251 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 1 / 1 5 Abstract Social Entrepreneurship Intentions Among Business Students in Latvia http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.1.15.29111 Theoretical literature has identified a number of factors that determine social entrepreneurship intentions. Social entrepreneurs play an important role in the economic and social developments of the communities in which they operate. They are a special type of entrepreneur, driven by a variety of motives, including the alleviation of poverty, hunger or illiteracy; the improvement of human health; the reparation of social, legal or economic injustice; and the preservation of the environment for future generations. The career aspiration of social entrepreneurs can be encouraged if youths are given early educational exposure when they are young. The purpose of this study is to identify social entrepreneurship intentions among business stu- dents in Latvia. The tasks are the following: (1) to accomplish analysis of special literature; (2) to work out methodology; (3) to carry out the empirical research; (4) to work out conclusions. The empirical research involves the survey of business students, applying snowball sampling method and using 5-point Likert scale questionnaire. The results are interpreted using methods of descriptive and inferential statistics. The conclusions of the research have a practical value, as they make it possible to identify the problematic areas of business education in regard to the social entrepreneurship. KEYWORDS: social entrepreneurship, business education, entrepreneurship intentions, career aspirations, social responsibility. The concept and practices of social entrepreneurship play more and more significant role in the contemporary society, permeated by the social and economical inequality, that has become the most obvious during the Covid-19 crisis (unemployment, decrease of income, access to educa- tion, et.). It is not to say that socially orientated businesses are able to change the economic and social problems directly and immediately, rather – they have become one of the decisive drivers of long-term sustainability. Discussions related to social entrepreneurship have taken place in Latvia, applied and scientific researches have been carried out, proposals have been made for the development of social en- trepreneurship. Among publications we would like to mention here ''Latvia on the road to social entrepreneurship'' (Lešinska et al., 2012), “The development of social entrepreneurship in Latvia: the role of municipalities'' (Lukjanska et al., 2017), “Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Country report LATVIA” (Līcīte, 2018), “Development of Social Entrepreneurship in European Integration Studies No. 15 / 2021, pp. 251-259 doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.1.15.29111 Submitted 01/2021 Accepted for publication 06/2021 Social Entrepreneurship Intentions Among Business Students in Latvia EIS 15/2021 Velga Vevere EKA University of Applied Sciences Introduction Edgars Cerkovskis EKA University of Applied Sciences Aija Sannikova EKA University of Applied Sciences E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 1 / 1 5 252 Latvia” (Sannikova & Brante, 2018). The legal framework and existing practices of social entre- preneurship in Latvia are described in the publication “Social entrepreneurship in Latvia: a brief overview of the current situation. Ecosystem mapping” (Social Entrepreneurship Association of Latvia, 2018). Let us mention here a few main conclusions of the document regarding the prob- lematic areas. In brief, they are the following: the development of social enterprises is hindered by the lack of business skills among entrepreneurs and the high level dependence on the Euro- pean financing and various grants; all in all, many entrepreneurs view their companies by anal- ogy with NGOs and charity organizations, whereas by definition the social entrepreneurship is a merger of business and social goals. In addition, it is important to mention that there is no clear understanding about goals of the social enterprises among the general public. The European Commision report “A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe, Country Report” (2015) contains a valuable information about Latvia as well. Summarizing these publications, we can see that the social entrepreneurship in Latvia is driven by external forces rather than developed domestically, so in this context the discussion is not about opportunities and problems of social entrepreneurship development, but rather about adaptation of the already existing models. The Social Enterprise Law of Latvia was adopted in 2018 (Legal Acts of the Re- publıc of Latvıa, 2017). The Law defines the social enterpreneurship and its place in the Latvian business environment, as well as the process of asignig the according status. The adoption of the Law facilitated the fast development of this enterpreneurship form - there are up to 200 legal entities that could be considered de facto social enterprises, yet a precise number is unknown. Most social enterprises are relatively new, having been established only within the last 2 to 5 years, and usually do not employ more than 10 people. The enterpreneurs and other organizations who consider themselves to be socially oriented are united in the “Social Enterpreneurship Association of Latvia”. The goals of this association are to advocate enterpreneurs’ interests at at local, regional and national levels, to create a common platform and enhance capacities of the members, as well as to inform society about the social enterpreneurship (SEAL, 2018). Thinking about future of the social ebterpreneurship it is important to educate futre enterpre- neurs - business students instilling in them beliefs about what is right and what is wrong and about the social importance of their future venture (Yujuico, 2008). The aim of the current research is to identify social enterpreneurship intentions among business students in Latvia. To reach the aim the following tasks were set: (1) to accomplish analysis of special literature; (2) to work out methodology; (3) to carry out the empirical research; (4) to work out conclusions. The researchers have showed a keen interest in the realm of social enterpreneurship, here we can mention investigations by Alvord and others (2004), Austin and others (2006), Dacin and oth- ers (2011), Dees & Anderson (2006), Mair & Noboa (2006), Seelosa & Mair (2005), Shina & Titko (2017) and others. According to some researchers, the social entrepreneurship development is influenced by the three main factors – the demand (public desire for social services/products, as customer or user), the supply (social entrepreneurs) and third – because of the environment and institutional factor that influence the previous two factors (Sekliuckiene & Kisielius, 2015). Despite the interest in the subject, there is no agreement regarding the definition and scope of it (Dobele, 2013). If in one case it is extremely broad (e.g. EU policies), then in another – it regards particular industry. The same goes for the legal framework. In order to come to some common denominator, we should distinguish three related elements: social entrepreneur (subject), social entrepreneurship (process), social enterprise (object). To describe social entrepreneurship as Literature Review 253 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 1 / 1 5 a process, the definition of Yunus (2007) is often used. According to him, social business is a financially sustainable organization created to solve a social problem. First and foremost, it is a business, though socially orientated, directed towards the social impact. A social business has products, services, customers, markets, expenses, and a revenue like a regular busines, it is no- loss, no-dividend, self-sustaining company that repays its owners’ investment. It is not a charity, but a business in every sense. The European Commission uses the term 'social enterprise' to cover the following types of business: » Those for who the social or societal objective of the common good is the reason for the com- mercial activity, often in the form of a high level of social innovation; » Those whose profits are mainly reinvested to achieve this social objective; » Those where the method of organisation or the ownership system reflects the enterprise's mission, using democratic or participatory principles or focusing on social justice (European Commission, 2018). Since the current research is devoted to the business students attitude to social enterpreneurship, it is necessary to understand the enterpreneurship intention formation process. In our investigation, when developing questions for our survey, we employ the intention formation model provided by J. Mair and E. Noboa (2006), that presupposes such elements as desirability, moral judgement, personality characteristics and possibility of financial support. Empirical studies in this field have been carried out by C. Bazan and others (2020) F. M. Alsaatay and others (2014), A. I. Sutha & P. Sankar (2016), Andriyansah & Zahra (2017), N. J. Setiadi & M. Puspitari (2014), S. Ashour (2016) and many others. Despite the fact that forementioned articles have had different research focus, they all stress necessity of students‘ education in the field of social enterpreneurship. This study adopted a quantitative research approach because the study involved conducting some statistical analyses to interpret data collected from the respondents. With the aim of identifying social entrepreneurship intentions among business students in Latvia, the target population for the study comprised business administration students of three private universities. The sample con- sisted of the undergraduate, graduate students and doctoral students registered at the designated institutions for the 2020/2021 academic year; 171 questionnaires were filled out, 167 of them were recognized as valid. The questionnaire was administred in Latvian, thus international students were not included. It was done deliberately, since the study was conducted against the background of the Latvian business environment. This study employed a convenience sampling technique because it tends to be more cost effective and convenient compared to probability sampling techniques (Ghauri et. al., 2020; Malhotra, 2017). Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling tech- nique where elements of a sample are obtained as a result of availability. The elements in this case happen to be in the right place and at the right time convenient to the researcher. Respondents were students attending classes taught by the authors of the article. The questionnaires were adminis- tred administered during classes via Google Forms. The students were informed that their results would be confidential and that the filling out questionnaire was strictly voluntary affair, no bearing any impact on their grades int he respective subjec whatsoever. The questionnaire contained two types of questions – first, statements to be evaluated according to the Likert scale (fully disagree -1; fully agree – 5); second – multiple choice questions with two options – to check a single box or to check several boxes). Prior to the main survey a pilot survey was conducted (n=20), after that some of the question formulations were changed to fitt better to the research design and to be more comprehensible by students (wording of statements). The questionnaire consisted of 35 items divided in 6 blocks (A – F) (see Table 1). Methodology E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 1 / 1 5 254 Sections of questionnaire Item codes Measurement Demographic profile A1 – A3 Multiple choice questions (1 answer to be selected) Social goals of entrepreneurship B1 – B4 5-point Likert scale Intention to engage in social entrepreneurship C1 – C4 5-point Likert scale Attitude to possible engagement in social entrepreneurship D1 – D6 5-point Likert scale Characteristics of a social entrepreneur E1 – E7 5-point Likert scale Challenges faced by the social entrepreneur F1 – F11 Multiple choice questions (several an- swers can be selected) Table 1 Summary of questionnaire design Source: Authors’. The first section (A) contained questions related to the socio-demographic profile of the respond- ents, that is, gender, study level (college, bachelor, master or doctoral) and work experience (see Table 2). Total, % Education level (% of group) Work experience in years (% of group) College Bachelor Master Doctoral 0 1-4 5-10 10> W 73 27.4 55.6 16.1 0.8 13.7 43.5 21.8 21.0 M 27 38.3 29.8 31.9 - 17.0 48.9 14.9 19.1 Table 2 Circular options for furniture sorted according to the EU waste management hierarchy Source: Authors’. As it can be seen from the table, the majority of the respondents are studying in the bachelor program, as well as the majority has work experience of 1-4 years, among the respondents 73% were women, 27% - men. The age factor of the respondents was not taken into account since they all are students. The section B of the questionnaire comprised statements regarding students‘ perception of the social goals of enterpreneurship in general. The statements to be evaluated by 5-point Likert scale was the following: B1 - „The operation of socially oriented companies is very important for society“; B2 - „From a societal perspective, the social goals of entrepreneurship are more impor- tant than making a profit“; B3 - „The main purpose of the business is to make a profit“; B4 - „The goal of business is both profit and the solution of social problems“. The section C, in its turn, was devoted to the students‘ intention to engage in the social business (to be evaluated according to the 5-point Likert scale). The statements included: C1 - „I plan to start my own business in the next 5 years to meet the needs of society“; C2 - „I plan to start my own business with the aim to meet the needs of the society“; C4 - „I am ready to start a business with the aim of meeting the needs of society“; C5 - „I do not plan to get involved in social entre- preneurship.“ The section D regarded the students‘ attitude towrds social enterpreneurship carrerwise (to be evaluated according to the Likert scale): D1 - „I think social entrepreneurship could contribute to my career“; D2 - „I think I could get support to start my dream project“; D3 - „I think my innovative project will change society“; D4 - „I think we need to start a business first, then focus on social projects“; D5 - „If I started a business, my goal would be to help people“; D6 - „ As an entrepre- neur, I would support social entrepreneurs financially or otherwise.“ 255 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 1 / 1 5 The section E statements (to evaluated according to 5-point Likert scale) were designed to know students opinion about the caracteristic features of an socially responsible enterpreneur. Namely, the enterpreneur: E1 - offers innovative solutions; E2 - is socially responsible; E3 - is ready to take risks; E4 - is ambitious; E5 - is strategically minded; E6 - has imagination; E7 - is focused on the end result. The sectio F containes the multiple answer possibilities (the respondents could check any num- ber of boxes) related to the possible challenges enterpreneurs could face. The list included such problematic aspects as: F1 to convice others about own ideas; F2 – to attract funding; F3 - working remotely; F4 - recruitment of employees; F5 - fundraising; F6 - obtaining the support of business people; F7 - government support; F8 - product / service quality assurance; F9 - reten- tion of employees; F10 - competition with other social entrepreneurs; F11 - lack or absence of knowledge about social entrepreneurship. Cronbach’s alpha reliability measure was used in this study. Ghauri et. al. (2020) describe Cron- bach’s alpha as a measure of intercorrelations of items that are used to measure the underlying construct. The result of the measure was α=81, that indicates the good internal consistency of the questionnaire. The results were processed by the means of SPSS. In order to make conclusions about the busi- ness students‘ intentions and attitudes the Mann-Whitney U Test, Kruskal-Wallis Test, KMO and Bartlett's Test were performed. The responses were further processed and analyzed in the Re- sults and discussion section below. Regarding importance of the socially oriented enterprises (B1) among men and women. Apply- ing the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U Test to the data set, it appears that women value the role of social enterprises much higher than men, because Rankw = 85.93> Mean RankM = 78.93 (Fig. 1). However, the test p = 0.356> po = 0.05, which indicates that the scores of both groups are Results and discussion Figure 1 Mann-Whitney U Test results for the set of answers to question B1- Are the activities of socially oriented companies very important for society? (Source: Authors’.) statistically the same. The next table represents the students’ attitude to the goals of social entrepre- neurship (B1- B4) according to work experience criterion. The results of the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis Test show that the education level of the re- spondents (Total = 167) influences the assessment of social entrepreneurship social goals and business goal priori- ties, because for question B2 test p = 0.002 po = 0.05. Education Factor D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 Test Statisticsa,b Kruskal-Wallis H 9.849 3.524 3.697 3.840 5.438 4.575 df 3 3 3 3 3 3 Asymp. Sig. .002 .318 .296 .279 .142 .206 Table 5 Kruskal-Wallis Test (nonparametric- 2 independent samples). Test results by criterion education for the set of answers to questions D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 (attitude to possible engagement in social entrepreneurship) a. Kruskal Wallis Test; b. Grouping Variable: Education Education Factor D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 Test Statisticsa,b Kruskal-Wallis H 2,864 6,722 7,579 7,294 5,091 1,715 df 3 3 3 3 3 3 Asymp. Sig. .413 .081 .056 .063 .165 .634 Table 6 Kruskal-Wallis Test (nonparametric- 2 independent samples). Test results by criterion work experience (years) for set of answers to questions D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 (attitude to possible engagement in social entrepreneurship) a. Kruskal Wallis Test; b. Grouping Variable: Work experience Table 5 represents students’ attitude to their possible engagement in the social entrepreneur- ship, taking into account the criterion of education. Conclusion: Education level influences the connection of personal career with social entrepreneur- ship, but does not affect the desire to get involved in solving social problems important to society. Source: Authors’. Source: Authors’. Source: Authors’. Correlation between students’ attitudes towards socially oriented business and their respective work experience is depicted in the Table 6. Conclusion: work experience (in years) influences the connection of personal career with social entrepreneurship, but does not affect the desire to get involved in solving social problems im- portant to society. After that the factor analysis was used to reduce the number of factors D1-D6 and to determine the interrelationships of several variables. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Test was performed, which shows that the data are valid for factor analysis, because p = 0.000 po = 0.05; Conclusions E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s2 0 2 1 / 1 5 258 » Education level influences the connection of personal career with social entrepreneurship, but does not affect the desire to get involved in solving social problems important to society; » As to impact of work experience, it can be concluded that work experience (in years) influ- ences the connection of personal career with social entrepreneurship, but does not affect the desire to get involved in solving social problems important to society; » Factor analysis demonstrates that the first component (factors that characterize the respond- ents' goal of engaging in social entrepreneurship to promote the socio-economic growth of society) is mostly correlated with possible support for starting dream project), starting busi- ness first, only after that engaging in social entrepreneurship and belief impact of innovative projects on society. At the same time the second component (respondents’ subjective goals) is mostly correlated with personal intention to engage in social business. I is important to note that students do not see socially oriented business as means for advancement of their future career, whereas they express their intent to support (financially or in other ways) social entrepreneurship in future. The results obtained in the current investigation point at the future research directions, namely, the ones related to educational aspects (teaching; development of personality traits, instilling societal values, etc.). References Alsaaty F. M., Abrahams, D. & and Carter, E. (2014). Business Students' Interests in Entrepreneurship and Social Entrepreneurship at a Historically Black Institu- tion. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Development, 2(1), 1-30. Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). So- cial Entrepreneurship and Societal Transforma- tion an Exploratory Study. The journal of applied behavioral science, 40(3), 260-282, https://doi. org/10.1177/0021886304266847 Andriyansah & Zahra, F. (2017). Student awareness towards social entrepreneurship: A qualitative study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Tech- nology, 8, 457-464. Ashour, S. (2016). Social and business entrepreneur- ship as career options for university students in the United Arab Emirates: The drive-preparedness gap. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1234425, https://doi.org/10.1 080/2331186X.2016.1234425 Austin, J., Stevenson. H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Enterpreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 6520.2006.00107.x Bazan C. et al. (2020). Effect of the university on the social entrepreneurial intention of students. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 3-24, https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-05-2019-0026 Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203-1213, https://doi. org/10.2307/41303113 https://doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.1100.0620 Dees, J. G., Anderson, B. B. (2006). Framing a Theory of Social Entrepreneurship: Building on Two schools of Practice and Thought. Research on Social Entre- preneurship: Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging field, 1(3), 39-66. Dobele, L. (2013). Sociālās uzņēmējdarbības at- tīstības iespējas Latvijā. Retrieved 22 March, 2021 from http://llufb.llu.lv/dissertation-summary/entre- preneurship/LasmaDobele_promoc_d_kopsavil- kums_2014_LLU_ESAF.pdf European Commission. (2015). A map of social en- terprises and their eco-systems in Europe, Country Report: Latvia. Retrieved 10 March, 2021 from http:// www.lm.gov.lv/upload/darbs_eng/se_mapping_ country_report_latvia.pdf European Commission. (2018). Social economy in the EU. Retrieved from 20,March, 2021 from https:// ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/social-economy/en- terprises_en Ghauri P., Gronhaug K. & Strange R. (2020). Re- search methods in business studies (p. 350). Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press https://doi. org/10.1017/9781108762427 Legal Acts of the Republic of Latvia. (2017). Social Enterprise Law. Retrieved 20 February, 2021 from https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/294484 Lešinska, A. et al. (2012). Latvija ceļā uz sociālo uzņēmējdarbību. Retrieved 10 March, 2021 from http://providus.lv/article_files/2265/original/SU_ gala_9nov.pdf?1352889758 259 E u r o p e a n I n t e g r a t i o n S t u d i e s 2 0 2 1 / 1 5 Līcīte, L. (2018). Social enterprises and their ecosys- tems in Europe. Country report LATVIA. Retrieved 1, March, 2021 from https://sua.lv/wp-content/up- loads/2018/12/Social-enterprises-and-their-eco- systems-in-Europe.-Country-report-Latvia.pdf Lukjanska, R., Kuznecova, J., & Cirule, I. (2017). The development of social entrepreneurship in Latvia: the role of municipalities. International Journal of Busi- ness and Globalization, 18(3), 318 - 336. https://doi. org/10.1504/IJBG.2017.083206 Mair, J. & Noboa, E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed. In J. Mair, J. Robinson and K. Hockerts (Eds.), So- cial entrepreneurship (pp. 121-135). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi. org/10.1057/9780230625655 Malhotra N. K., Nunan D. & Birks D. F. (2017). Mar- keting research. An applied approach (p. 976). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Sannikova, & A., Brante, I. (2018). Development of Social Entrepreneurship in Latvia. Business. Man- agement and Education, 16(1), 147-159, https://doi. org/10.3846/bme.2018.2198 SEAL. (2018). Social entrepreneurship in Latvia: a brief overview of the current situation. Ecosystem mapping. Retrieved 12 March, 2021 from https:// sua.lv/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LSUA_re- port_2-ENG.pdf Seelosa, C. & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Busi- ness Horizons, 48, 241-246 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j. bushor.2004.11.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bush- or.2004.11.006 Sekliuckiene, J. & Kisielius, E. (2015). Development of Social Entrepreneurship Initiatives: A Theoretical Framework. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Scienc- es, (213), 1015-1019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sb- spro.2015.11.519 Setiadi, N. J. & Puspitasari, D. M. (2014). Empirical study of entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions among Indonesian business students. DLSL Journal of Management, 1(1), 145-162. Shina, I., Titko, J. (2017). Social Entrepreneurship Development Factors in Europe. Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference "ECONOMIC SCIENCE FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT", 46 Jelgava, LLU ESAF, 27-28 April 2017, 158-165. Sutha, I. & Sankar, P. (2016). Entrepreneurial Intention and Social Entrepreneurship among University Stu- dents in Chennai City. International Journal of Engi- neering Studies, 8(1), 93-106. Yujuico, E. (2008). Connecting the Dots in Social En- trepreneurship through the Capabilities Approach. Socio-Economic Review, 6(3), 493-513, https://doi. org/10.1093/ser/mwn003 Yunus M. (2008). Creating the World Without Poverty. Social Business and the Future of Capitalism (p. 297). New York: Public Affairs. About the authors This article is an Open Access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). VEVERE VELGA Dr. phil. EKA University of Applied Sciences Fields of interests Critical thinking, corporate social responsibility, business ethics, corporate governance, marketing communications. Address 1/5 Lomonosova street, Riga LV- 1003, Latvia, +371 26463584 velga.vevere@gmail.com CERKOVSKIS EDGARS MBA EKA University of Applied Sciences Fields of interests Regional economics, digital means in business studies, so- cial entrepreneurship, circular economy. Address 1/ Lomonosova street, Riga LV-1003, Latvia, +371 26136998 e.cerkovskis@gmail.com SANNIKOVA AIJA Dr.oec. EKA University of Applied Sciences Fields of interests Statistics, social entrepreneur- ship, circular economy. Address 1/5 Lomonosova street, Riga LV 1019, Latvia. aija.sannikova@inbox.lv