these two concepts are related to each other, they actually represent different situations. Prudential social norms mobilize people through social evaluation. On the other hand, descriptive social norms mobilize people through social information. Descriptive social norms function as initiating norm-compliant behaviour. The message perceived by the individual is “If many people are doing this, it is probably an appropriate thing” (Cialdini, 2007). It is stated that the normative environment is effective on entrepreneurship (Arasti, Pasvishe, and Motavaseli, 2012). In the literature, there are investigations as to the effect of normative environment on productivity and innovation (Go´mez-Haro et al., 2011), its effect on feasibility and desirability (Urban and Kujinga, 2017), its effect on perception of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Urban, 2013) and entrepreneurship intentions (Arasti) , Pasvishe, and Motavaseli, 2012) and comparison of institutional environment and entrepreneurship internationally (Sambharya and Musteen, 2014). The research hypotheses to be tested within the scope of this research related to normative environment are as follows: H3: Normative environment affects general self-efficacy. H4: Normative environment affects desirability. Istanbul Business Research 50/2 418 Cognitive Institutional Environment: This dimension of the institutional environment explains the ideologies, logic, or cognitive characteristics that are widespread and deeply embedded in a social environment. The cognitive dimension reveals accepted assumptions about specific processes and organizational forms. The business plan includes general assumptions about how things are done in areas such as the importance of the organization, activities, partners and employees (Sine and David, 2010). Cognitive institutions report axiomatic beliefs about the expected standards of behaviour specific to a culture learned through social interactions, typically by living or growing in a community or community. Basically, the entrepreneur’s cognitive perspective enables researchers to understand how entrepreneurs think and why they do things (Urban, 2013). Researchers build on the cognitive processes and characteristics of entrepreneurs that influence the discovery and use of a business idea, entrepreneurial development and continuity (Gökbulut Özdemir, 2013). Cognitive institutions shape entrepreneurial activities through knowledge that is widely accepted socially. This dimension is related to creating a cultural environment in which social entrepreneurs are accepted, encouraged and glorified (Pinho and Thompson, 2017). In some studies, the relationship between cognitive elements and feasibility and desirability of social entrepreneurship (Urban and Kujinga, 2017), the effect of cognitive elements on psychological self-efficacy (Urban, 2013) and the effect of cognitive element on starting a business (Pinho and Thompson, 2017) were tried to be determined. The research hypotheses to be tested within the scope of this research related to cognitive environment are as follows: H5: Cognitive environment affects general self-efficacy. H6: Cognitive environment affects desirability. General Self-Efficacy and Desirability Self-efficacy is one of the concepts addressed in studies that examine areas such as career choice and entrepreneurship (Farrukh et al., 2017). Self-efficacy can be defined as a person’s skills and competences to accomplish an assigned job and a set of specific tasks (Shabab et al., 2019). Since this study is designed within the scope of social entrepreneurship, the definition of social entrepreneurship self-efficacy made by TranTran and Von Korflesch (2016) has been used. According to this definition, social entrepreneurship self-efficacy is a dynamic set of beliefs about the success of starting and realizing a new social enterprise. Self-efficacy is an important motivational structure that affects individual choices, goals, emotional reactions, effort, overcoming a problem, and persistence (Urban, 2013). Desirability is a product of the social and cultural environment for entrepreneurship. Knowledge of this part of the environment can and should be used by public policy decision makers to take action (Veciana, Aponte and Urbano, 2005). Table 1 below presents the comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior of Shapero and Ajzen. Kayabaşı, Karavelioğlu, Ergün Özler / The Effect of Institutional Environment, General Self-Efficacy and Desirability On Social... 425 The construct validity is necessary to verify a measurement model. Construct validity includes evaluation of content validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and nomological validity (Hair, et al., 2014b; Huang et al., 2013). Content validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and nomological validity were evaluated within the scope of the validity of the study. It was assumed that content validity was achieved by adapting the research scales from the studies in the literature (Ramseook-Munhurrun, Seebaluck and Naidoo, 2015). As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis performed, it was determined that factor loads (>0.50), t values (>2.58) and composite reliability (>0.70) values were within the acceptable limits (Hair, et al., 2014). In the variance values extracted, it is seen that some dimensions (PSE, REN, DES) were below the acceptable limits (<0.50). In their study, Fornell and Larcker (1981) reported that AVE should be greater than 0.50, but if the composite reliability value is greater than 0.60, the value of 0.40 could also be accepted. According to these values, it is possible to express that convergent validity was provided for. The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis are shown in Table 4 below. Table 4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results Dimensions λ t values AV E CR SEI Social Entrepreneurship Intentions (SEI) 0.58 - 0.81 11.62 - 17.98 0.536 0.889 GSE General Self-Efficacy (GSE) 0.55 - 0.74 10.61 - 15.38 0.420 0.834 REN Regulatory Environment (REN) 0.66 - 0.70 11.77 - 14.33 0.468 0.778 NEN Normative Environment (NEN) 0.53 - 0.88 10.20 - 17.39 0.524 0.809 CEN Cognitive Environment (CEN) 0.53 - 0.80 9.94 - 16.49 0.501 0.797 DES Desirability (DES) 0.65 - 0.78 12.40 - 15.37 0.489 0.740 Correlation and AVE square root values related to discriminant validities are shown in Table 4 below. According to the data in Table 4, AVE square root values were determined to be higher than the highest inter-dimensional correlation value (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and the divergent validity was achieved. Finally, logical validity was also provided with the finding of statistically significant inter-dimensional relationships. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, it is possible to state that the measurement model fit values are within the acceptable limits. Model fit values were measured as χ2= 726.29, χ2/ df = 2.01, RMSEA = 0.053, NFI = 0.93, NNFI = 0.096, CFI = 0.96, and GFI = 0.88. Therefore, it can be said that there is a harmony between the model and the data according to all compliance indicators (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Bagozzi et al. 1991). Istanbul Business Research 50/2 426 Table 5 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Dimensions Mean S.D. SEI PSE REN NEN CEN DES SEI 3.27 0.88 0.732 GSE 3.01 0.61 0.324** 0.648 REN 3.36 0.82 0.300** 0.100 0.684 NEN 3.16 1.02 0.303** 0.114* 0.551** 0.723 CEN 3.16 0.82 0.251** 0.224** 0.386** 0.387** 0.707 DES 3.73 0.83 0.597** 0.296** 0.255** 0.247** 0.214** 0.699 ** P<0.01; * P0.05; ns: Bold: AVE Square Root Values Testing the Structural Model The second step in confirmatory factor analysis is to test the structural model. Structural equation model was used to test the research hypotheses developed for the purpose of the study. According to Schumacker and Lomax, (2004), the structural equation model (SEM) is a multivariate statistical method that uses various models to demonstrate the relationships between observed variables in order to perform a quantitative test of a theoretical model assumed by a researcher. Byrne (2013), on the other hand, defines the structural equation model as a statistical methodology that provides a confirmatory (i.e. hypothesis testing) approach to the analysis of a structural theory based on certain phenomena. In this study, the effect of institutional environment elements on perceived self-efficacy and desirability and the effect of perceived self-efficacy and desirability on social entrepreneurship intentions were tested with structural equation modelling. The Structural Model is shown in Figure 4 below. V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24 V25 V26 NEN 0.53 0.62 0.88 0.81 CEN 0.77 0.80 0.70 0.53 V15 V16 V17 V18 REN 0.71 0.71 0.62 0.69 V8 GSE V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 0.74 0.69 0.71 0.61 0.63 0.57 0.55 DES 0.65 0.64 0.78 V27 V28 V29 SEI V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 0.80 0.79 0.75 0.67 0.72 0.74 0.57 0.08 / 0.72 -0.04 / -0.42 0.25 / 3.40 0.28 / 2.62 0.04 / 0.37 0.71 / 9.39 0.16 / 3.33 Chi-Square= 769,33, df=365, p Value=0.0000, RMSEA=0.055, NFI=0.93, NNFI=0.96, CFI=0.96, GFI=0.87 0.12 / 1.67 Figure 4. Structural Model Kayabaşı, Karavelioğlu, Ergün Özler / The Effect of Institutional Environment, General Self-Efficacy and Desirability On Social... 427 According to the results of the structural model test, the regulatory environment had an effect on desirability, while the cognitive environment affected perceived self-efficacy. On the other hand, it was determined that perceived self-efficacy and desirability influenced social entrepreneurship intentions. When model fit values were examined, χ2= 769.33, χ2/ df = 2.10, RMSEA = 0.055, NFI = 0.93, NNFI = 0.096, CFI = 0.96, and GFI = 0.87 were measured. It is seen that the model fit values are within the acceptable limits (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Bagozzi et al. 1991). The values of the path coefficients and the model explanation power for the research hypotheses are shown in Table 6 below. Table 6 Research Hypotheses Results Hypotheses Structural Path Path Coefficients t values Conclusion H1 REN GSE 0.08 0.72 Rejected H2 REN DES 0.28 2.62 Supported H3 NEN GSE -0.04 0.42 Rejected H4 NEN DES 0.04 0.37 Rejected H5 CEN GSE 0.25 3.40 Supported H6 CEN DES 0.12 1.67 Rejected H7 GSE SEI 0.16 3.33 Supported H8 DES SEI 0.71 9.39 Supported Discussion and Future Research This study was conducted to test the causal relationship between institutional environmental elements, perceived self-efficacy, desirability and social entrepreneurship intentions. Firstly, the effects of regulatory environment, normative environment and cognitive environment elements, which are expressed as elements of institutional environment, on general perceived self-efficacy and desirability were tested. Then, the effect of general perceived selfefficacy and desirability on social entrepreneurship intentions were examined. When H1, H3 and H5 hypotheses were evaluated, it was determined that the regulatory environment and cognitive environment, which are the elements of an institutional environment, had a statistically significant effect on general perceived self-efficacy. This result can be explained by the regulatory elements that promote or limit entrepreneurship, and how they can affect the belief that an enterprise can be achieved individually, depending on how entrepreneurship is socially perceived or appreciated. When the studies in the literature are considered, it is stated that the institutional environment affects entrepreneurship (Gökbulut Özdemir, 2013). The result reached in the study is inline with the results found in other studies regarding the negative effect of a person’s perceived challenges in the country’s entrepreneurship on his/her attitude towards entrepreneurship (Solesvik, 2013), and the effect of regulatory Istanbul Business Research 50/2 428 factors on feasibility and desirability for social entrepreneurship (Urban and Kujinga, 2017). In addition, Pinho and Thompson (2017) determined in their study that there is a positive relationship between the regulations for entrepreneurship programs and starting a business. When H2, H4 and H6 hypotheses were evaluated, it was determined that the regulatory environment, one of the institutional environment elements, had a statistically significant effect on the desirability for social entrepreneurship (p<0.05). According to this result, it is thought that government programs or training that encourage or regulate entrepreneurship can improve the desirability of entrepreneurship. The conclusion reached is in line with the conclusion that Urban and Kujinga, (2017) obtained in their study, which stated that the regulatory environment affects desirability and feasibility. Similarly, it is also possible to claim that the conclusion is consistent with the proposition that there is a positive relationship between the government’s regulations for entrepreneurship programs and the starting of a business (Pinho and Thompson, 2017) and that the institutional environment affects entrepreneurship (Gökbulut Özdemir, 2013). Omorede (2014) states that people who engage in social entrepreneurship activities not only see social deficiencies, but also make decisions by being influenced by different factors and processes. When H7 and H8 hypotheses were evaluated, it was determined that perceived self-efficacy and desirability of social entrepreneurship had a statistically significant effect on social entrepreneurship intentions (p<0.05). This result was interpreted as an intention to engage in social entrepreneurship if an individual believes that he/she has the skills and abilities to perform social entrepreneurship and has the desire to engage in social entrepreneurship. Selfefficacy perception is one of the most reliable predictors of goal-oriented behaviors (Hallam et al., 2016) and perceived desirability is one of the most powerful elements for understanding and explaining entrepreneurial intentions (Urban and Kujinga, (2017)). The results of the study are similar to those obtained in other studies which found that perceived selfefficacy is related to short- and long-term entrepreneurial intentions (Hallam et al., 2016), that feasibility and desirability affect social entrepreneurial intentions (Urban and Kujinga, 2017), that perceived self-efficacy affects entrepreneurial intentions (Zhao, Seibert and Hills, 2005), that the reliability explained by desirability and self-efficacy has an impact on entrepreneurial intentions (Guerrero, Rialp and Urbano, 2008), and that attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control are effective on entrepreneurial intentions (Solesvik, 2013). The environmental and social problems experienced in the world show that the need for social enterprises is becoming more and more important. In this context, when the research results are evaluated, it is important to focus on the practices that will direct individuals to social enterprises. In the context of the institutional environment, it is necessary to analyse the regulatory, normative and cognitive aspects and clarify the points that affect social entrepreneurship. In this way, individuals’ general self-efficacy perception and their desirability Kayabaşı, Karavelioğlu, Ergün Özler / The Effect of Institutional Environment, General Self-Efficacy and Desirability On Social... 429 towards social entrepreneurship can be directed. It will also be possible to shape individual intentions and behaviours by focusing on areas such as education and social support (Hockerts, 2015). According to literature in recent years, there has been increasing interest in social entrepreneurship in Turkey, but it is stated that there is not enough infrastructure for social entrepreneurship (Işık, 2015). With the rapid implementation of legal and institutional structural arrangements, social entrepreneurship can be encouraged. In addition, it needs to be supported in the individual’s perceived feasibility and perceived self-efficacy. It is clear that Turkey’s especially encouraging social entrepreneurship-oriented work in the corporate restructuring will construct its own system of support and the European Union. It is important to ensure the government, individual and institutional unity in making best practices related to social entrepreneurship. In this context, all stakeholders should act jointly on the basis of the institutional structure. Therefore, first of all, the role of an institutional environment is of great importance to be established of sustainability for social entrepreneurship and gaining social entrepreneurship spirit to individuals. At this point, governments need to formulate a new strategy for social entrepreneurship. Thus, mechanisms that will act integrally in increasing social welfare can be activated. The analysis of individual traits is extremely important in establishing such a strategy. This study emphasizes two aspects that can be addressed by social enterprises and governments: institutional and individual. Within the framework of these two points, the economic, educational and sociological policies required to promote social initiatives should be implemented. In this way, more efficient results will be achieved with the cooperation to be established between various institutions and individuals. This study presents an institutional and perceptual conceptual model related to social entrepreneurship. Scientific studies play a major role in perception and understanding of social entrepreneurship. These studies for social entrepreneurship in Turkey, it is reported to remain limited in the field of educational sciences, sociology and business (British Council, 2019). In terms of the studies to be conducted in Turkey, it is also important to attract the interest and attention of different disciplines for social entrepreneurship. The future scope of work to be done in Turkey in the field of social entrepreneurship, researchers can benefit from models with the integration of individual and institutional factors. The results obtained from this study show that perception of feasibility and perceived self-efficacy is an important determinant of social entrepreneurship. In addition, the results of this study can be supported by qualitative research. In addition, new variables can be added to the variables used or the same variables can be verified by mixed research. In addition, according to the demographic variables, research related to the social entrepreneurship behavior, attitudes and intention will be able to theoretically and practically contribute to the practitioners and politicians. Istanbul Business Research 50/2 430 Limitations and Implications for Future Research This study has some limitations. One of the main limitations of this study is that it is handled within the scope of attitude, perception and intention towards social entrepreneurship. The way to compensate for this limitation is to deal with actual social entrepreneurship behavior as well. Using the convenience sampling method is another limitation of the study as it is not aimed for generalization. In addition to this, the units of the study are students. Therefore, it may be suggested to researchers to conduct research on different sample units. Within the scope of the research, the variables of the institutional environment, general self-efficacy and desirability are discussed in terms of social entrepreneurship intention. In addition to these variables, analyzing demographic characteristics such as education and income level may yield interesting results. It is also recommended to researchers considering that examining the emotional aspects of social entrepreneurship can produce interesting results and solutions. Acknowledge We would like to thank the journal editor and two anonymous IBR reviewers for their suggestions and comments for organizing, structuring and improving the quality of this manuscript. Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed. Conflict of Interest: The author has no conflict of interest to declare. Grant Support: The author declared that this study has received no financial support. Author Contributions: Conception/Design of study: A.K., C.K. N.D.E.Ö.; Data Acquisition: A.K., C.K. N.D.E.Ö.; Data Analysis/ Interpretation: A.K., C.K. N.D.E.Ö.; Drafting Manuscript: A.K., C.K. N.D.E.Ö.; Critical Revision of Manuscript: A.K., C.K. N.D.E.Ö.; Final Approval and Accountability: A.K., C.K. N.D.E.Ö. References Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M. M., Ahmad, Z., Shaukat, M. Z., Usman, A., Rehman, W. U. and Ahmed, N. (2010). Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial career intentions: Evidence from business graduates. European Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2), 14-22. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 27-58. Amine, L. S. and Staub, K. M. (2009). Women entrepreneurs in sub-Saharan Africa: An institutional theory analysis from a social marketing point of view. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(2), 183- 211. Arasti, Z., Pasvishe, F. A. and Motavaseli, M. (2012). Normative institutional factors affecting entrepreneurial intention in iranian information technology sector. Journal of Management and Strategy, 3(2), 16. Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2012). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?. Revista de Administração, 47(3), 370-384. Kayabaşı, Karavelioğlu, Ergün Özler / The Effect of Institutional Environment, General Self-Efficacy and Desirability On Social... 431 Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y. and Philips, L. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organisational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421-458. British Council, Turkiye, (2019). Situation of Social Venture in Turkey. https://www.britishcouncil.org.tr/ programmes/education/social-enterprise-research (Access: 13.11.2019). Buli, B. M. and Yesuf, W. M. (2015). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: Technical-vocational education and training students in Ethiopia. Education+Training, 57(8/9), 891-907. Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, And Programming. Routledge. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72(2), 263. Díaz-Casero, J.C., Ferreira, J.J.M., Mogollón, R.H. and Raposo, M.L.B. (2012). Influence of institutional environment on entrepreneurial intention: a comparative study of two countries university students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(1), pp. 55-74. El Ebrashi, R. (2013), “Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact”, Social Responsibility Journal, 9(2), 188-209. Estrada-Robles,M., Williams, N. and Vorley, T. (2018). Navigating institutional challenges inMexico: the role of social capital in entrepreneurial families. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, available at: https://doi-org.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2017-0180. Farooq, M. S., Salam, M., ur Rehman, S., Fayolle, A., Jaafar, N. and Ayupp, K. (2018). Impact of support from social network on entrepreneurial intention of fresh business graduates: A structural equation modelling approach. Education+Training, 60(4), 335-353. Farrukh, M., Khan, A. A., Shahid Khan, M., Ravan Ramzani, S. and Soladoye, B. S. A. (2017). Entrepreneurial intentions: the role of family factors, personality traits and self-efficacy. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 13(4), 303-317. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Gómez-Haro, S., Aragón-Correa, J. A. and Cordón-Pozo, E. (2011). Differentiating the effects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship. Management Decision, 49(10), 1677-1693. Gökbulut Özdemir, Ö. (2013). Entrepreneurial marketing and social value creation in Turkish art industry: An ambidextrous perspective. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 39-60. Guerrero, M., Rialp, J. and Urbano, D. (2008). The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: A structural equation model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(1), 35-50. Gupta, V. K., Guo, C., Canever, M., Yim, H. R., Sraw, G. K. and Liu, M. (2014). Institutional environment for entrepreneurship in rapidly emerging major economies: the case of Brazil, China, India, and Korea. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(2), 367-384. Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014a). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research”, European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. Hair, Jr. J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2014b). Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th edition. Pearson New International Edition, UK. Istanbul Business Research 50/2 432 Hallam, C., Zanella, G., Dorantes Dosamantes, C. A. and Cardenas, C. (2016). Measuring entrepreneurial intent? Temporal construal theory shows it depends on your timing. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 22(5) 671-697. Helvacıoğlu, E. (2013). Social entrepreneurship dimensions of Libraries. Bilgi Dünyası, 14(1), 199-203. Hockerts K. (2006). Entrepreneurial Opportunity in Social Purpose Business Ventures. In: Mair J., Robinson J., Hockerts K. (eds) Social Entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Hockerts, K. (2015). The social entrepreneurial antecedents scale (SEAS): A validation study. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(3), 260-280. Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. Huang, C. C., Wang, Y. M., Wu, T. W. and Wang, P. A. (2013). An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the moodle platform. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 217. Işık, V. (2015). Analysis of social venture structuring in Turkey: A Field Study on Ashoka Fellow Social Initiatives. Journal of Karatahta Business Writing, 1(1): 63-76. Jerusalem, M. and Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal processes. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 195-213). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Jiao, H. (2011). A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship directed toward social impact on society. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(2), 130-149. Kannampuzha, M. and Hockerts, K. (2019). Organizational social entrepreneurship: scale development and validation. Social Enterprise Journal. Emerald Publishing Ltd. 1750-8614. Lacap, J. P. G., Mulyaningsih, H. D. and Ramadani, V. (2018). The mediating effects of social entrepreneurial antecedents on the relationship between prior experience and social entrepreneurial intent: The case of Filipino and Indonesian university students. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 9(3), 329-346. Lee, J. W. and Tai, S. W. (2010). Motivators and inhibitors of entrepreneurship and small business development in Kazakhstan. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6(1/2), 61-75. Liñán, F. and Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593-617. Liñán, F. and Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analysis, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 907-933. Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U. and Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 439-457. Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44. Miranda, F. J., Chamorro-Mera, A., Rubio, S. and Pérez-Mayo, J. (2017). Academic entrepreneurial intention: the role of gender. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 66-86. Muñoz, P. (2018). A cognitive map of sustainable decision-making in entrepreneurship: A configurational approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 24(3), 787-813. Omorede, A. (2014). Exploration of motivational drivers towards social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Kayabaşı, Karavelioğlu, Ergün Özler / The Effect of Institutional Environment, General Self-Efficacy and Desirability On Social... 433 Journal, 10(3), 239-267. Otache, I. (2019). Enhancing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education: the role of entrepreneurial lecturers. Education+Training, 61(7/8), 918-939. Petrella, F. and Richez-Battesti, N. (2014). Social entrepreneur, social entrepreneurship and social enterprise: semantics and controversies. Journal of Innovation Economics Management, 2(14), 143-156. Petrovskaya, I. and Mirakyan, A. (2018). A mission of service: social entrepreneur as a servant leader. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 24(3), 755-767. Pihie, Z.A.L., (2009). Entrepreneurship as a career choice: An analysis of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention of university students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 338-349. Pinho, J. C. M. and Thompson, D. (2017). Institutional-driven dimensions and the capacity to start a business: A preliminary study based on two countries. International Marketing Review, 34(6), 787-813. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5). 879-903. Politis, K., Ketikidis, P., Diamantidis, A. D. and Lazuras, L. (2016). An investigation of social entrepreneurial intentions formation among South-East European postgraduate students. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(4), 1120-1141. Ramseook-Munhurrun, P., Seebaluck, V. N. and Naidoo, P. (2015). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist satisfaction and loyalty: case of Mauritius. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 252-259. Roper, J. and Cheney, G. (2005). The meanings of social entrepreneurship today. Corporate Governance, 5(3), 95-104. Sambharya, R. and Musteen, M. (2014). Institutional environment and entrepreneurship: An empirical study across countries”, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 314-330. Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2004). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Second Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey. Seelos, C., Mair, J., Battilana, J. and Tina Dacin, M. (2011). The embeddedness of social entrepreneurship: understanding variation across local communities. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 33(4), 333-363. Shahab, Y., Chengang, Y., Arbizu, A. D. and Haider, M. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: do entrepreneurial creativity and education matter?. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 25(2), 259-280. Sine, W.D. and David, R.J. (2010). Institutions and entrepreneurship. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Research in the Sociology of Work, 21, 1–26. Solesvik, M. Z. (2013). Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: investigating the role of education major. Education+Training, 55(3), 253-271. Sundin, E. (2011). Entrepreneurship and social and community care. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 5(3), 212-222. Taş, H.Y. and Şemşek, İ. (2017). Examples from Turkey and the world on social entrepreneurship and contribution to employment, HAK-İŞ International Journal of Labour and Society, 6(6): 481-497. Tillmar, M. (2009). Societal entrepreneurs in the health sector: crossing the frontiers. Social Enterprise Jo- Istanbul Business Research 50/2 434 urnal, 5(3), 282-298. Tiwari, P., Bhat, A.K. and Tikoria, J. (2017). An empirical analysis of the factors affecting social entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 7(9), 1-25. Toledano, N. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: the new narrative for the practice of the social economy. CIRIEC-España Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 73, 9-31. Tran, A.T. and Von Korflesch, H. (2016). A conceptual model of social entrepreneurial intention based on the social cognitive career theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 17-38. Turkina, E. and Thi Thanh Thai, M. (2013). Social capital, networks, trust and immigrant entrepreneurship: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 7(2), 108-124. Urban, B. (2013). Social entrepreneurship in an emerging economy: A focus on the institutional environment and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Managing Global Transitions: International Research Journal, 11(1), 3-25. Urban, B. (2015). Evaluation of social enterprise outcomes and self-efficacy. International Journal of Social Economics, 42(2), 163-178. Urban, B. and Kujinga, L. (2017). The institutional environment and social entrepreneurship intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 23(4), 638-655. Uysal, B. and Güney, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial Intentions of Turkish Business Students: An Exploration Using Shapero’s Model. Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(28), 27-47. Veciana, J. M., Aponte, M. and Urbano, D. (2005). University students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(2), 165-182. Weerawardena, J. and Mort, G.S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21-35. Welsh, D.H. and Krueger, N. (2012). The evolution of social entrepreneurship: what have we learned?. Journal of Technology Management in China, 7(3), 270-290. Welter, F. and Smallbone, D. (2011). Institutional perspectives on entrepreneurial behavior in challenging environments. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 107-125. Zebryte, I., and Jorquera, H. (2017). Chilean tourism sector “B Corporations ‘’ : evidence of social entrepreneurship and innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 23(6), 866-879. Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272.