Category

Table of Contents

CHAPTER Five: Conclusion

Conclusion

It can be concluded from the results discussed in the previous tables that the researcher gained mixed reviews on the role of Indonesian government on the promotion of social entrepreneurship. Most of the respondents reported that the government is less supportive in terms of funding provided to the social entrepreneurs, whereas, some of the respondents were in the favour that the government has supported the social entrepreneurs in the country. However, most of the respondents found it important for the government to promote the idea of innovation in their business which can eventually contribute towards the growth and development of the country. In addition to the above statement, it is recommended that the government should focus on providing adequate measures for promoting social entrepreneurship in the country.

Implications for Scope and Limitation

There were certain limitations faced during the research process as the researcher found it difficult to access a large number of respondents which is the reason only 100 responses were collected through online surveys. In addition, the scope of the research was limited to the Indonesia which helped the researcher in understanding the role of government of Indonesia in the promotion of social entrepreneurship.

Implication for Research Design

The implications for the quantitative research design were focused towards the convenience and keeping into consideration the budget and time of the researcher. The research results will also be helpful for the future researchers who wish to carry out their research in the field of social entrepreneurship with the specific focus on the Indonesia. Through this research, the researcher was able to understand the main idea behind the social entrepreneurship and how the government of Indonesian plays its role for the promotion of the social business.

Reference

Abereijo, I.O., 2016. Ensuring environmental sustainability through sustainable entrepreneurship. Economic modeling, analysis, and policy for sustainability, pp.234-249.

Acs, Z.J., Autio, E. and Szerb, L., 2014. National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy43(3), pp.476-494.

Almeida, P.I., Ahmetoglu, G. and Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 2014. Who wants to be an entrepreneur? The relationship between vocational interests and individual differences in entrepreneurship. Journal of Career Assessment22(1), pp.102-112.

Anggadwita, G. and Dhewanto, W., 2016. The influence of personal attitude and social perception on women entrepreneurial intentions in micro and small enterprises in Indonesia. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business27(2-3), pp.131-148.

Bacq, S., Hartog, C. and Hoogendoorn, B., 2013. A quantitative comparison of social and commercial entrepreneurship: Toward a more nuanced understanding of social entrepreneurship organizations in context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship4(1), pp.40-68.

Bae, T.J., Qian, S., Miao, C. and Fiet, J.O., 2014. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta‐analytic review. Entrepreneurship theory and practice38(2), pp.217-254.

Becker, G.S., 2013. The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago press.

British Council. 2017. UK launches international social investment strategy. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britishcouncil.org/society/social-enterprise/news-events/news-uk-international-social-investment-strategy. [Accessed 31 July 2017].

Bromley, P. and Meyer, J.W., 2014. “They Are All Organizations” The Cultural Roots of Blurring Between the Nonprofit, Business, and Government Sectors. Administration & Society.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2015. Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.

Bryman, A., 2015. Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Choi, N. and Majumdar, S., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing29(3), pp.363-376.

Choi, N. and Majumdar, S., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing29(3), pp.363-376.

Cotterrell, R., 2013. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the mirror of social theory. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W. and Weiss, J.M., 2013. The social construction, challenge and transformation of a budgetary regime: The endogenization of welfare regulation by institutional entrepreneurs. Accounting, Organizations and Society38(5), pp.333-364.

Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Di Zhang, D. and Swanson, L.A., 2013. Social entrepreneurship in nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation of the synergy between social and business objectives. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing25(1), pp.105-125.

Fowler Jr, F.J., 2013. Survey research methods. Sage publications.

Frynas, J.G. and Stephens, S., 2015. Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews17(4), pp.483-509.

Fuller, T., Pearson, M., Peters, J. and Anderson, R., 2015. What affects authors’ and editors’ use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews. PloS one10(4), p.e0121585.

Giddens, A., 2013. The third way: The renewal of social democracy. John Wiley & Sons.

Hayllar, M.R. and Wettenhall, R., 2013. As public goes private, social emerges: The rise of social enterprise. Public Organization Review13(2), p.207.

Idris, A. and Hijrah Hati, R., 2013. Social entrepreneurship in Indonesia: Lessons from the past. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship4(3), pp.277-301.

Jain, R. and Ali, S.W., 2013. A review of facilitators, barriers and gateways to entrepreneurship: directions for future research. South Asian Journal of Management20(3), p.122.

Kickul, J. and Lyons, T.S., 2016. Understanding social entrepreneurship: The relentless pursuit of mission in an ever changing world. Routledge.

Kostetska, I. and Berezyak, I., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an innovative solution mechanism of social problems of society. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development36(3), pp.569-577.

Latchem, C.R., 2014. Informal learning and non-formal education for development. Journal of Learning for Development-JL4D1(1).

Lee, I., 2015. A social enterprise business model for social entrepreneurs: theoretical foundations and model development. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation3(4), pp.269-301.

Leitch, C.M., McMullan, C. and Harrison, R.T., 2013. The development of entrepreneurial leadership: The role of human, social and institutional capital. British Journal of Management24(3), pp.347-366.

Leonardi, P.M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C., 2013. Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication19(1), pp.1-19.

Lombard, A., 2014. Entrepreneurship In Africa: Social Work Challenges For Human, Social And Economic Development. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk39(3).

Macmillan, R., 2013. ‘Distinction’in the third sector. Voluntary Sector Review4(1), pp.39-54.

Mazzucato, M., 2015. The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths (Vol. 1). Anthem Press.

Mertens, D.M., 2014. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage publications.

Nandan, M., London, M. and Blum, T.C., 2014. Community practice social entrepreneurship: an interdisciplinary approach to graduate education. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation3(1), pp.51-70.

Osburg, T. and Schmidpeter, R., 2013. Social innovation. Solutions for a sustainable future. Springer.

Packard, M.D., 2017. Where did interpretivism go in the theory of entrepreneurship?. Journal of Business Venturing.

Payumo, J.G., Arasu, P., Fauzi, A.M., Siregar, I.Z. and Noviana, D., 2014. An entrepreneurial, research-based university model focused on intellectual property management for economic development in emerging economies: The case of Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. World patent information36, pp.22-31.

Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N. and James, P., 2015. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management40(3), pp.428-461.

Razafindrambinina, D. and Sabran, A., 2014. The impact of strategic corporate social responsibility on operating performance: An Investigation Using Data Envelopment Analysis In Indonesia. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly6(1), p.68.

Razafindrambinina, D. and Sabran, A., 2014. The impact of strategic corporate social responsibility on operating performance: An Investigation Using Data Envelopment Analysis In Indonesia. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly6(1), p.68.

Ridley-Duff, R. and Bull, M., 2015. Understanding social enterprise: Theory and practice. Sage.

Roth, S., 2014. The eye-patch of the beholder: introduction to entrepreneurship and piracy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business22(4), pp.399-407.

Roumboutsos, A. and Pantelias, A., 2015. Allocating revenue risk in transport infrastructure public private partnership projects: How it matters. Transport Reviews35(2), pp.183-203.

Salamon, L.M. and Sokolowski, S.W., 2016. Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations27(4), pp.1515-1545.

Sánchez, J.C., 2013. The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management51(3), pp.447-465.

Scaffa, M.E. and Reitz, S.M., 2013. Occupational therapy community-based practice settings. FA Davis.

Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E., 2014. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage publications.

Schönbrodt, F.D. and Perugini, M., 2013. At what sample size do correlations stabilize?. Journal of Research in Personality47(5), pp.609-612.

Sekliuckiene, J. and Kisielius, E., 2015. Development of social entrepreneurship initiatives: a theoretical framework. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences213, pp.1015-1019.

Tsang, E.W., 2014. Case studies and generalization in information systems research: A critical realist perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems23(2), pp.174-186.

Turner, S., 2013. Indonesia’s small entrepreneurs: Trading on the margins. Routledge.

Uprichard, E., 2013. Sampling: bridging probability and non-probability designs. International Journal of Social Research Methodology16(1), pp.1-11.

Vanevenhoven, J. and Liguori, E., 2013. The impact of entrepreneurship education: Introducing the entrepreneurship education project. Journal of small business management51(3), pp.315-328.

Vickers, I. and Lyon, F., 2014. Beyond green niches? Growth strategies of environmentally-motivated social enterprises. International Small Business Journal32(4), pp.449-470.

Wiguna, A.B. and Manzilati, A., 2014. Social Entrepreneurship and Socio-entrepreneurship: A Study with Economic and Social Perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences115, pp.12-18.

Wilson, F. and Post, J.E., 2013. Business models for people, planet (& profits): exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, pp.1-23.

Zahra, S.A. and Wright, M., 2016. Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies53(4), pp.610-629.

Zahra, S.A., Newey, L.R. and Li, Y., 2014. On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(1), pp.137-158.

Appendix-1

Questionnaire

The main aim of this study is to critically analyse the factors affecting customer behaviour on online purchases considering the case of Chinese online retailers Jing Dong and Taobao.

  1. Gender
  • Male
  • Female
  1. Age
  • 20– 24 years
  • 25 – 29 years
  • 30 – 34 years
  • 35 – 39 years
  • Above 40 years

Independent Variable: Factors affecting Customer Behaviour

Personal factors

  1. The income of the person influences his buying patterns.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. People prefer to purchase those products online which advocate their role in society.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Purchases from online retail websites reflect a consumer lifestyle.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree

Social Factors

  1. Social class can influence behaviour of the customers on online retail websites.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Friends and family members can influence an online purchase decision of the customers.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Online retail stores motivate the customer to buy the products as it meets their social needs.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree

Psychological factors

  1. The consumer perception towards online products and the brand also influences his buying decision.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Level of motivation towards online products influences the buying behaviour of the consumers.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Online products create a positive attitude of the customers to buy the products from online retail websites.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree

Risk factors

  1. Low risk in the online retail websites can influence the customer behaviour.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Consumer prefers to buy from those online websites which have secured payment system.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. Consumers prefer to buy from those online websites which have less product risk.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree

Dependent Variable: Online Purchases

  1. Online purchases are largely influenced by consumer attitude towards online retailing store.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. The online purchases are influence by cultural and social norms.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  1. The performance of the products should meet the expectation of the customers to influence online purchases.
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree