Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 97–106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhtm

Discovering differences in the relationship among social entrepreneurial T

orientation, extensions to market orientation and value co-creation – The
moderating role of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy
Chih-Hsing Sam Liua, Chiung-En Huangb,∗
a
National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Department of Tourism Management, No. 415, Chien Kung Road, Kaohsiung, 807, Taiwan
b
Aletheia University, Department of Sports Information & Communication, No. 32, Zhenli St., Tamsui Dist., New Taipei City, 25103, Taiwan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing on an integrated framework of social entrepreneurial orientation theory, this study develops and ex-
Social entrepreneurial orientation amines a mediated-moderation model of the mutual relationships among critical attributes of social en-
Self-efficacy trepreneurial orientation (SEO) and tests the buffering role of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the market
Value co-creation and value co-creation processes. In a sample of 386 cultural and creative firms’ managers, with a discussion of
Market orientation
the mutual relationships of SEO, the results show that having a social mission orientation may influence
proactiveness through innovativeness and an effectual and sustainability orientation and that risk management
may strengthen the relationships between sustainability orientation and proactiveness. Moreover, the findings
suggest a positive relationship between proactiveness and value co-creation mediated by market orientation.
Those mutual positive effects are also influenced by the buffering mechanism of high social entrepreneurial self-
efficacy.

1. Introduction
Concepts of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) in tourism and hos-
pitality firms have been widely discussed and have received increasing
attention from academics, practitioners and governments (Liu & Lee,
2015). Through EO, a firm can not only identify new market entry
opportunities but also benefit from pursuing wealth creation through
new ventures (Fadda & Sørensen, 2017). However, given the sustain-
ability and social responsibility issues that arise, the necessity of bal-
ance among culture, environment, sustainability, economy and con-
sequences has become a serious concern for tourism firms (Horng, Hsu,
& Tsai, 2018). Thus, combining the concepts of social responsibility
issues and EO into social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO) has become
a new trend in business management (Chell, Spence, Perrini, & Harris,
2016; Dwivedi & Weerawardena, 2018). A better understanding of the
critical attributes of SEO and the ways in which it enhances firms’
identification of market opportunities may require a contingency per-
spective that highlights the importance of strategy fit for performance
and other constructs affecting the interests of tourism and hospitality
firms (de Lange & Dodds, 2017).
Compared with other studies aiming to discover the role of market
opportunity exploration in the social entrepreneurship development
process, this study integrates previous research views and highlights the
knowledge gaps in the literature in several ways. First, with the in-
creasing requirement of social responsibility, pursuing new opportu-
nities with EO is necessary but insufficient and requires a contingency
perspective to satisfy customer requirements and fit the firm's strategic
intention to create value (Wales, Gupta, Marino, & Shirokova, 2019).
Following this trend and given customers' requirements, the concept of
social entrepreneurship emerged; however, until now, standards for
evaluating this critical construct have been underdeveloped and in need
of further study (Rawhouser, Cummings, & Newbert, 2019). Therefore,
this paper describes the relevant concepts similar to those in the pre-
vious literature and illustrates the differences in social entrepreneurship
development relevant in order to study the new concepts of SEO and
extends the findings with new insights for future research. Second,
meditation-moderation models were demonstrated to fill the gaps from
the prior use of single methods for examining EO in the social en-
trepreneurship context (Alarifi, Robson, & Kromidha, 2018). Third,
Yan, Cao, Dong, and Han (2018) asserted that EO was a good indicator
of sustainable performance. Surprisingly, few studies have examined
the interrelationships among SEO and the ways in which these re-
lationships influence value creation and potential market identification.
Thus, this study identifies which conditions and attributes increase or

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: phd20110909@gmail.com (C.-H. Sam Liu), joannehuang526@gmail.com (C.-E. Huang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.12.002
Received 22 June 2019; Received in revised form 18 December 2019; Accepted 18 December 2019
Available online 26 December 2019
1447-6770/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of CAUTHE - COUNCIL FOR AUSTRALASIAN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY EDUCATION
C.-H. Sam Liu and C.-E. Huang
constrain entrepreneurial behaviours and performance improvements
as part of a significant research agenda within the tourism and hospi-
tality literature. Finally, the limited empirical evidence of tourism and
hospitality firms suggests that although social entrepreneurship facil-
itates performance, not all critical attributes of SEO do so equally
(Sigala, 2016). In a changing industrial environment, this study con-
siders that EO may integrate with social impact concepts and act as a
bridge between market performance and value co-creation. Thus, the
findings of this study not only respond to the call from previous studies
but also reveal the synergetic effects of SEO on other effects of social
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, market orientation and value co-creation
in a cultural and creative industrial setting.
Because the tourism industry slack other firm-specific intangible
assets, such as human resources, government resources and technology
support, cultural and creative industries (CCIs) differ from other well-
developed industries (Andres & Chapain, 2013). Dwivedi and
Weerawardena (2018) asserted that social entrepreneurship is the best
explanation for the new requirements for stakeholder and market op-
portunity exploration; however, few studies have directly examined
how SEO influences management adjustments in cultural and creative
firms in dynamic tourism environments or firms' subsequent perfor-
mance in value and market co-creation with respect to SEO. Con-
tributing to tourism management studies by integrating and reconciling
these viewpoints, this study followed Dwivedi and Weerawardena
(2018) by measuring SEO and specifically by examining how a firm's
internal capability is built by mutual influences and shapes the con-
tribution of market and value co-creation. Since simultaneously estab-
lishing and maintaining intra-capability from SEO and the additional
benefits of social responsibility may involve substantial consideration of
trade-offs, a critical question concerns whether the social mission and
requirements of these relationships are complementary or redundant
(Chell et al., 2016). Addressing current calls for the requirement of
sustainable tourism with "more complex, multidimensional models that
examine the mutual relationships and interactions between different
types of SEO conduits" (de Lange & Dodds, 2017), this study therefore
sought to identify the configuration of social issues and sustainability
requirements that maximize the contribution of SEO to firm markets
and value co-creation.
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development
2.1. Social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO)
Owing to the growing importance of SEO for the competitiveness of
firms in rapidly changing and dynamic tourism and hospitality en-
vironments, scholars have increasingly focused on identifying the di-
mensions of SEOs and examining their roles and effects on market va-
lues and organizational outcomes in the areas of business ethics (Chell
et al., 2016), future opportunity identification (Short, Moss, & Lumpkin,
2009), the probability of start-ups (Zhao, Ritchie, & Echtner, 2011), and
social value creation (Altinay, Sigala, & Waligo, 2016). From the per-
spective of theorizing and hypothesizing the SEO construct, six main
constructs (e.g., innovativeness, effectual orientation, proactiveness,
social mission orientation, sustainability and risk management) were
identified in recent studies (Dwivedi & Weerawardena, 2018). Com-
pared with the previous entrepreneurial literature, these studies used
three critical attributes, innovativeness, risk management and proac-
tiveness, widely to explain EO (Calza, Go, Parmentola, & Trunfio, 2018;
Lin & Chen, 2018; Liu & Lee, 2015); SEO also constitutes the additional
attributes of considering effectual orientation, social mission orienta-
tion and sustainability. First, effectual orientation represents the en-
trepreneurial behaviour of maximizing internal and external resource
use in order to cope with limited resources to achieve organizational
goals (Sarasvathy, 2001). Second, social mission orientation differs from
commercial entrepreneurship; considering that social needs and re-
quirements are a high priority for many organizations, this philosophy
98
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 97–106
guides organizational decision making (Dwivedi & Weerawardena,
2018). Third, sustainability represents a new mission to create social
value and maintain long-term firm survival (Asmelash & Kumar, 2019).
These three new critical attributes can be examined to better under-
stand the theoretical concept of SEO. Choi and Majumdar (2014) ex-
plored three sub-concepts and relationships among social innovation,
market orientation and social enterprise organization. The results in-
dicated that SEO can be viewed as a fundamentally contested notion
that can be acknowledged among both typical and alternative ap-
proaches to analysis. Similarly, by using data from tourism start-up
firms, Zhao et al. (2011) found that the SEO effect differs across various
constructs of social capital, which is helpful in developing “guanxi”
relationships and exploring market opportunities for tourism busi-
nesses. The results indicated that SEO not only should be con-
ceptualized into sub-dimensions but also should increase the prob-
ability of market opportunity exploration and value creation.
Accordingly, we explain why cultural and creative firms constitute an
appropriate sample for explaining SEO in detail in the Methods section.
Therefore, we formulated all of the proposed hypotheses for testing (1)
how the six dimensions of SEO interact with one another, (2) how those
critical attributes influence market orientation and value co-creation
among the different regions of cultural and creative firms, and (3) how
risk management and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy in turn influ-
ence the strength of those relationships.
2.2. Hypothesized mediating roles among the different attributes of SEO and
relationships with market orientation and value co-creation
EO research has recently highlighted the important and central role
of social responsibility in achieving the desired social reputation, mis-
sions and scaling of social influence (Chell et al., 2016). From this
viewpoint, social mission plays a central role for social entrepreneurs,
as foundational attributes influence the consequences of other dimen-
sions (Bacq & Eddleston, 2018). Social mission orientation guides or-
ganizational behaviour by addressing social needs in a way that can
philosophically guide organizations (Dwivedi & Weerawardena, 2018).
When adopting a social mission, entrepreneurs are encouraged to share
ground-breaking ideas and ways to create new social value, demon-
strate the quality of their ideas and address how these ideas may meet
social needs (Perrini & Vurro, 2006). Social mission offers ethical gui-
dance and encourages entrepreneurs to put self-interest aside and en-
sure that entrepreneurial activities are devoted to innovation and ef-
fectual orientation to create social and economic value for society
(Parris & McInnis-Bowers, 2014) and discover new opportunities to
support social changes to achieve sustainability goals (Wang, Duan, &
Yu, 2016). Moreover, adopting a social mission is helpful for improving
innovation capabilities because such a mission must consider the
complex environment of social requirements, and ways to appropriately
solve this situation are tested with organizational core values, cap-
abilities, objectives, and decision-making processes (Pozo & Tachizawa,
2018). Sigala (2016) recently sampled social enterprises in tourism and
hospitality and showed that social mission may help organizations with
new product/service development, new processes or increasing effec-
tiveness, and the structuring of new organizational forms. Aquino,
Lück, and Schänzel (2018) provided support for sustainability concepts
for current tourism and hospitality organizational development and
asserted that enterprises should operate with a social mission in mind
and employ innovative and creative ways to deal with societal problems
to meet social needs while considering the community's adaptive ca-
pacity. This idea is often linked with entrepreneurs' abilities to innovate
and identify effectual ways to solve problems, the strategy of making
sound decisions to support sustainability, and a proactive mindset to
deal with complex situations and challenges (Daniel, Costa, Pita, &
Costa, 2017). Therefore, this study asserted that social mission en-
compasses innovative actions and effectual improvement procedures to
determine new directions in business operations, new definitions of the
C.-H. Sam Liu and C.-E. Huang
social responsibility of businesses, and the exploration of market op-
portunities to increase overall social wealth by improving existing
tourism and hospitality organizational practices in a sustainable
manner (de Lange & Dodds, 2017).
Hypothesis 1. Innovativeness mediates the relationship between social
mission orientation and sustainability orientation.
Hypothesis 2. Effectual orientation mediates the relationship between
social mission orientation and sustainability orientation.
A number of tourism and hospitality studies argue that sustain-
ability, as a future issue in managed tourism and hospitality organiza-
tions, has the potential effects of providing employment opportunities
and social impressions and creating financial benefits and livelihood in
developing countries (Zhang & Zhang, 2018). Whether sustainability
concepts can be realized as a bottom-up approach to local economic
development depends on the initiative attributes and proactiveness of
social entrepreneurs (Laeis & Lemke, 2016). Regardless of sustainability
arguments, some tourism and hospitality entrepreneurs with high levels
of innovativeness and effectual motivation adopt a sustainable im-
provement approach to social impressions that seems more en-
trepreneurial in nature, contributing to proactive administrative prac-
tices (Bacq & Eddleston, 2018). These proactive administrative
practices need to appear sustainable in order to generate performance
results, along with entrepreneurial self-actualization (Garay, Font, &
Corrons, 2018). The above discussion suggests that innovativeness and
effectual orientation affect proactiveness primarily through a sustain-
ability orientation. That is, the innovativeness and effectual orientation
of cultural and creative firms serve as concepts and platforms for pro-
moting sustainability orientation, which in turn supports proactive
management.
Hypothesis 3a. A sustainability orientation mediates the relationship
between innovativeness and proactiveness.
Hypothesis 3b. A sustainability orientation mediates the relationship
between effectual orientation and proactiveness.
Market and value co-creation is a process that requires not only
internal resource integration to highlight specific advantages but also
managerial time, attention, and energy to communicate with customers
to capture and explore opportunities (Lee, Olson, & Trimi, 2012). First,
from the perspective of market orientation, following the increasing
need for sustainability among tourism and hospitality organizations,
managers need to be increasingly active and focused on satisfying
market expectations, formulating plans and arrangements for im-
proving decision quality and achieving the organizational goal of im-
proving market share (Sigala, 2016). Memili, Fang, Koc, Yildirim-
Öktem, and Sonmez (2018) performed a representative study of the
relationship between proactive behaviour and sustainability from a
market orientation perspective with long-term observation. They found
that adoption of sustainability practices may naturally lead firms to
take a proactive approach, such as efficiently implementing assigned
tasks and using creative ways to solve current and future social con-
cerns, which in turn affect the identification of new market opportu-
nities. Second, from the perspective of value co-creation, Biggemann,
Williams, and Kro (2014) asserted that sustainability and value co-
creation are highly connected. They found that value co-creation is
achieved through entrepreneurs’ increasing participation in the design
and selection of sustainability processes and that these process designs
require entrepreneurs to be proactive about customer feedback in-
quiries, strategic scanning and adjustment practices to influence their
surroundings and repeat the lasting benefits of value co-creation. Al-
ternatively, researchers have also suggested that tourism and hospi-
tality firms need to proactively engage and support customer needs
during value co-creation or to increase market share by providing ap-
propriate information to inspire consumption behaviour (Chathoth,
Ungson, Harrington, & Chan, 2016) and obtaining information on
99
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 97–106
sustainability requirements (Bacq & Eddleston, 2018). In conclusion,
given the abovementioned literature and the social requirement of
sustainability, firms need to choose proactive strategies to enhance
customer engagement, approval, loyalty and happiness in order to help
firms increase market orientation sensitivity and value co-creation
(Chathoth et al., 2016). Similarly, market orientation plays a mediating
role between proactiveness and value co-creation. Proactiveness cap-
tures new market opportunities, ensure that firms are always ahead of
other competitors and able to respond to market challenges (Nasution,
Mavondo, Matanda, & Ndubisi, 2011). In other words, the proactive-
ness dimension of EO promotes a market orientation of opportunity
identification, which may increase market share and thus lead to value
co-creation for firms (Matsuno, Mentzer, & Özsomer, 2002). Hence, the
following hypotheses are presented:
Hypothesis 4a. Proactiveness mediates the relationship between
sustainability orientation and market orientation.
Hypothesis 4a. Proactiveness mediates the relationship between
sustainability orientation and value co-creation.
Hypothesis 5. Market orientation mediates the relationship between
proactiveness and value co-creation.
2.3. Hypothesis of moderation and the roles of risk management and social
entrepreneurial self-efficacy
In contrast to EO, risk management denotes organizational decision
making in an environment with high degrees of uncertainty and
changeable customer needs in which social entrepreneurs appropriately
explore risks, given their responsibility to donors (Dwivedi &
Weerawardena, 2018, p.33). With sustainability and environmental
protection requirements, entrepreneurs face sustainability issues that
are unavoidable when making decisions, which brings trade-offs related
to entrepreneurial opportunity and risk (Hahn, Kolk, & Winn, 2010).
Liu and Lee (2015) asserted that small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) need to be managed well and to evaluate risk when seeking
market opportunities. Following the global trend and requirements of
social responsibility, sustainability has emerged as a new trend that is
essential for meeting social needs and that may lead to market oppor-
tunities, increasing the need for entrepreneurs to be proactive in service
and product innovation to maintain competitive advantage (Aquino
et al., 2018). For the long-term development of EO and industrial en-
vironmental awareness, risk management is an indispensable attribute
for sharpening an entrepreneur's intention to pursue sustainability and
its motivation to proactively pursue the valuation, estimation, and ex-
ploration of market opportunities over time (Bacq & Eddleston, 2018).
Cultural and creative firms provide organizations and customers with
different cultural experiences of creative services, and different services
are accompanied by new opportunities for attracting new customers
while bringing a risk of business failure (Liu, 2018). Especially in a
dynamic environment, risk management may encourage managers to
think more about the level of sustainability, not only to satisfy custo-
mers' needs, consider environmental issues or attract new services but
also to better estimate the trade-off between risk and market opportu-
nities (Giannakis & Papadopoulos, 2016). From this perspective, we
argue that risk management behaviour influences firms' adoption of
sustainability and strengthens the positive effect of sustainability or-
ientation and proactiveness. As a result, risk management helps cultural
and creative entrepreneurs to scan the external environment for sus-
tainability needs, to predict unexpected shocks arising from organiza-
tional benefits and costs, and to strengthen their likelihood of proac-
tively preparing for future uncertainty.
Hypothesis 6. Risk management moderates the relationship between
sustainability orientation and proactiveness.
Self-efficacy reflects an individual's confidence in his or her ability
C.-H. Sam Liu and C.-E. Huang Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 97–106

to complete a job, solve problems or finish a specific set of tasks Table 1

(Bandura, 1977). Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy was proposed as a Background information of participants with cultural and creative industries.
new concept to explain human behaviour towards social missions that Items Frequency Percent Items Frequency Percent
influence an individual's beliefs, efforts, levels of input, and persistence
(Dwivedi & Weerawardena, 2018). Simply stated, having high self-ef- Gender Education
Male 152 39.4% Junior high school 7 1.8%
ficacy helps tourism entrepreneurs face the dynamic environment and
Female 233 60.4% Senior high school 22 5.7%
persist in their tasks more than those with low self-efficacy (Hallak, Age University 142 36.8%
Assaker, & Lee, 2015). Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy, viewed as Below 20 81 21.0% Graduate school 215 55.7%
key to moderating the relationships between proactiveness, market 21–30 203 52.6% Annual turnover ($NZ)
orientation and value co-creation, has at least three mechanisms that 31–40 51 13.2% Below 30,000 65 16.8%
41–50 31 8.0% 30,000–50,000 209 54.1%
shape further development and effective application in the tourism
Above 51 20 5.2% 51,000–100,000 79 20.5%
environment. First, self-efficacy is thought to be a strong predictor of Business type 101,000–500,000 11 2.8%
self-confidence in facing future uncertainty that helps tourism man- Family 218 56.5% 501,000–1 million 18 4.7%
agers successfully launch products or services in the changing tourism Business
Non- 161 41.7% Above 1 million 4 1.0%
market (Kakoudakis, McCabe, & Story, 2017). Second, recent tourism
Family
and hospitality research suggests that self-efficacy may be increased Business
when observing and interacting with suppliers, competitors and cus- Total 7 1.8% Age of the company (year)
tomers to scan the external environment and move towards value co- Firm size (employees) Below 5 239 61.9%
creation (Altinay et al., 2016). Third, entrepreneurial self-efficacy also Below 11 213 55.2% 6–10 56 14.5%
11–100 169 43.8% 11–20 67 17.4%
provides managers with a deeper understanding of tourism and hospi-
101–150 4 1.0% Above 21 24 6.2%
tality market changes and appreciation for the long-term value of co-
creation and exploration opportunities that are inherent in challenging
industrial environments (Chathoth et al., 2016). In sum, the following 3.2. Measurement
hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 7a. Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy moderates the To measure the research constructs accurately, the original scales
relationship between market orientation and proactiveness. were selected from well-known business or tourism management in-
ternational journals that have high credibility and relate to the current
Hypothesis 7b. Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy moderates the research purpose. Because the selected scales were in English, this study
relationship between proactiveness and value co-creation. used a back-translation method conducted by two academics who had
Hypothesis 7c. Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy moderates the abundant research experience in the tourism and hospitality field to
relationship between market orientation and value co-creation. ensure that the original meanings were maintained and were suitable
for making appropriate measurements to meet the aims of this study.
All the items were measured using a seven-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). First, based on the
3. Sampling and data collection definition and measures developed by Dwivedi and Weerawardena
(2018), eighteen items were adopted to assess the construct of SEO in
3.1. Sampling six dimensions. Specifically, innovativeness was measured using a two-
item scale to investigate innovative capabilities or innovative ideas.
With increasing attention to the cultural and creative industry, Ali, Four items measured proactiveness by measuring the level of active
Ryu, and Hussain (2016) asserted that cultural and creative tourism response and preparation for the future. Four items measured risk
critically demonstrates the “experience economy”, which provides management by reflecting the management level of risk prediction,
tourists with memorable experiences and new attractions that in turn assessment and prevention. Four items measured effectual orientation
encourage repeat business (Ali et al., 2016). Recently, with globaliza- by describing effective strategies. Social mission orientation and sus-
tion and increasing competition, cultural and creative firms have faced tainability orientation were measured using two items that demon-
changing customer requirements and a dynamic environment, both of strated social responsibility and the concept of sustainable develop-
which require an EO to create market value and thrive in a competitive ment. Second, this study adopted Pelham and Wilson's (1996) seven-
business environment (Liu, 2018). Liu (2018) asserted that cultural and item scale to measure market orientation, describing the new marketing
creative tourism is a good setting in which to evaluate entrepreneurial concept of enterprises arranging their production and operation activ-
orientations. Therefore, to better measure the research framework, this ities on the basis of market demand. Third, a four-item scale by O'Cass
study used Taiwanese cultural and creative firms as a research sample and Ngo (2012) was adapted to measure co-creation value, reflecting
to examine the proposed Hypothesis. To increase accuracy and ensure the creative ideas and behaviours that result from being responsive
data quality, the following steps were used. First, three research assis- among the company and its customers. The final variables for mea-
tants who had experience and basic knowledge of tourism and hospi- suring social entrepreneurial self-efficacy were estimated with four
tality research were hired for this study to ensure that all the research items by Zhao, Seibert, and Hills (2005). Table 2 shows the detailed and
assistants understood the data collection process and basic research specific measurements of all the constructs.
ethics and to clarify the measurement items when participants had any Descriptive statistics and factor loadings are presented in Table 2.
questions. Second, to increase the response rate, a face-to-face data The factor loadings of all items were above 0.669; values exceeding the
collection method was used; research assistants stood nearby while 0.6 threshold commonly indicate construct validity (Gieling & Ong,
participants filled out the questionnaires, and they checked the ques- 2016). Further, following the suggestions by Fornell and Larcker (1981)
tionnaires when finished (Jiang, Li, Liu, & Chang, 2017). Third, to that composite reliability (CR) should meet the fit requirement of 0.6 or
generalize the findings, this study distributed the survey in the north, above, the threshold for the average variance extracted (AVE) was 0.5.
south and middle regions of Taiwan from September to November The results showed that the values of CR ranged from 0.676 to 0.963
2018; 150 surveys were distributed in each region. In total, 450 surveys and that the AVE ranged from 0.511 to 0.790, which indicated the
were distributed, and the final sample comprised 386 cultural and reliability and convergent validity of all the constructs (Zollo, Yoon,
creative firm managers who completed each survey. The detailed de- Rialti, & Ciappei, 2018).
mographic information of the participants is shown in Table 1.

100
C.-H. Sam Liu and C.-E. Huang Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 97–106

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis for constructs.
Constructs and factors Mean S.D. Factor Loading CR AVE

Social entrepreneurial orientation

Innovativeness .755 .609

We look for new ways of delivering social outcomes. 5.295 1.362 .697
We look for new ways of working with outside agencies such as government agencies, businesses or other nonprofits. 5.534 1.307 .856
Proactiveness .911 .719
We engage in forecasting to avoid surprises. 5.466 1.275 .863
We consider it important to be ready for future unexpected events. 5.352 1.301 .839
We engage in financial modelling to prepare for the future. 5.692 1.271 .835
We actively monitor external forces affecting us. 5.645 1.257 .855
Risk management .963 .591
We always engage in managing risks associated with our projects. 5.215 1.462 .764
We will not undertake a project without considering the associated costs and benefits. 5.453 1.305 .697
We will commit resources to a project only when assured of funding to cover the cost. 5.308 1.385 .809
We have a cautious approach to making resource commitments. 5.176 1.432 .801
Effectual orientation .868 .623
On high social impact projects, we take steps to ensure that potential losses are affordable. 5.130 1.475 .733
In designing new services, we see the value in partnering with clients/beneficiaries. 5.554 1.309 .797
We believe it is important to get funding pre-commitments from our donors when undertaking new projects. 5.236 1.390 .876
We believe in undertaking pilot projects before fully implementing new programmes. 5.000 1.414 .744
Social mission orientation .882 .622
Our philosophy guides everything we do in the organization. 4.933 1.493 .759
We often ask ourselves: ‘How is this activity fulfilling the purpose of the organization?’ 5.124 1.348 .817
Sustainability orientation .676 .511
We always seek to balance mission and financial viability in the organization. 5.052 1.351 .696
We seek sustainable sources of income to remain viable. 5.497 1.228 .733
Market orientation .919 .619
All our functions (not just marketing and sales) are responsive to, and integrated in, serving target markets. 4.433 1.400 .669
All our managers understand how the entire business can contribute to creating customer value. 4.909 1.271 .710
Our firm's market strategies are to a (moderate/great) extent driven by our understanding of possibilities for creating value for 4.360 1.528 .784
customers.
Information on customers, marketing success, and marketing failures is communicated across functions in the firm. 4.313 1.475 .866
How frequently do top managers discuss competitive strengths and weaknesses? 4.510 1.470 .802
How frequently do we take advantage of targeted opportunities to take advantage of competitors' weaknesses? 4.337 1.581 .826
If a major competitor were to launch an intensive campaign targeted at our customers, we would implement a response 4.350 1.382 .833
immediately.
Value co-creation .919 .741
We interact with customers to serve them better. 4.065 1.489 .843
We work together with customers to produce offerings that mobilize them. 4.155 1.456 .894
We interact with customers to design offerings that meet their needs. 4.106 1.464 .869
We provide products for and in conjunction with customers. 4.389 1.429 .835
Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy .938 .790
Identifying new business opportunities for social change. 4.858 1.432 .838
reating new products/services to solve social problems. 4.645 1.398 .917
Thinking creatively to benefit others. 4.767 1.376 .912
Commercializing an idea for social enterprise. 4.865 1.421 .886

3.3. Common method variance
This study used numerous steps to address the possible issue of
common method bias. First, before the respondents completed the
questionnaire, our research assistants clarified the purpose of the
survey. Additionally, other issues were clarified, including the fact that
the survey was anonymous and personal privacy would not be im-
pinged upon. Second, respondents were asked to indicate their true
feelings based on the questionnaire items and told that there were no
right or wrong feelings (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). Third, according to
Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) suggestions, Harman's single-factor test was
used with SPSS 21.0 to examine the potential common method variance
(CMV). All measurement items in this study were tested using ex-
ploratory factor analysis of the principal component analysis (Tsaur &
Yen, 2018). The results showed that the first factor accounted for
48.39% (less than 50%) of the total variance (Podsakoff & Organ,
1986). Therefore, common method variance was not a major issue in
this research.
3.4. Confirmatory factor analyses
To precisely validate the variable, the procedure of confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to estimate nine constructs of the
research model (Papavasileiou, 2017). Several indexes were applied to
assess fit, including the chi-square/degrees of freedom, comparative fit
index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI),
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Lubatkin et al.,
2016). Based on the CFA results of one-factor analysis, the individual
constructs of effectual orientation, innovativeness, sustainability or-
ientation, risk management, proactiveness, social mission orientation,
market orientation, co-creation value and social entrepreneurial self-
efficacy demonstrated a good fit (χ2 = 866.383, p < .001; χ2/
df = 3.245; CFI = 0.917; IFI = 0.918; TLI= .907; GFI = 0.843;
AGFI= .809; and RMSEA=.076). Thus, the good results for the con-
structs provided the level of confidence needed to test the hypotheses.
4. Results
The descriptive statistics of the means, standard deviations (S.D.)
and Pearson correlation coefficients are summarized in Table 3. Liu
(2018) asserted that if there is a high correlation among the constructs,
the variance inflation factor (VIF) should be examined to check for
collinearity at different levels. The results demonstrated that VIF values

101
C.-H. Sam Liu and C.-E. Huang Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 97–106

Table 3
Means, standard deviations and correlations.
Variables Mean S.D. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. VIFa

Social entrepreneurial orientation

1.Innovativeness 5.415 1.193 (.747)

2.Proactiveness 5.539 1.134 .600 (.911) 4.21
3.Risk management 5.288 1.160 .607 .792 (.849) 4.34
4.Effectual orientation 5.230 1.177 .571 .770 .835 (.863) 3.84
5.Social mission orientation 5.028 1.279 .480 .722 .648 .618 (.764) 2.50
6.Sustainability orientation 5.275 1.121 .659 .738 .733 .702 .606 (.674) 2.60
7.Market orientation 4.459 1.185 .335 .559 .483 .475 .566 .467 (.918) 2.47
8. Value co-creation 4.179 1.307 .337 .537 .477 .484 .593 .456 .743 (.918) 2.80
9.Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy 4.784 1.290 .385 .643 .530 .570 .608 .511 .606 .673 (.937) 2.39

Note: All the correlations are at P < .001. Cronbach's alpha is shown on the diagonal in bold.
a
Variance Inflation Factor (VIF).

ranged from 2.39 to 4.34; thus, there were no multicollinearity issues.
The structural equation modelling (SEM) procedure was adopted to
verify the mediating and moderating hypotheses with AMOS 21.0
software. Furthermore, this study utilized the bootstrapping method
based on 20,000 re-samplings and conducted a Monte Carlo-style pro-
cedure with bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals to assess the
mediating effects. The overall model fit for the proposed model is il-
lustrated in Fig. 1 (χ2 = 866.383, p < .001; χ2/df = 3.245;
CFI = 0.917; IFI = 0.918; TLI= .907; GFI = 0.843; AGFI= .809; and
RMSEA=.076), with the results showing showed a good fit for Hy-
pothesis testing.
First, Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that social mission orientation
affected sustainability orientation through the mediators of innova-
tiveness and effectual orientation. As shown in Fig. 1, social mission
orientation was significantly and positively related to innovativeness
(β= .779; p < .001) and effectual orientation (β= .832; p < .001).
Furthermore, innovativeness (β= .440; p < .001) and effectual or-
ientation (β= .641; p < .001) were also significantly and positively
related to sustainability orientation. Finally, the average indirect effects
of social mission orientation on sustainability orientation through the
mediators of innovativeness (β= .342; p < .001) and effectual or-
ientation (β= .533; p < .001) were statistically significant. Therefore,
both Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.
Second, the study examined the mediating effects of sustainability
orientation posited by Hypotheses 3a and 3b. Sustainability orientation
had a positive and significant effect on proactiveness (β= .928;
p < .001). Moreover, the mediating effects of sustainability
orientation on the relationship between innovativeness and proactive-
ness were statistically significant (β = .409, p < .01), supporting
Hypothesis 3a. The average indirect effects of sustainability orientation
on the relationship between effectual orientation and proactiveness
were also statistically significant (β = .595, p < .01), supporting
Hypothesis 3b.
Third, this study examined the mediating effects of proactiveness
with respect to Hypotheses 4a and 4b. The results showed that proac-
tiveness was significantly associated with market orientation (β= .596,
p < .001) and co-creation value (β= .160, p < .001). Furthermore,
the mediating role of proactiveness significantly affected the relation-
ship between sustainability orientation and market orientation
(β = .553, p < .001). Similarly, the average indirect effects of
proactiveness on the relationship between sustainability orientation
and co-creation value were statistically significant (β = .148,
p < .01). Ultimately, Hypotheses 4a and 4b were still supported.
Fourth, Hypothesis 5 proposed that proactiveness positively affected
co-creation value through the mediating role of market orientation. The
results showed that the effects between market orientation and co-
creation value were positive and significant (β= .711, p < .001).
Additionally, the average indirect effect of proactiveness on co-creation
through the mediator of market orientation (β= .424, p < .001) was
statistically significant, which supported Hypothesis 5. Finally, the bias-
corrected 95% confidence interval (CI) test showed that the CI did not
contain 0, confirming that Hypotheses 1–5 were fully supported. The
results are summarized in Table 4.
Fifth, the moderating influences of risk management and social

Fig. 1. Results of the proposed research framework of this study.

102
C.-H. Sam Liu and C.-E. Huang Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 97–106

Table 4
Mediation Hypothesis and examination results for the path of estimates.
Hypothesis path Standard error Estimates Bias-corrected 95% CI Percentile 95% CI Results

Lower Upper Lower Upper

H1: Social mission orientation→Innovativeness→Sustainability orientation .142 .293** .117 .608 .134 .650 Support
H2: Social mission orientation→Effectual orientation→Sustainability orientation .121 .246** .718 .246 .198 .654 Support
H3a: Innovativeness→Sustainability orientation→Proactiveness .137 .409** .174 .679 .214 .731 Support
H3b: Effectual orientation→Sustainability orientation→Proactiveness .132 .595** .334 .804 .279 .773 Support
H4a: Sustainability orientation→Proactiveness→Market orientation .045 .553*** .463 .646 .456 .641 Support
H4b: Sustainability orientation→Proactiveness→Value co-creation .043 .542*** .453 .623 .454 .624 Support
H5: Proactiveness→Market orientation→Value co-creation .048 .424*** .334 .525 .329 .517 Support

Hypothesis path Standardized path coefficients Standard error Results

H6 Sustainability orientation→Proactiveness −.030 .212 Support

Risk management→Proactiveness .243 .280
Sustainability orientation * Risk management→Proactiveness .649*** .011
H7a Proactiveness→Market orientation −.041 .095 Support
Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy→Market orientation −.096 .118
Proactiveness * Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy→Market orientation .788*** .020
H7b Proactiveness→Value co-creation −.264** .157 Support
Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy→Value co-creation −.100 .201
Proactiveness * Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy→Value co-creation .897*** .025
H7c Market orientation→Value co-creation .090 .175 Support
Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy→Value co-creation −.063 .109
Market orientation * Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy→Value co-creation .800*** .027

Note: *P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.

Fig. 2a. Interaction of sustainability orientation and risk Management on

Fig. 2b. Interaction of proactiveness and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy on
proactiveness.
market orientation.

entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which pertains to Hypotheses 6 and 7a-c,

are examined in Table 4. The results showed a significant interaction
effect between sustainability orientation and risk management (β=
.649, p < .001), demonstrating that the association between sustain-
ability orientation and proactiveness was more positive for high-level
risk management than for low-level risk management. Furthermore,
according to the suggestion of (Aiken & West, 1991), we plotted a two-
dimensional diagram with the values of one S.D. on either side of the
mean values for sustainability orientation and risk management to
further confirm the interaction effects. As illustrated in Fig. 2a, the
simple slope test showed that the higher the level of risk management
was, the stronger the positive effect of sustainability orientation on
proactiveness. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was fully supported.
Hypotheses 7a-c proposed that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy Fig. 2c. Interaction of proactiveness and social entrepreneurial Self-efficacy on
positively moderated the relationship among proactiveness, market co-creation value.
orientation and co-creation value. The results showed that there were
significant interaction effects between proactiveness and en- effects between proactiveness and market orientation stronger and the
trepreneurial self-efficacy for market orientation (β = .788; p < .001) positive association between proactiveness and co-creation were
and co-creation value (β= .897; p < .001). Furthermore, the coeffi- strengthened. Finally, a simple slope analysis, as shown in Fig. 2d,
cient for the interaction term market orientation * social en- confirmed that the effects of market orientation on co-creation value
trepreneurial self-efficacy was positive and significant for co-creation were more positive when social entrepreneurial self-efficacy was high
value (β= .800; p < .001). Slope tests were also applied to confirm rather than low.
the interaction effects. Fig. 2b and c shows that when the slopes of
social entrepreneurial self-efficacy became steeper, both the positive

103
C.-H. Sam Liu and C.-E. Huang
Fig. 2d. Interaction of market orientation and social entrepreneurial self-effi-
cacy on value co-creation.
4.1. Robustness checks
This study conducted additional checks to evaluate the robustness of
the methods, indicators and single-factor results observed in recent
studies (Liu, 2018). According to Dwivedi and Weerawardena's (2018)
research, we integrated six constructs to estimate SEO. Next, similar
procedures were applied to examine the Hypothesis of mediating-
moderation models.
As shown in Fig. 3a, the results for the second-order Hypothesis
models were within an acceptable range (χ2 = 1156.463, p < .001;
χ2/df = 3.126; CFI = 0.909; IFI = 0.909; TLI= .900; GFI = 0.826;
AGFI= .796; and RMSEA=.074), and all direct effect paths were po-
sitive and significant. In the indirect effect analysis, Hypotheses 1 to 5
in the single-factor structure were integrated, pointing to the mediating
role of market orientation in the second-factor model. The results
showed the average indirect effects of SEO on co-creation through
market orientation (β= .482; p < .001; bias-corrected 95% CI [0.407,
0.568] and percentile 95% CI [0.402, 0.564]), which passed the two-
tailed test.
The results showed that social entrepreneurial self-efficacy played a
Fig. 3. Alternative model of transforming the second order of SEO into the first order model of SEO.
104
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 97–106
positive moderating role in the relationship between SEO and market
orientation (β= .984; p < .001) and the relationship between SEO and
co-creation value (β= .954; p < .001). To clearly present the inter-
action, simple slopes are presented in Fig. 3b, c, and 3d. Additionally,
the mediating influences of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy that
strengthen the relationship between market orientation and co-creation
value were the same as the results of Hypothesis 7c. Therefore, the
moderating hypothesis of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy was con-
sistent with the prediction of this study.
5. Conclusion
The main purpose of this study was to discover how SEO affects
value and market co-creation processes under different levels of self-
efficacy in cultural and creative firm settings in Taiwan. Data from a
sample of 386 firms were collected to confirm the proposed conceptual
model. In the mutual relationships among the components of SEO, the
study followed Dwivedi and Weerawardena’s (2018) SEO con-
ceptualization and categories and found that social mission may influ-
ence proactiveness through the mediating mechanisms of innovative-
ness and effectual and sustainability orientations. Specifically,
appropriate risk management is more beneficial for strengthening the
relationships between sustainability orientation and proactiveness. The
present study findings also support Kraus, Niemand, Halberstadt, Shaw,
and Syrjä (2017): SEO is a critical dynamic capability of firms that
guides their strategies for achieving market and value co-creation. In
particular, social entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively moderates the
different relationships among proactiveness, market orientation and
value co-creation. In sum, the present study highlights the integrated
mediated-moderation effects among the domains of SEO and business
strategies for value and market co-creation in the dynamic environment
of CCIs.
5.1. Managerial contributions
Combining the new concepts of social issues with EO, including
C.-H. Sam Liu and C.-E. Huang
social mission, sustainability and risk management, has become critical
in firm operations, especially with the emphasis on corporate social
responsibility in the modern business world (Székely & Knirsch, 2005).
Thus, the first contribution is to encourage educators to design appro-
priate educational courses and curricula to include the SEO knowledge
and concepts necessary to be global citizens (Chell et al., 2016). Second,
the findings of this study also have important insights for en-
trepreneurs, managers, and human resource managers when con-
sidering the current and future responsibility of an organization. Two of
the organization antecedents of the identification of entrepreneurial
market opportunities and value co-creation were risk management and
social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Therefore, when facing a changing
industry and uncertainty, combining risk management and enterprise
concepts is becoming critical not only to help SMEs build the ability to
survive in a dynamic environment to gain strategic advantage but also
to strengthen their competitiveness to succeed in business (Brustbauer,
2016). Thus, designing the risk management system well and en-
couraging social entrepreneurial self-efficacy are also recommended
practices that enable employees and groups to formulate appropriate
strategies for the industrial environment to support entrepreneurial
opportunities, market growth and value co-creation. Third, the findings
have critical implications for cultural and creative firms in developing
their sensitivity to market changes and enhancing managers’ SEO re-
cognition ability. DiVito and Bohnsack (2017) have indicated that de-
cision making towards sustainability and SEO may assist managers in
adjusting their mindset towards corporate social responsibility (CSR)
and may be helpful in meeting customer requirements, thereby helping
to identify potential market opportunities in the tourism and hospitality
industry (Jalilvand, Khazaei Pool, Balouei Jamkhaneh, & Tabaeeian,
2018). Therefore, managers should encourage and develop education,
exercises, and learning programmes for current employees and set
standards for selecting future staff to achieve an adequate level of SEO
recognition capability. Such training and education programmes may
help managers and employees develop a sense of CSR, sustainability,
social mission and industry-related professional knowledge and in-
crease their awareness of market opportunities, values and require-
ments embedded inside and outside the workplace.
5.2. Theoretical contributions
This study contributes to increasing attention in the tourism and
hospitality literature in identifying social entrepreneurial behaviour
(Fu, Okumus, Wu, & Köseoglu, 2019). The findings of this study suggest
that cultural and creative firms’ engagement in SEO relies on different
critical attributes and, through social entrepreneurial self-efficacy, in-
fluences market value co-creation. Specifically, this study highlights the
importance of cultural contexts in providing significant contributions to
the entrepreneurial and tourism literature (Calza et al., 2018) and
shows that SEO enables cultural and creative organizations to explore
market opportunities to access tangible and intangible resources that
lead to competitive advantages. Similar results with regard to obtaining
cultural support on both rural and national scales were identified in
past tourism research (Sá, Casais, & Silva, 2019); however, previous
studies have not linked the social concepts with entrepreneurship.
Consequently, to date, EO theory is discussed only from the perspec-
tives of innovativeness, risk taking and proactiveness (García-Piqueres,
Serrano-Bedia, & Pérez-Pérez, 2019), which may be integrated with
various concepts of SEO in comparative social entrepreneurship, may
fruitfully extend EO theory (Liu & Lee, 2015) and give additional
consideration to the roles of sustainability and effectual orientation in
theorizing and formulating knowledge of entrepreneurship mechan-
isms.
Although research on social entrepreneurship is rapidly growing
around the world, extant quantitative and qualitative studies have been
equivocal about the impacts on SEO (Kraus et al., 2017). Thus, it is not
clear how critical and developing entrepreneurial processes might
105
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 97–106
affect the tourism and hospitality industry. Moreover, contemporary
entrepreneurship studies have noted the need to better clarify the dy-
namic nature of influences in the entrepreneurship field (Kraus et al.,
2017; Liu & Lee, 2015; Sá et al., 2019). Therefore, this study discovered
the critical moderating roles of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy,
which have not been investigated in the tourism and hospitality lit-
erature (Hallak, Assaker, & O'Connor, 2014). Comparisons of current
findings with previous research on entrepreneurial self-efficacy high-
light its mechanism of influencing and strengthening new product de-
velopment and market opportunity exploration (Kakoudakis et al.,
2017), which may help cultural and creative firms to satisfy customers'
changing needs and support firms' responses to environmental chal-
lenges.
5.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research
Despite the theoretical and managerial contributions of this study,
the limitations of our study should be noted. First, the study collected
data from cultural and creative firms in Taiwan; as Chang and Lee
(2015) noted, when considering Taiwan's CCIs, samples collected from
China should also be considered to ensure the generalizability of the
findings, though with caution. Further, the specific population may
have the typical problem of sample selection bias (Yüksel, 2017). Al-
though the given selected sample is appropriate for the proposed theory
to be tested, future research is suggested to extend our findings by in-
cluding samples from multiple populations, such as China, to examine
models in alternative settings. Second, other typical problems of
common source effects may arise, and their effects on the results should
be noted, given the issues associated with testing hypotheses with a
single data source (Su, Huang, & Huang, 2018). Moreover, it is worth
noting that self-report surveys may be affected by problems in survey
administration, respondents' emotional state, and self-discipline in re-
porting perceptions (Liu, 2018). However, the results show that CMV is
not a potential problem in this study. In the future, studies might in-
clude multi-level or longitudinal studies to avoid CMV and explore
changes in cultural and creative tourism in Chinese contexts (Zhang,
Fyall, & Zheng, 2015). Third, in this study, we found that SEOs serve as
important mechanisms in explaining cultural and creative firms' market
and value creation. However, the requirements for current and future
firm operations are dynamic and may fluctuate over time; thus, future
research should include cross-lagged panel designs or test the mod-
ifying effects of this reappraisal and destruction with SEO to address
their dynamic association (Lian et al., 2014).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.12.002.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alarifi, G., Robson, P., & Kromidha, E. (2018). The manifestation of entrepreneurial or-
ientation in the social entrepreneurship context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,
1–21.
Ali, F., Ryu, K., & Hussain, K. (2016). Influence of experiences on memories, satisfaction
and behavioral intentions: A study of creative tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 33(1), 85–100.
Altinay, L., Sigala, M., & Waligo, V. (2016). Social value creation through tourism en-
terprise. Tourism Management, 54, 404–417.
Andres, L., & Chapain, C. (2013). The integration of cultural and creative industries into
local and regional development strategies in birmingham and marseille: Towards an
inclusive and collaborative governance? Regional Studies, 47(2), 161–182.
Aquino, R. S., Lück, M., & Schänzel, H. A. (2018). A conceptual framework of tourism
social entrepreneurship for sustainable community development. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 37, 23–32.
Asmelash, A. G., & Kumar, S. (2019). Assessing progress of tourism sustainability:
Developing and validating sustainability indicators. Tourism Management, 71, 67–83.
Bacq, S., & Eddleston, K. A. (2018). A resource-based view of social entrepreneurship:
How stewardship culture benefits scale of social impact. Journal of Business Ethics,
C.-H. Sam Liu and C.-E. Huang
152(3), 589–611.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Biggemann, S., Williams, M., & Kro, G. (2014). Building in sustainability, social respon-
sibility and value co-creation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 29(4),
304–312.
Brustbauer, J. (2016). Enterprise risk management in SMEs: Towards a structural model.
International Small Business Journal, 34(1), 70–85.
Calza, F., Go, F. M., Parmentola, A., & Trunfio, M. (2018). European rural entrepreneur
and tourism‐based diversification: Does national culture matter? International Journal
of Tourism Research, 20(5), 671–683.
Chang, W. S., & Lee, Y. H. (2015). Policy momentum for the development of Taiwan's
cultural creative industries. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(11), 1088–1098.
Chathoth, P. K., Ungson, G. R., Harrington, R. J., & Chan, E. S. (2016). Co-creation and
higher order customer engagement in hospitality and tourism services: A critical
review. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(2), 222–245.
Chell, E., Spence, L. J., Perrini, F., & Harris, J. D. (2016). Social entrepreneurship and
business ethics: Does social equal ethical? Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 619–625.
Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested
concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business
Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.
Daniel, A. D., Costa, R. A., Pita, M., & Costa, C. (2017). Tourism Education: What about
entrepreneurial skills? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 30, 65–72.
DiVito, L., & Bohnsack, R. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and its effect on sustain-
ability decision tradeoffs: The case of sustainable fashion firms. Journal of Business
Venturing, 32(5), 569–587.
Dwivedi, A., & Weerawardena, J. (2018). Conceptualizing and operationalizing the social
entrepreneurship construct. Journal of Business Research, 86, 32–40.
Fadda, N., & Sørensen, J. F. L. (2017). The importance of destination attractiveness and
entrepreneurial orientation in explaining firm performance in the Sardinian accom-
modation sector. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(6),
1684–1702.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable vari-
ables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research,
382–388.
Fu, H., Okumus, F., Wu, K., & Köseoglu, M. A. (2019). The entrepreneurship research in
hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 78, 1–12.
Garay, L., Font, X., & Corrons, A. (2018). Sustainability-oriented innovation in tourism:
An analysis based on the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Travel
Research, 58(4), 622–636.
García-Piqueres, G., Serrano-Bedia, A. M., & Pérez-Pérez, M. (2019). Knowledge man-
agement practices and innovation outcomes: The moderating role of risk-taking and
proactiveness. Administrative Sciences, 9(4), 75–97.
Giannakis, M., & Papadopoulos, T. (2016). Supply chain sustainability: A risk manage-
ment approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, 455–470.
Gieling, J., & Ong, C. E. (2016). Warfare tourism experiences and national identity:The
case of Airborne Museum ‘Hartenstein’in Oosterbeek, The Netherlands. Tourism
Management, 57, 45–55.
Hahn, T., Kolk, A., & Winn, M. (2010). A new future for business? Rethinking manage-
ment theory and business strategy. Business and Society, 49(3), 385–401.
Hallak, R., Assaker, G., & Lee, C. (2015). Tourism entrepreneurship performance: The
effects of place identity, self-efficacy, and gender. Journal of Travel Research, 54(1),
36–51.
Hallak, R., Assaker, G., & O'Connor, P. (2014). Are family and nonfamily tourism busi-
nesses different? An examination of the entrepreneurial self-efficacy–entrepreneurial
performance relationship. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(3), 388–413.
Horng, J. S., Hsu, H., & Tsai, C. Y. (2018). An assessment model of corporate social
responsibility practice in the tourism industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(7),
1085–1104.
Jalilvand, M. R., Khazaei Pool, J., Balouei Jamkhaneh, H., & Tabaeeian, R. A. (2018).
Total quality management, corporate social responsibility and entrepreneurial or-
ientation in the hotel industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 14(3), 601–618.
Jiang, W. H., Li, Y. Q., Liu, C. H., & Chang, Y. P. (2017). Validating a multidimensional
perspective of brand equity on motivation, expectation, and behavioural intention: A
practical examination of culinary tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
22(5), 524–539.
Kakoudakis, K. I., McCabe, S., & Story, V. (2017). Social tourism and self-efficacy:
Exploring links between tourism participation, job-seeking and unemployment.
Annals of Tourism Research, 65, 108–121.
Kraus, S., Niemand, T., Halberstadt, J., Shaw, E., & Syrjä, P. (2017). Social en-
trepreneurship orientation: Development of a measurement scale. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(6), 977–997.
Laeis, G. C., & Lemke, S. (2016). Social entrepreneurship in tourism: Applying sustainable
livelihoods approaches. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
28(6), 1076–1093.
de Lange, D., & Dodds, R. (2017). Increasing sustainable tourism through social en-
trepreneurship. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(7),
1977–2002.
Lee, S. M., Olson, D. L., & Trimi, S. (2012). Co-innovation: Convergenomics, collabora-
tion, and co-creation for organizational values. Management Decision, 50(5), 817–831.
Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping, L. M., & Morrison, R. (2014).
Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(1), 116–139.
Lin, Y. H., & Chen, H. C. (2018). Critical factors for enhancing green service innovation:
Linking green relationship quality and green entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 9(2), 188–203.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-
106
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 42 (2020) 97–106
sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114.
Liu, C. H. S. (2018). Examining social capital, organizational learning and knowledge
transfer in cultural and creation industries of practice. Tourism Management, 64,
258–270.
Liu, C. H., & Lee, T. (2015). Promoting entrepreneurial orientation through the accu-
mulation of social capital, and knowledge management. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 46, 138–150.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and perfor-
mance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team
behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Özsomer, A. (2002). The effects of entrepreneurial pro-
clivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(3),
18–32.
Memili, E., Fang, H. C., Koc, B., Yildirim-Öktem, Ö., & Sonmez, S. (2018). Sustainability
practices of family firms: The interplay between family ownership and long-term
orientation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 9–28.
Nasution, H. N., Mavondo, F. T., Matanda, M. J., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2011).
Entrepreneurship: Its relationship with market orientation and learning orientation
and as antecedents to innovation and customer value. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40(3), 336–345.
O'Cass, A., & Ngo, L. V. (2012). Creating superior customer value for b2b firms through
supplier firm capabilities. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(1), 125–135.
Papavasileiou, E., Lyons, S., Shaw, G., & Georgiou, A. (2017). Work values in tourism:
Past, present and future. Annals of Tourism Research, 64, 150–162.
Parris, D. L., & McInnis-Bowers, C. V. (2014). Social entrepreneurship questioning the
status quo: Waste as a resource. Journal of Economic Issues, 48(2), 359–366.
Pelham, A. M., & Wilson, D. T. (1996). A longitudinal study of the impact of market
structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimension of
small-firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 27–43.
Perrini, F., & Vurro, C. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: Innovation and social change
across theory and practice. Social entrepreneurship (pp. 57–85). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems
and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.
Pozo, H., & Tachizawa, T. (2018). Marketing and social responsibility: an exploratory
study of local tourism. Tourism and Management Studies, 14(4), 39–49.
Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact measurement:
Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115.
Sá, E., Casais, B., & Silva, J. (2019). Local development through rural entrepreneurship,
from the triple helix perspective: The case of a peripheral region in northern Portugal.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(4), 698–716.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from
economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management
Review, 26(2), 243–263.
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship:
Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic entrepreneurship journal, 3(2),
161–194.
Sigala, M. (2016). Learning with the market: A market approach and framework for
developing social entrepreneurship in tourism and hospitality. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1245–1286.
Su, L., Huang, S., & Huang, J. (2018). Effects of destination social responsibility and
tourism impacts on residents' support for tourism and perceived quality of life.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(7), 1039–1057.
Székely, F., & Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsi-
bility:: Metrics for sustainable performance. European Management Journal, 23(6),
628–647.
Tsaur, S. H., & Yen, C. H. (2018). Work–leisure conflict and its consequences: Do gen-
erational differences matter? Tourism Management, 69, 121–131.
Wales, W., Gupta, V. K., Marino, L., & Shirokova, G. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation:
International, global and cross-cultural research. International Small Business Journal,
37(2), 95–104.
Wang, C., Duan, Z., & Yu, L. (2016). From nonprofit organization to social enterprise: The
paths and future of a Chinese social enterprise in the tourism field. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1287–1306.
Yan, Z., Cao, X., Dong, H., & Han, Y. (2018). Is entrepreneurial orientation a good pre-
dictor of sustainable performance? Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability,
14(3), 124–165.
Yüksel, A. (2017). A critique of “Response Bias” in the tourism, travel and hospitality
research. Tourism Management, 59, 376–384.
Zhang, C., Fyall, A., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Heritage and tourism conflict within world
heritage sites in China: A longitudinal study. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(2),
110–136.
Zhang, L., & Zhang, J. (2018). Perception of small tourism enterprises in Lao PDR re-
garding social sustainability under the influence of social network. Tourism
Management, 69, 109–120.
Zhao, W., Ritchie, J. B., & Echtner, C. M. (2011). Social capital and tourism en-
trepreneurship. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1570–1593.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6),
1265–1272.
Zollo, L., Yoon, S., Rialti, R., & Ciappei, C. (2018). Ethical consumption and con-
sumers’decision making: The role of moral intuition. Management Decision, 56(3),
692–710.