The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1469-1930.htm

Effect of social capital on Effect of social

capital on
agribusiness diversification agribusiness

intention in the emerging market

Le Dang Lang
Thu Dau Mot University, Thu Dau Mot, Vietnam
Received 31 January 2021
Abhishek Behl Revised 20 March 2021
OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India 18 April 2021
Accepted 19 April 2021
Nguyen Trung Dong
College of Management for Agriculture and Rural Development II,
Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
Yama Temouri
Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates and
Aston University, Birmingham, UK, and
Nguyen Hong Thu
Thu Dau Mot University, Thu Dau Mot, Vietnam

Abstract
Purpose – Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has seriously affected the global economy. How
agribusinessmen are overcoming this crisis is being noticed in emerging markets. Using social capital to
diversify agribusiness for getting more customers is a useful solution for the growth of agribusiness.
However, there is a lack of evidence on the aggregate measurement scale of social capital and the influence of
behavioral goals on the intention toward agribusiness diversification. Therefore, this study aims to develop
an integrated measurement of social capital and investigate its effect on agribusiness diversification
intention using the expanded theory of planned behavior (TPB).
Design/methodology/approach – A mixed-methods approach is used, including four in-depth interviews,
three focus group discussions and two surveys. Structural equation modeling is applied to a sample of 484
respondents to test the proposed hypotheses.
Findings – The study shows the role of social capital in influencing the intention to diversify agribusiness
under the premises of the resource-based view (RBV). The scale of social capital is also developed, which is the
first integrated measurement of this asset. The findings contribute significantly to the existing knowledge of
social capital, the TPB and diversifying agribusiness.
Originality/value – This is the first study to explore the comprehensive effect of the facets of social capital on
behavioral intention through behavioral goals and determinants of the TPB under the premises of the RBV.
The findings will help emerging economies, for example, Vietnam, where most farmers are family business
owners or microscaled entrepreneurs in agriculture.
Keywords Agribusiness diversification, COVID-19, Resource-based view, Social capital,
Theory of planned behavior
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis has badly destroyed the world economy
(Singh et al., 2020; Al-Omoush et al., 2020; Lim and To, 2021), in which many organizations

The authors wish to convey their sincere appreciation to editors and anonymous reviewers for the effort
and time they have invested in providing constructive reviews despite the challenges of COVID-19,
which helped us improve our manuscript’s quality substantially. Journal of Intellectual Capital
Declaration of competing interest: We confirm there are no potential conflicts of interest to the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1469-1930
research, authorship and or publication of this article, and no funding has been received. DOI 10.1108/JIC-01-2021-0039
JIC have been forced to reduce their scale. In this context, the agriculture and agribusiness of
Vietnam, a developing country with 65.57% of all population relating to agriculture (General
Statistics Office of Vietnam, 2020), have also seriously been affected. As a consequence, many
agricultural businesses and households have lost customers and then dropped into financial
crises. Therefore, it is urgent to develop alternatives for diversifying incomes in agriculture
and agribusiness.
Some scholars also identified farm diversifications as essential alternative strategies that
farmers can apply to survive and succeed (Hansson et al., 2013). Previous studies also showed
that agribusinessmen make their decisions based on a set of economic and noneconomic goals
(Barbieri and Mahoney, 2009). However, no studies, to the best of the authors’ knowledge,
have examined the role of goals in pushing agribusiness diversification under the premises of
the resource-based view (RBV), while the RBV is one of the most critical theoretical
frameworks which is referred to in the majority of studies in this area (Bamel et al., 2021).
Instead, most of the earlier studies relating to behavioral goals encourage diversifications in
agritourism (Barbieri and Mahoney, 2009; Hansson et al., 2013) although several past studies
also indicated an understanding of the goals or motivations behind entrepreneurial and
agricultural diversification (e.g. Hansson et al., 2013; Barba-S
anchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo,
2018). The motives or goals for diversifying agribusiness have mostly multiple dimensions,
and economic aspects should be considered (Vik and McElwee, 2011; Hansson et al., 2013).
Additionally, a deeper understanding of the effect of essential resources on intentions
toward diversifying farms through behavioral goals is crucial to understand farmers’
responses to agricultural change (Barbieri and Mahoney, 2009). It is also necessary to provide
insights regarding the adequacy of diversification as an agribusiness development strategy.
Therefore, the current study explores the importance of essential resources and behavioral
goals in motivating agribusiness diversification using the theory of planned behavior (TPB).
Individuals and organizations should utilize strategic resources to compete (Dubey et al.,
2020). The success in the context of the current “new normality” situation should be based on
intangible resources (Teece, 2007), such as intellectual capital (Barrutia and Echebarria, 2021) or
social capital (SC) (Bhatti et al., 2020), especially in an economy highly affected by COVID-19. For
example, social capital has an essential role in creating e-business proactiveness in responding
to the pandemic (Al-Omoush et al., 2020). Moreover, there is also an overall consensus that
competitive advantage is not gained through tangible resources. This is parallel to a widely
debated topic referred to as the RBV, where intangible resources are strongly supported as the
most important source of an organization’s success (Barney, 1991; Newbert, 2008). In this study,
we refer to SC because it enables to increase entrepreneurs’ networks that facilitate the
exchange of essential resources and product innovation (Molina-Morales and Mart
ınez-
Fern
andez, 2010; Glover, 2013; Agostini et al., 2017; Oliveira et al., 2020). SC also strengthens
microenterprise innovativeness, entrepreneurial competencies, competitive advantage (Corvino
et al., 2019), or motivates the growth of a business, boosts sales, obtains competitive advantages
(Sallah and Caesar, 2020), and increases well-being (Calcagnini and Perugini, 2019). SC resources
are especially important and seen as primary resources that influence family-owned businesses
(Wu et al., 2020). Furthermore, facets of SC positively affect knowledge sharing, which positively
affects three components of intellectual capital (i.e. human capital, structural capital and
relational capital), leading to innovation (Allameh, 2018; Oliveira et al., 2020) and employee
creativity (Bhatti et al., 2020). Although SC has various approaches (Kim and Aldrich, 2005;
Light and Dana, 2013), it is often defined as a network of resources or relationships (Tatarko and
Schmidt, 2016). The more individuals gain SC, the higher the chance they obtain desired
outcomes (Chen et al., 2015). Consequently, SC has received significant attention from both
scholars and policymakers (Ag
enor and Dinh, 2015) with an evolving and increasing role
(Bamel et al., 2021). Its applications also vary (e.g. Xu et al., 2018; Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2020),
especially in agribusiness or agriculture (Glover, 2013; Xu et al., 2018; Cofr
e-Bravo et al., 2019).
 Although scholars have noticed SC for decades, there is a relative dearth of studies that Effect of social
integrally measure SC. There has been a lack of consensus regarding its measurement, as capital on
indicated by Pirolo and Presutti (2010) and Calcagnini and Perugini (2019), or the statement of
Fukuyama (2001, p. 12) that “one of the greatest weaknesses of the social capital concept is the
agribusiness
absence of consensus on how to measure it.” Nevertheless, it is not easy to measure SC by its
complexity and intangibleness (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 2000; Sabatini, 2009; H€allsten et al.,
2015). In fact, as the implication of Morrow et al. (2017), its existing measurement is in a vague
methodology or a lack of theory-based and validated measurements (Snoxell et al., 2006). As a
consequence, most of the existing empirical studies apply partial approaches with one or a
few facets of SC (Seghers et al., 2012; Morrow et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2018; Boohene et al., 2019;
Chmel
ıkov
a et al., 2019; Calcagnini and Perugini, 2019; Cofr
e-Bravo et al., 2019; Sallah and
Caesar, 2020), while it is a multidimensional construct (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 2000;
Gedajlovic et al., 2013). Thus, scholars need to weigh each measure depending on the context
of the study before applying for their studies (Veerle et al., 2012). For example, some aspects of
SC applied include bonding and bridging dimensions (Morrow et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2018),
bonding, bridging and linking dimensions (Cofr
e-Bravo et al., 2019), trust (Coleman, 1988),
relationships as network ties (Seghers et al., 2012), rules and norms governing social actions
(Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 2001), informal or formal social ties, trust, norms of collective
action (Calcagnini and Perugini, 2019), strong and weak ties of SC (Pirolo and Presutti, 2010),
social interactions, trust, shared vision and involvement of local institutions (Molina-Morales
and Mart
ınez-Fern
andez, 2010). In brief, from recent calls by Xu et al. (2018), Chmel
ıkov
a et al.
(2019), and Sanchez-Famoso et al. (2020) about the growing need to develop an integrative
measurement scale of SC that captures its complexity, this study intends to develop a new
integrated measurement that should be explored in the agribusiness before investigating its
full effect on psychological factors relating to diversifying agribusiness.
On the other hand, the TPB is an ideal theoretical framework to study behavioral intentions
for the following reasons. First, the behavioral intention requires careful planning, a favorable
attribute for the TPB. Second, the TPB is seen as the most suitable model to examine
entrepreneurial intentions than other theories (Li~ n
an and Chen, 2009; Zhang and Cain, 2017).
Third, agribusinessmen’s behaviors are not exclusively affected by profit maximization
(Gasson, 1973). Thus, their intention to diversify agribusiness aims to see incomes and
nonfinance goals (e.g. a contribution to community development, social positioning, or
reputation). Consequently, their behavioral intentions, actual behaviors and success are
directly and indirectly affected by tangible and intangible resources under the premises of the
RBV, especially intangible resources (Barney, 1991; Newbert, 2008), including SC. Therefore,
the TPB and RBV are fundamental theories, which complement each other in this study.
In brief, from the limitation of the existing literature relating to the integrated measurement
scale of SC and its crucial role as well as behavioral goals on creating behavioral intentions
toward diversifying agribusiness, the current study aims to answer the following two key
research questions:
RQ1. What are the aspects measuring SC in the agribusiness industry?
RQ2. What are the extent and impact of specific aspects of SC on diversifying
agribusiness through behavioral goals, behavioral attitude, subjective norms and
perceived behavioral control?
The study tends to provide a thorough understanding of the role of SC, behavioral goals in
creating agribusinessmen’s intention to diversify agribusiness. The study is expected to
significantly contribute to the existing literature on the theory of SC TPB, andRBV.
Simultaneously, the result of the study is seen to help emerging economies, for instance,
Vietnam, with a population of nearly 100 million, in which most farmers are family business
JIC owners (Glover, 2013; Hansson et al., 2013) or microscale entrepreneurs (Carter and Rosa,
1998) in agriculture. These agribusinessmen, who are respondents, may lack economic
capital and intangible types of capital, such as SC (Glover, 2013). This study, therefore, aims
to the right persons that they need to prioritize in strengthening their SC to improve their
difficult situation in the context of the negative influence of COVID-19. The paper is
structured as follows. The next section of the study discusses agribusiness diversification,
the theory of SC, TPB and its extension and RBV, followed by the methodology, the scales
development, the hypotheses development and testing, the discussions and the expected
contributions. The paper concludes by summarizing the contributions as well as the
limitations and future research directions.

2. Theoretical underpinning
2.1 Behavioral intention toward agribusiness diversification (IDB)
The concept of farm diversification has not yet a unified definition although it has long
received significant attention from scholars (Hansson et al., 2013). Following the strategic
management literature, the term of business diversification includes developing new
products for existing markets, supplement existing products into new markets and serve new
products for new markets, as proposed by Johnson et al. (2011). However, processing
branded products from agricultural produce or on-farm retailing and marketing are also
considered a diversification in the farm diversification literature (e.g. McNally, 2001) although
it is considered vertical integration in the strategic management literature (e.g. Johnson et al.,
2011). Farm diversification is also considered involvement in ventures outside conventional
agriculture. Farm resources are used or for ventures based on further on-farm processing and
or marketing and retailing of products. The farmer is seen as the manager (Hansson et al.,
2013). This definition of farm diversification closely resembles previous studies (e.g. McNally,
2001; Barbieri and Mahoney, 2009; Vik and McElwee, 2011).
According to Ilbery (1991), farm diversification is also the recombination and reallocation
of farm resources to new unconventional crops/animals or nonagricultural enterprises that
are developed on the farm. More specifically, Barbieri and Mahoney (2009) indicated six
different types of diversification: the adoption of nontraditional crops and livestock or the
application of new agricultural practices; the use of direct marketing and selling activities,
and integrated marketing communications to make farm products in different markets; the
integration of recreation, tourism and hospitality enterprises on the farm; the lease, rental,
easements and timeshares of the farming and its resources; providing contract services;
value-added products, including the packaging or processing. In brief, the forms of farm
diversification suggested by scholars relating to business models in agriculture are
relatively similar to entrepreneurial diversification. Thus, farm diversification can be seen as
agribusiness diversification, a new business strategy that farmers as entrepreneurs
undertake (Storer et al., 2014). Moreover, the behavioral intention to diversify farms is an
essential condition for farm diversification and may be affected by some psychological
factors, as suggested by Ajzen (1991), Heuer and Li~ n
an (2013), Murugesan and Jayavelu
(2015), and Aleksandrova et al. (2019).

2.2 Theory of planned behavior (TPB) and its extension

The TPB is developed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), which indicates that behavioral
intention is an essential condition for planned behavior and is affected by some psychological
factors. The TPB also implies that the more favorable attitudes, subjective norms and
perceived behavioral control the individuals have toward a behavior, the stronger intention
they have to perform that behavior (Ajzen, 1991). This study, therefore, considers
determinants of the TPB (i.e. attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control)
as the mediator variables that influence the intention to diversify agribusiness. Besides, some Effect of social
recent studies have endeavored to improve the predictive power of the TPB by adding capital on
variables, for instance, past behaviors and habits (Smith et al., 2007). Therefore, the present
study applies an extended TPB to examine agribusinessmen’s intention to diversify their
agribusiness
agribusiness. The behavioral goals are taken as an additional construct to the TPB, identified
as desired outcomes that govern individual and entrepreneurial behavior (Gasson, 1973).
This additional construct is an internal drive that leads individuals to various behaviors
(Barba-S
anchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018). Behavioral goals can also lead individuals to
set priorities and acquire information (Willock et al., 1999) because they guide their behaviors
(Locke and Latham, 2006).
On the other hand, individuals’ behavioral goals can differ across economic statuses and
available resources and among developing countries and advanced countries. In particular,
Gasson (1973) explained the role of noneconomic goals by arguing that farmers can maximize
satisfaction for agribusiness diversification rather than maximizing income. Getz and Carlsen
(2000) also found out that the purpose of agritourism is not economic goals alone. However, we
argue that farmers in developing countries as small-scale entrepreneurs in agriculture often
have low income, and thus, the purpose of their agribusiness diversification is to improve
income. In this context, we assume that agribusiness diversification is a strategicorientation
that leads to activities to obtain their goals. Consequently, goals and other psychological factors
have positive effects on agribusinessmen’s intentions and decisions, as suggested by Wilson
(1996), Barba-S
anchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo (2018), and Aleksandrova et al. (2019).

2.3 Theory of social capital (SC)

SC is seen as an integral part of intellectual capital (Bhatti et al., 2020). It implicates
individuals’ ability to receive benefits from their social networks, structures and
membership (Koçak et al., 2013). SC also explains the linking among networks, social
interaction, trust, shared vision, social norms and groups that individuals have for
beneficial goals (Barrutia and Echebarria, 2021). Although there is much debate on how SC
is generated (Lee et al., 2015) and its definitions (Lee et al., 2015; Calcagnini and Perugini,
2019), the central subject is still “our social ties matter and bring us benefits” (Neves and
Fonseca, 2015, p. 15). SC has three core components which are networks, values and trust
(Coleman, 1990; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
Besides, to rigorously and fully examine the influence of SC on diversifying agribusiness
through the TPB and its extension (i.e. behavioral goals), it needs to have an integrated
measurement of SC. Simultaneously, SC cannot directly be measured, as per the statement of
Chmel
ıkov
a et al. (2019). Thus, this study adopts the multidimensional approach of SC. SC is a
connection of networks, relationships and linkages in creating shared knowledge, norms of
reciprocity, trust and rules. We then integrate various facets to define SC based on its three
distinct dimensions, i.e. structural, cognitive and relational dimensions (Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998, 2000; Allameh, 2018), where the cognitive dimension is rarely mentioned in the
prior studies (Lee and Jones, 2015).
More specifically, according to Gomez-Limon et al. (2014), the structural dimension of SC
may have four facets, which are: bonding SC, generated through interactions between
members of a relatively homogeneous group (Putnam, 2000) or resources that provide
supports embedded within the strong ties among immediate family members, close friends or
neighbors (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000; Cleaver, 2005); bridging SC, generated and shared
through interconnections between heterogeneous groups (Putnam, 2000) or obtained through
connections among people in different ethnic, geographical and occupational situations
(Woolcock and Narayan, 2000); linking SC, generated from ties connecting individuals, or the
groups they belong to, to persons in a position of political or financial power (Putnam, 2000);
JIC corporate SC, formed by professional associations that pursue their members’ special
interests (Sabatini, 2009). Among them, the distinctness of bonding SC and bridging SC is not
fixed and only relative (Xu et al., 2018).
Next, the cognitive dimension may have two facets (Gomez-Limon et al., 2014), which are
civics (i.e. the civic-mindedness of individuals to keep themselves informed about public affairs)
and community cohesiveness (i.e. a certain degree of attachment desired for ensuring
development). The relational SC can have seven components (Gomez-Limon et al., 2014),
including five facets based on the trust and trustworthiness (Fukuyama, 1995), norms and
social sanctions, and generalized reciprocity (Coleman, 1990). More specifically, according to
Sabatini (2009), five facets based on trust include knowledge-based trust (i.e. the confidence in
well-known people), generalized social trust (i.e. the trust toward unknown people), trust in
public services (i.e. the result of using and having access to public services), trust in political
institutions (i.e. the development of having access to political institutions), and subjective safety
(i.e. the subjective perception that the local community is a safe place to live and work). The
following two facets are norms and social sanctions, that is, expectations that bind virtually
(Kramer and Goldman, 1995), as is the case with general reciprocity, understood as the
combination of short-term altruism and long-term self-interest (Taylor, 1982); generalized
reciprocity, that is, the combination of short-term altruism and long-term self-interest (Taylor,
1982) by providing a service or acts for the benefit of others in the general expectation to get
future returns. In brief, these facets are a relatively full description of SC indicated by prior
studies. This study, therefore, applies them to develop an integrated measurement of SC before
evaluating its full role in creating the intention to diversify agribusiness through applying the
expanded TPB under the premises of the RBV.

2.4 Resource-based view (RBV)

The RBV is proposed first by Wernerfelt (1984), which emphasizes the importance of critical
internal resources in identifying the differences in success levels amongst the same industry
firms. Barney (1991) also argues that resources can be an essential contributor to an enterprise’s
success. On the other hand, Moliterno and Wiersema (2007) claim that resources do not all
contribute equally to an enterprise’s success. In short, the RBV focuses on an organization’s
resources as essential elements in creating competitive advantage and operation performance
(Peteraf and Barney, 2003). Based on the RBV, the essential resources of organizations or
individuals have positive effects on their performance (Alexander et al., 2016), such as
competitive advantage (Powell, 2001; Corvino et al., 2019) and product innovation performance
(Agostini et al., 2017; Oliveira et al., 2020).
SC creates goodwill and relationships built on trust and accumulated in many forms over
time (DeCarolis and Saparito, 2006). Through this form of capital, individuals can get reliable
and exclusive information. Thus, it affects their attitudes and intentions by enhancing their
knowledge, skills and abilities, leading to business development or diversification conveniently.
Thus, this essential intangible form of capital becomes one of the most critical resources for
organizations or individuals under the premises of the RBV. On the other hand, in the context of
the Vietnam agriculture industry, agribusinessmen are often smallholders, as entrepreneurs
of microenterprises (Carter and Rosa, 1998), the role of SC in creating the intention
to diversify agribusiness is a considerable topic. We contend that the TPB is an ideal
theoretical framework to examine behavioral intentions, which is seen as the most suitable
theory to predict behavioral intentions, as confirmed by other scholars, for example,
Li~n
an and Chen (2009) and Zhang and Cain (2017).
Moreover, the TPB has also been widely applied in agriculture (Bergevoet et al., 2004).
Besides, we contend that the RBV is the most appropriate approach to understand the
creation and management of small and microbusinesses. It fully describes how microscaled
entrepreneurs create and develop businesses from resources currently possessed or acquired
(Dollinger, 1999). Thus, we contend that the TPB and RBV provide a robust theoretical Effect of social
framework to explore the full effects of SC on behavioral intentions toward diversifying capital on
agribusiness through mediating variables as determinants of the TPB and its extension part
(i.e. behavioral goals).
agribusiness
In summary, there seems to be a lack of an integrated measurement scale of SC and a
thorough understanding of the role of SC in creating the intention to diversify agribusiness in
the existing literature. The current study aims to clarify these two issues. The following
sections will discuss how we address them.

3. Methodology
3.1 Mixed-methods approach
The mixed methodology is applied for the current study. This approach is seen as the most
suitable methodology for studies relating to developing new scales (e.g., Arora and Stoner,
2009; Latif et al., 2019; Zhang and Laroche, 2020). In particular, this study needs an integrated
measurement of SC, which is absent in the current literature. Next, qualitative studies help
provide a richer and more complex picture of the considered issue based on participants’
subjective perspectives (Creswell, 2002), and thus, it adds important insights about SC
(Strauss and Corbin, 1998). However, they may lack a rigorous validation of measurement
scales and test hypothesized causal relationships. In contrast, quantitative studies can ignore
rich details of SC not indicated by the existing scales, even though it is statistically rigorous
(Srnka and Koeszegi, 2007). Therefore, we contend that the mixed-method approach is
suitable for the current study, which helps mitigate purists’ concerns and provides the needed
depth of understanding (Arora and Stoner, 2009, p. 274). Besides, Churchill’s (1979) rigorous
eight-stage scale development process is applied to develop an integrated SC measurement.
This process is also widely adopted in the scale development by a mixed-method design with
two quantitative studies (i.e. preliminary test and official test). In that, the multitrait–
multimethod approach is used to validate the scale replaced by the exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), as suggested by MacKenzie et al.
(2011). In brief, using a mixed methodology based on a contemporary, two-studies design is
suitable, as suggested by Srnka and Koeszegi (2007). An exploratory sequential design is best
suited given the existing literature’s circumstances (Creswell and Clark, 2017). Our research
process can be synthesized as Figure 1, where four in-depth interviews, three focus group
discussions and two surveys are applied.
The flowchart indicates that two in-depth interviews are first conducted to develop a set of
SC statements. Then three focus group discussions are organized to generate the initial pool
of indicators. Besides, two in-depth interviews with senior agribusinessmen are also applied

Qualitative studies Quantitative studies

02 in-depth interviews 03 focus group discussions and

with expert and First round Second round
02 in-depth interviews with
professor agribusinessmen survey survey

to purify (i) to validate

to develop indicators as the (i) to adjust/ add indicators to generate
indicators that scales; (ii) to
first pool of indicators to the initial pool of indicators; (ii) to Figure 1.
measure social investigate
measure social capital refine existing measurements Study design
capital hypotheses
JIC to refine the existing constructs’ scales. Next, based on the initial pool of SC indicators, a
detail-designed questionnaire is used to collect data for the first study in within three
provinces of two regions of Vietnam using a direct interview technique. Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient and EFA are then used to purify the initial pool of indicators. The direct
interview technique is also applied for the main survey, which uses the detail-designed
questionnaire following indicators purification in two regions of Vietnam (i.e. the
Southcentral region and Mekong Delta region). Finally, the scales’ reliability and validity
are evaluated by applying Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient, EFA and CFA to develop
reliable and valid measurement scales. Hypotheses are tested by structural equation
modeling (SEM).

3.2 Measurement
Many past studies have suggested measurements for determinants of the TPB (i.e. attitude,
subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) its extension (i.e. behavioral goals) and
the behavioral intention. However, we contend that those scales vary across different
countries or contexts and would benefit from fresh revalidation. Next, the integrated scale for
SC is absent in the existing business literature. Thus, new facets with more suitable
measurement indicators for SC are required for further exploration. In particular, for
determinants of the expanded TPB with existing measurement indicators, this research
adopts those measurements from prior studies. Still, it subjects them for revalidation through
two in-depth interviews to establish content and face validity of these scales. The same
approach is also applied for the behavioral intention to diversify agribusiness that does not
have suitable measurement indicators based on the past literature. More specifically, scales of
behavioral attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavior control are measured by three-
indicator, five-indicator and seven-indicator scales, in turn, adapted from Hansson et al.
(2012). A nineteen-indicator scale measures the construct of behavioral goals with six
dimensions adapted from Barbieri and Mahoney (2009). The initial measure for the
behavioral intention has three indicators adapted from Senger et al. (2017), developed based
on the studies of Barbieri and Mahoney (2009) and Hansson et al. (2013).
The measurement scale of SC is newly developed following Churchill’s (1979) rigorous
scale development process, also widely adopted in scale development (e.g. Latif et al., 2019;
Zhang and Laroche, 2020). More specifically, the conceptual definitions of SC are adopted
from other scholars and then adapted to fit the agribusiness industry’s context for use by two
in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions. The indicators are purified by the
preliminary survey and then validated in the main survey. All question indicators are
measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 5 “strongly disagree” and five 5 “strongly agree”).
The main study is conducted on the larger and more generalizable sample size and was used
to test the hypothesized model.

3.3 Sample
Respondents are agribusinessmen, seen as microscale entrepreneurs (Carter and Rosa, 1998)
or family business owners (Glover, 2013; Hansson et al., 2013). They are directly interviewed
to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements about aspects of SC,
behavioral goals, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intentions
toward diversifying agribusiness on a five-point Likert scale. The sample size should be five
times the number of estimated EFA parameters (Hair et al., 2010) and ten times in CFA (Kline,
2011). The sample is at least 200 samples for SEM (Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2011). We collect 137
and then 484 complete questionnaires for the first survey and the second survey. The
sample’s profile in the (preliminary) first survey is shown in Table 1. The (official) second
survey dataset points out that the sample is diverse and representative of agribusinessmen.
Characteristics Details

Gender Male: 80.1% Female: 19.9%

Distribution Mekong Delta (Bac Lieu and An Giang): 43.1% Southern region (Ba Ria-Vung Tau): 56.9%
Aging ≤25: 1.7% 26–35:17.6% 36–45: 30.3% 46–55: 12.6% >55: 37.8%
Marital status Not yet married: 7.0% Married: 88.6% Divorced/widowed: 4.4%
Percentage of time for agricultural activities ≤25%: 12.7% 26–50%: 19.5% 51–75%: 44.1% >75%: 23.7%
Experienced years <10: 31.1% 11–20: 36.1% 21–30: 17.2% >30: 15.6%
Average income per year (VND million) <100: 64.6% 101–200: 29.2% 201–300: 3.5% >300: 2.7%
Education Primary/below: 16.2% Junior high school: 42.3%
Senior high school: 25.4% Higher school/college: 12.3% University: 3.8%
Completed a training course in agriculture Yes: 65.9% No: 34.1%
Have any work/business beyond agriculture Yes: 55.1% No: 44.9%
Member of an agricultural cooperative Yes: 42.6% No: 57.4%
Farm size (hectares) 0 ha (business): 6.3% <1 ha: 58.7% 1–2 ha: 27.1% 3–4 ha: 7.9% >4 ha: 0%
Farm tenancy Owned: 83.1% Rented: 8.8% Mixed: 8.1%
Number of people employed for agriculture None: 44.9% 1–3: 47.5% 4–6: 5.1% >6: 2.5%
Number of type of plant (animal) on farm 1–3: 61.3% 4–6: 26.4% 7–9: 6.6% >9: 5.7%
Kind of agriculture Cultivation: 38.3% Breeding: 7.5% Aquaculture: 2.5% Mixed: 51.7%
Kind of cultivation Organic farming: 13.1% Conventional farming: 86.9%
Branded product from agricultural produce Yes: 12.2% No: 87.8%
agribusiness
capital on
Effect of social

Table 1.

first survey
Sample’s profile in the
JIC In particular, the sample focuses on the male (79.5%), with ages from 36 to 45 years old
(35.7%) and 46 to 55 (28.2%) at Mekong Delta (72.7%) and south-central (27.3%) regions with
seven provinces of Vietnam, including Quang Nam, Dak Nong, Tien Giang, Bac Lieu, Hau
Giang, Kien Giang and An Giang provinces. Many of them got married (90.2%) and have at
least eleven years of experience in agriculture (76.7%). However, the respondents’ education
is not high, only 9.6% of them have university certificates, and 11.2% graduated from higher
school or college. This educational characteristic is also suitable for past relevant studies.
More than half of them completed a short training course in agriculture (66.4%) and are
members of agricultural cooperatives (50.5%). Nevertheless, nearly half of them have work or
businesses beyond agriculture production (45.5%). More specifically, 25.5% of them spend
around 26% to 50% of the time on agricultural activities, 41.3% spend from 51% to 75%, and
24.2% spend over 75% of their time doing agricultural activities. Besides, their annual
average income is relatively low; 85.8% have an income of 200 million or below (VND).
On the other hand, respondents are often small holders, with the number of people employed
for agricultural activities less than four people (88.2%). Their farm size is from 1 to 2 hectares or
below (78.1%), only 16.5% of them have from 3 to 4 hectares, and 5.4% have above 4 ha.
However, a big part of them owns their agricultural land (79.1%), only 7.0% rent the land, while
13.9% simultaneously own and rent the land. The number of plant/animal types on the farm is
around one to three for 64.6%, 24.4% of them have four to six types, 11.0%. have seven or
above. The rate of cultivation from respondents is 45.6%, 8.9% is inbreeding, 3.8% is in
aquaculture, while 41.6% are mixed. Nevertheless, only 11.4% of them are in organic farming
production, whereas 88.6% adopt conventional farming. A few of them have private branded
products from agricultural produce (10.2%). In short, the data collection points out that the
sample is abundant and representative. Thus, the data is reliable and relatively adequate to
conduct the empirical analysis using EFA, CFA and SEM analyses.

4. Scales development
4.1 Qualitative studies and item generation
4.1.1 Social capital from the practitioner’s perspective. Qualitative studies generate a pool of
indicators. In particular, one agricultural expert and then a business professor is invited to
discuss adjusting and developing Gomez-Limon et al.’s (2014) questions regarding SC
measurement and exploring new statements. For example, the question “In the last
12 months, how often have you met with your close family?” is replaced by the statement “I have
often met with my family members”. For instance, some new statements are also explored,
“I have often met my close friends” and “I trust the people who succeeded in agriculture
production”. These studies aim to develop the first pool of indicators. The result indicates that
thirteen facets with seventy-seven indicators describe SC: bonding SC (8); bridging SC (8);
linking SC (8); corporate SC (5); knowledge-based trust (6); generalized social trust (4); trust in
political institutions (5); trust in public services (8); subjective safety (3); norms and social
sanction (4); generalized reciprocity (4); civics (10); community cohesiveness (4). Then three
focus group studies, including a group of seven agribusinessmen, coded from F1 to F7, a
group of seven supporters (i.e. engineers), coded from S1 to S7, and a group of four officials of
Farming Associations combined with three researchers of agriculture, coded from E1 to E7,
are conducted to adjust or explore indicators. Participants have at least five years of relevant
experience. The result generates an initial pool of seventy-nine indicators (Table 2) in that
four indicators are deleted, and six indicators are added. Besides, there are two main reasons
for developing many indicators. First, this study aims to develop an integrated measurement
scale of social capital. Second, an agricultural expert and one business professor in two
different areas create the first pool of indicators. This approach creates an integrated
development of aspects of SC.
Social capital Number of indicators generated by focus group
Effect of social
Dimensions Subdimensions discussion capital on
agribusiness
Structural social Bonding social capital 9
capital Bridging social capital 9
Linking social capital 7
Corporate social capital 5
Relational social Knowledge-based trust 6
capital Generalized social trust 4
Trust in political 5
institutions
Trust in public services 9
Subjective safety 3
Norms and social sanction 3
Generalized reciprocity 4 Table 2.
Cognitive social Civicness 9 The result of focus
capital Community cohesiveness 6 group discussion

For example, three participants of Group 1 and one of Group 3 disagree with the statement
“I am satisfied with the relationships I have with my family members” (BON3). However, this
statement is still kept for the next purification due to other participants’ ascendant
agreement. One participant (E6) suggests the new statement for the bonding SC, “I often share
my agricultural understanding with relatives around me,” Thus, it is added to the initial pool of
indicators, coded by BON9. Several words in statements are also changed for easier
understanding. Besides, there are also some arguments among Group 1 for some statements
of bridging SC. For instance, four members of Group 3 disagree with BRI1 and BRI2, but all
statements are kept for the subsequent testing.
Moreover, one new statement is added, suggested by E6, coded by BRI9. LIN3 (“I often
collaborate with a religious organization”) is removed by the disagreement of almost all
members of Group 1. Other statements have some arguments, such as LIN1 (by Group 1) or
LIN8 (Group 3), but are kept to test tightly. Also, the words “keep in touch” are replaced by
“collaborate” following the suggestions of E2 and E3. However, an idea proposed by E7 is not
accepted because it is duplicated with LIN8. Finally, the statements of the corporate SC are
retained though some participants disagree with COR4.
The exploratory studies also adjust statements describing facets of relational SC. For
example, KBT2 and KBT3 are edited by adding more suitable words proposed by E2. GST1
(“Generally speaking, I trust in people”) of the generalized social trust is deleted because almost
all participants disagree with it. Other statements are held back for more rigorous testing,
although there is disagreement, such as GST2. One statement is added by the suggestion of
E7, coded by GST5. All statements of the trust in political institutions and subjective safety
are kept with some corrections in used words. One statement is added to the trust in public
services, coded by TPS9 proposed by E7. NSS3 of the norms and social sanctions is removed
because four members in every group disagree with it. However, other statements are
preserved with a correction in the presentation. For the generalized reciprocity, all Group 3 do
not agree with GER1, while the three members of Group 1 disagree with GER3 and GER4; the
agreement of GER2 by all participants is also not high. Nevertheless, they are kept for the
next analyses because of participants’ high unification.
Finally, some statements of facets of cognitive dimension also have some adjustments. For
instance, CIV10 (“I think I am informed about issues related to the Asean”) of the civicness is
removed, while other statements are edited for easier understanding. CIV5 (“I am interested in
issues related to the Asean”) has a strong debation but is kept to test more rigorously. Besides,
there is a significant disagreement relating to COC1 (“I think there are significant differences in
JIC my village regarding ‘land ownership’”) and COC2 (“I think there are significant differences in
my village regarding ‘disputes of governmental policies’”) from members of Group 2. At the
same time, almost all agribusinessmen state that these statements describe community
cohesiveness. They, therefore, are still kept for the next tightly test. Also, two indicators,
which are “I think that there is a close connection among farmers in the village” (COC5) and
“I think that there is a sharing of agricultural experience among farmers” (COC6), are also
added for this facet, proposed by E7. However, some other participants argue that they can
describe the norms and social sanctions.
4.1.2 heory of planned behavior’s determinants, goals and behavioral intention from the
practitioner’s perspective. Two senior agribusinessmen are invited to refine existing
constructs’ measurement scales. They have already adopted farm diversification (i.e.
organic practice and agritourism). Three exploratory questions, including (1) “do you
understand the following statements that describe relevant issues?” (2) “do you have any
suggestions to refine the statements (word, sentence) about them?” and (3) “do you add any
statements to describe the relevant issues?”, are discussed by the in-depth interview
technique. The result is presented in Table 3, which shows a reconcilement to the existing
scales. More specifically, the result of the two interviews shows that the attitude,
subjective norms and perceived behavior control are described by the five-indicator,
seven-indicator and eight-indicator scales, where some new suitable statements are added.
For instance, the statements “I always note new effective agricultural production models”
(ADB4) and “I am interested in new business ideas in agriculture” (ADB5) are added to the
behavioral attitude, while the statement “Most people I hear opinions from agreeing that I
should diversify my business” (SNO6) is added to the subjective norms toward diversifying
agribusiness. The statement “I think my neighbors appreciate my business” is changed from
the facet of the perceived behavioral control into the subjective norms, coded by SNO7. The
statements “I have enough knowledge to diversify my business” (PBC7) and “I have enough
resources to diversify my business” (PBC8) are also added to the perceived behavior control.
Besides, while the statements “increase income from the farm in general” (Goa3) and
“Enhance closer connections in family members” (Goa21) are added to the behavioral goals,
three statements are added to the intention to diversify agribusiness, including IDB4, IDB5
and IDB6. The wording used for the statements is also edited to fit the study’s context.

4.2 Quantitative studies and scales validation

4.2.1 Common method bias. The issue of common method bias (CMB) is common in surveys.
We endeavored to limit it in several ways. First, the mixed-methods approach helped us build

Constructs Number of indicators

Refined by
Construct Dimensions From the literature practitioners

Behavioral goals Revenue enhancement 2 3

Personal aspirations and pursuits 4 4
Reduced uncertainty and risk 4 4
Grow and service markets 4 4
Enhanced financial condition 3 3
Family connection 2 3
Table 3. Behavioral attitude Unidimension 3 5
The result of the Subjective norms Unidimension 5 7
existing scales Perceived behavioral control Unidimension 7 8
refinement Behavioral intention Unidimension 3 6
our results across the points of multiple data and target respondents. Next, we used Harman’s Effect of social
single-factor test to analyze CMB statistically (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Principal axis capital on
factoring (PAF) was performed on the indicators that measured all the constructs. The result
indicated that the cumulative percentage of a single factor variance was 24.659%, which is
agribusiness
well below the 50% threshold (Harman, 1976). Thus, the test result from Harman’s single-
factor test showed that CMB is not a concern in the main study.
4.2.2 Scale purification. The preliminary survey aimed to purify the initial pool of
indicators, which measured facets of SC. First, Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability coefficient
analysis was used. Conditions for this analysis are α ≥ 0.6 and item-total correlations ≥0.3
(Hair et al., 2010). Next, EFA was applied for all facets of SC in that principal components
analysis (with varimax) was used to maximize the result of exploratory. Conditions for
extracting components in EFA at the eigenvalue of one were average variance extracted
(AVE) ≥ 50%, item’s loading > 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010) and bias among loadings of every
item < 0.3. The result indicated that the structural dimension of SC still keeps four initial
facets with seventeen indicators, including bonding SC (4), bridging SC (3), linking SC (6) and
corporate SC (4). The cognitive dimension is also composed of two facets, as the literature
implied, including civicness (7) and community cohesiveness (6). The preliminary test also
showed that the relational dimension has six facets, which are knowledge-based trust (4),
generalized social trust (3), trust in political institutions (5), trust in public services (4),
subjective safety (3) and norms and social sanction (3). However, incredibly, all indicators that
describe the facet of generalized reciprocity were removed. However, we contend this deletion
can be suitable because there were many debates with participants’ disagreement about this
facet in our qualitative studies. This unexpected finding can come from the context of the
agribusiness industry badly affected by COVID-19. Interactions among individuals may be a
very few or no aim to obtain benefits in the near future, especially in developing countries like
Vietnam. Besides, some measurement indicators were also removed because they did not
satisfy statistical requirements. These findings help us have a relatively full set of facets of SC
in developing its integrated measurement scale. Thus, the results from the preliminary test
continue to meet our explorative objective.
4.2.3 Scale validation. The purpose of the validation in the primary survey analysis is to
identify a final set of indicators with acceptable discriminant and convergent validity and
internal consistency reliability equivalence. First, EFA (PAF/Promax) was applied for all
constructs in the structural model. The result indicated fourteen factors extracted from the
final EFA in that two factors as two facets of structural SC, namely bonding–bridging SC and
linking–corporate SC. Particularly, bonding–bridging SC is a mix of three bonding SC
indicators and two indicators of bridging SC. This finding is different from Putnam’s (2000)
suggestion but suitable with Xu et al.’s (2018) statement. The linking–corporate SC is a
combination of five indicators of linking SC and two indicators of corporate SC. Besides, while
three facets of relational dimension exist, including generalized social trust, trust in political
institutions and trust in public services, facets of knowledge-based trust, subjective safety,
and norms and social sanction are removed. This result shows that the trust in successful
farmers, entrepreneurs, famous scientists and people in the village, norms and social
sanction, or the subjective safety has not yet been confirmed to be facets of SC. These findings
also supported our explorative studies. Otherwise, a cognitive dimension of SC has four
factors extracted. Two factors are for every civicness and community cohesiveness but are
later confirmed as a single factor using CFA.
Next, we also found that Cronbach’s alpha (α) reliability coefficients analysis results
greater than 0.7. CFA was first used to test the discriminant validity of two factors of
community cohesiveness and then civicness, and was then applied to test the critical model.
The CFA model is valid when satisfying several statistical criteria. The scale is reliable if it
satisfies three criteria: composite reliability (CR) ≥ 0.5 (Joreskog, 1971); AVE ≥ 0.5
JIC (Fornell and Larcker, 1981); and Cronbach’s alpha (alpha) ≥ 0.6 (Hair et al., 2010). The
convergent scale is confirmed because its standardized weights (λ) are more than 0.5 (p < 0.5)
(Hair et al., 2010). A scale is discriminant when r correlations of every pair of scales are
significantly different from one (p < 0.05) (Hair et al., 2010). The result showed that a single
factor measures the community cohesiveness and then the civicness. Moreover, the result of
the critical model test indicated that all goodness of fit indices are valid with three adjustable
solutions for scales of linking–corporate SC, trust in public services and the intention to
diversify agribusiness (χ 2 5 2193.992, df 5 1,011, p 5 0.000, χ 2/df 5 2.170, CFI 5 0.915,
TLI 5 0.905, and RMSEA 5 0.049). The scales’ reliability and validity testing was presented
in Table 4, which indicate that all scales of facets of SC are reliable (CR > 0.7, AVE > 0.5,
Alpha ≥0.7), convergent and discriminant (Hair et al., 2010; MacKenzie et al., 2011).
Furthermore, the variance test result showed that all values of the AVE are more than 0.5,
with the lowest being 0.510 for the goals toward diversifying agribusiness. Therefore, the
convergent validity of the measurement scales is consolidated (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All
constructs have the values of maximum shared variance (MSV) that are less than the AVE
values in every construct, with the maximum of MSV at 0.475 for political institutions’ trust.
Thus, the scales’ discriminant validity is also supported (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
In brief, the study developed a new integrated measurement of SC, which consists of seven
facets with twenty-eight indicators. Notably, SC’s structural dimension has two facets,
including bonding–bridging SC and linking–corporate SC. Besides, while civicness and
community cohesiveness are two facets of relational SC, the cognitive dimension of SC has
three facets: generalized social trust, trust in public services and trust in political institutions.
Moreover, the study also reconciled the measurement scales of existing constructs. All scales
are reliable and valid, which will be used to test the causal relationships hypothesized.

5. Hypotheses development and testing

5.1 Hypotheses development
5.1.1 Effects of dimensions of social capital on the expanded theory of planned behavior’s
determinants. Individuals use structural SC to develop trust and norms in a joint vision due to
the shared interactions and experiences (Pearson et al., 2008). This form of capital helps
individuals access information, resources and supports, and thus, individuals recognize
opportunities and form the entrepreneurial intention to establish and develop the enterprise
(Kim and Aldrich, 2005; Lan and Luc, 2020). We argue that the structural SC’s nature as
stimuli directly affects their behavioral attitude and intention. Particularly, the facet of
linking–corporate SC directly influences the attitude and then the behavioral intention to
diversify agribusiness (IDB). Simultaneously, the facet of bonding–bridging SC can enhance
the attitude toward diversifying agribusiness (ADB). However, its effect on the intention may
be indirect through the attitude because of conflicting advice or no professional comments.
Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1a. Linking–corporate SC positively affects the ADB.
H1b. Linking–corporate SC positively affects the IDB.
H1c. Bonding–bridging SC positively affects the ADB.
The cognitive dimension of SC enables individuals to assess and understand the information
and classify it (Koçak et al., 2013). It is considered as the perceived shared norms, which create
trust among network members (Li et al., 2013) and common ways of activities that affect
attitude, intention and behavior (Lan and Luc, 2020). We argue that agribusinessmen with a
rich cognitive SC will be urged to diversify their agribusiness when they are in an
agribusiness network with shared norms. Therefore, this dimension of SC, measured by
Dimensions/constructs Facets Indicators Loading
Effect of social
capital on
Structutal social capital Bonding–bridging I often talk to my family members about 0.671 agribusiness
(SSC1) agricultural issues
CR 5 0.864 I often talk to my close friends about 0.768
AVE 5 0.520 agricultural issues
Alpha 5 0.842 Several close friends are willing to help me 0.755
solve my agricultural issues
Several neighbors often help me solve my 0.735
agricultural issues
Several acquaintances sometimes help me 0.671
solve my agricultural issues
Linking–corporate I often keep in touch with a labor 0.832
(SSC2) association (e.g. Labor Export
CR 5 0.905 Associations, Creative Labors
AVE 5 0.615 Associations)
Alpha 5 0.909 I often keep in touch with an environment 0.852
association (e.g. Environment Protect or
Assessment Associations, Environment
Consulting Associations)
I often keep in touch with a technology 0.870
association (e.g. Mechanical Associations,
Biological Associations, Biogas
Associations)
I belong to many associations (as a 0.737
member)
I have often taken an active part in 0.733
gatherings of the Trading Promotion
Association
I have often taken an active part in 0.661
gatherings of the “controlled designation
of origin” or trademark organizations
Relational social capital Generalized social trust I trust my family members’ friends 0.690
CR 5 0.794; I trust my acquaintances 0.772
AVE 5 0.563; I trust the friends of my friends 0.785
Alpha 5 0.788
Trust in political I trust the local Science and Technology 0.813
institutions Department (as the local government
CR 5 0.896 representative organization in science and
AVE 5 0.742 technology management)
Alpha 5 0.894 I trust political leaders–government in 0.858
general when they talk about agriculture
policies
I trust the local Agricultural and Rural 0.910
Development Department (as the local
government representative in agricultural
and rural management)
Trust in public services I trust the local transport system 0.671
CR 5 0.823; I trust the local educational system 0.761
AVE 5 0.538; I trust the agricultural quality 0.772
Alpha 5 0.837 management officials
I trust the agricultural credit funds 0.741 Table 4.
Scales’ reliability and
(continued ) validity
JIC Dimensions/constructs Facets Indicators Loading

Cognitive social capital Civicness I think I am informed about issues related 0.843
CR 5 0.864; to my “regional district”
AVE 5 0.615; I think I am informed about the degree of 0.803
Alpha 5 0.861 development of my region
I think I am informed about issues related 0.748
to “agricultural and the rural world”
I think I am informed about issues related 0.738
to Vietnam
Community I think there are significant differences in 0.844
cohesiveness my village because of “ethnic” problems
CR 5 0.837; I think there are significant differences in 0.887
AVE 5 0.636; my village due to “religious” reasons
Alpha 5 0.830 I think there are different opinions in my 0.640
village in disputing governmental policies
Goals toward diversifying CR 5 0.838 Respond to a market need/opportunity 0.713
agribusiness AVE 5 0.510 Make farm/ranch less dependent on 0.694
Alpha 5 0.836 outside factors
Increase income from farm/ranch in 0.679
general
Increase/diversify the market 0.775
Provide current customers with new 0.705
products/services
Attitude toward CR 5 0.822 I am interested in new business ideas in 0.837
diversifying agribusiness AVE 5 0.607 agriculture
Alpha 5 0.813 I always note new effective agricultural 0.809
production models
I like to try new ways of making money in 0.683
my business
Subjective norms toward CR 5 0.863 I feel that others think that I will succeed 0.805
diversifying agribusiness AVE 5 0.559 in my business
Alpha 5 0.866 I feel that my friends and family think that 0.824
I run my business in the right way
I think others see me as a role model 0.681
I think my neighbors appreciate my 0.647
business
I think other farmers believe that I run my 0.766
business in the right way
Perceived behavioral CR 5 0.794 I think it is easy to find the information I 0.819
control toward AVE 5 0.658 need to run my business
diversifying agribusiness Alpha 5 0.794 When I implement significant changes in 0.803
my business, I think it is easy to find
information about how it can be done
Intention to diversify CR 5 0.914 My intention diversifies business on my 0.919
agribusiness AVE 5 0.684 farm in the next five years
Alpha 5 0.920 My intention will diversify the business 0.924
on my farm in the next five years
I intend to diversify the business on my 0.700
farm by supplying some agricultural
services
I intend to diversify the business on my 0.859
farm in the next five years
I intend to diversify the business by 0.704
adding to the distribution of some
products for agriculture
Table 4. Note(s): CR 5 composite reliability. AVE 5 average variance extracted. Alpha 5 Cronbach’s alpha
civicness and community cohesiveness facets, directly positively affects behavioral goals and Effect of social
subjective norms (SNO) and then indirectly influences the attitude and IDB. Therefore, we capital on
suggest four H2a, H2b, H2c and H2d hypotheses:
agribusiness
H2a. Civicness positively affects the goals toward diversifying agribusiness.
H2b. Civicness positively affects the subjective norms toward diversifying agribusiness.
H2c. Community cohesiveness positively affects the goals toward diversifying
agribusiness.
H2d. Community cohesiveness positively affects the subjective norms toward
diversifying agribusiness.
The relational SC affects individuals’ long-term interactions, intentions and behaviors in the
network (Pearson et al., 2008; Lee and Jones, 2015). Some prior studies indicated that trust
increases cooperation (Shi et al., 2015). Individuals can access the network to exchange and
integrate resources and develop the motivation to create value (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 2000).
This form of SC can also promote relationships and create an advantage in business (Shi et al.,
2015; Corvino et al., 2019). We argue that relational SC has a positive influence on the perceived
behavioral control, which leads to a positive intention to diversify their agribusiness.
Furthermore, close connections to create trust in relevant local political organizations may also
increase the agribusinessmen’s goals toward diversifying their businesses. Besides, we agreed
with the finding of Wu et al. (2020) that trust in general does not directly affect behavioral
intention. Therefore, we suggest the following hypotheses:
H3a. Generalized social trust positively affects the perceived behavioral control toward
diversifying agribusiness.
H3b. Trust in public services positively affects the perceived behavioral control toward
diversifying agribusiness.
H3c. Trust in political institutions positively affects the perceived behavioral control
toward diversifying agribusiness.
H3d. Trust in political institutions positively affects the goals toward diversifying
agribusiness.
5.1.2 Effects of the expanded theory of planned behavior’s determinants on intention to
diversify agribusiness. The behavioral goal is the internal drive that leads a person to various
behaviors (Barba-S
anchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018). The behavioral goal in this study
refers to agribusinessmen’s goal when diversifying agribusiness. The planned goals can
impact agribusinessmen’s decisions (Wilson, 1996; Bergevoet et al., 2004) and then their
behaviors (Locke and Latham, 2006), such as setting priorities and acquiring information
(Willock et al., 1999). We argue that behavioral goals are antecedents of behavioral
attitudes and behavioral intentions. Suppose agribusinessmen have straightforward and
robust agribusiness diversification goals, which will strengthen their positive ADB, as
a consequence, agribusinessmen will have the intention of diversifying their farms.
Therefore, we hypothesize that
H4a. Goals toward diversifying agribusiness positively affect the ADB.
H4b. Goals toward diversifying agribusiness positively affect the IDB.
Behavioral attitude for this study refers to the attitude to diversify agribusiness. Some prior
studies showed that behavioral attitude positively affects behavioral intention (Murugesan
and Jayavelu, 2015; Ting et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2020). Similarly, Li~ n
an and Chen (2009),
JIC Aleksandrova et al. (2019), and Lan and Luc (2020) implicated a significant relationship
between the attitude and intention of becoming a social entrepreneur. We argue that
agribusinessmen intend to diversify their agribusiness if their attitude toward diversification
is positive. Thus, the H5 hypothesis is proposed:
H5. ADB positively affects the IDB.
Next, subjective norms refer to perceived social pressures that an individual perceives when
performing a specific behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In this study, they are the social pressures
positively perceived by respondents when diversifying agribusiness. Individuals may
consider whether their actions are in the presence of social norms that accept and encourage
them to do that. Thus, they tend to adopt behaviors under the pressure of the surrounding
people (Ting et al., 2016), Lan and Luc (2020), Wu et al., (2020). They may not be willing to
diversify their agribusiness until they need to meet the needs or social pressures from
surrounding people. Thus, we propose that
H6. Subjective norms toward diversifying agribusiness positively affect the IDB.
Finally, the perceived behavioral control is an individual’s perception of the ability to do a
particular behavior or an individual’s perception of the difficulty in implementing the
behavior (Ajzen, 1991). For the current study, perceived behavioral control is the respondents’
perception toward diversifying agribusiness, which has a direct and positive impact on
behavioral intention, as suggested by Ting et al. (2016), Aleksandrova et al. (2019), Lan and
Luc (2020), and Wu et al. (2020). We argue that this positive influence also exists in
agribusiness. Furthermore, when agribusinessmen’s perceived behavioral control (PBC)
toward diversifying agribusiness is positive, they may reduce social pressures. Thus, their
subjective norms toward diversifying agribusiness may also be more positive. Based on these
argumentations, we hypothesize that
H7. Perceived behavioral control toward agribusiness diversification positively affects
the IDB.

5.2 Results of hypotheses testing

The result of the structural model analysis showed an acceptable model (χ 2 5 2413.384,
df 5 1,038, p 5 0.000, χ 2/df 5 2.325, CFI 5 0.901, TLI 5 0.893 and RMSEA 5 0.052). This model
also checked for the hypothesized causal relationships (Figure 2). The study results provided
the supports for H1b (p 5 0.000) and H1c (p 5 0.000) hypotheses, which show the direct and
positive effect of the linking–corporate SC on IDB and the effect of the bonding–bridging SC on
ADB are statistically confirmed. However, the direct influence of the linking–corporate SC on
ADB has not yet been supported (p 5 0.696), and thus, the H1a hypothesis is rejected. The
findings also indicated that civicness has direct and positive effects on the behavioral goals and
SNO, and thus, the relevant hypotheses, H2a (p 5 0.000) and H2b (p 5 0.000), are supported.
In contrast, the direct effects of community cohesiveness on the behavioral goals and SNO have
not yet been statistically confirmed, and thus, H2c (p 5 0.699) and H2d (p 5 250) hypotheses are
rejected. Besides, the results showed that the effects of generalized social trust and trust in
public services on PBC exist; thus, H3a (p 5 0.000) and H3b (p 5 0.000) hypotheses are
supported. In contrast, the effect of trust in political institutions on PBC is not significant
(p 5 0.571); thus, the H3c hypothesis is rejected. However, the effect of trust in political
institutions on behavioral goals is significant; therefore, the H3d hypothesis is accepted.
On the other hand, the study also indicated that the effect of ADB’s behavioral goals is
significant. Thus, the H4a hypothesis is supported (p 5 0.000), whereas its influence on IDB is
insignificant (p 5 0.286), which leads to rejection for the H4b hypothesis. Furthermore, the
findings also confirmed the direct and positive effects of ADB, SNO and PBC on IDB.
 Effect of social
Civicness
capital on
0.64
0.29
agribusiness
Community Behavioral
Cohesiveness 0.02 Goals

– 0.05 0.43
–0.05

Linking- – 0.02 Behavioral

Corporate Attitude

0.27
0.27
0.43 Intention to
Bonding-
Diversify
Bridging
Agribusiness
0.28 0.27
Subjective
Trust in
Norms
Political Insti.
–0.04 0.16

Trust in 0.34 Perceived

Public Services Behavioral Control

0.26
Generalized
Social Trust Figure 2.
The result of the
Note(s): Chi-square (χ 2) = 2413.384; df = 1038; P = 0.000 structural model
analysis
Chi-square/ df (χ2/df) = 2.325; CFI = 0.901; TLI = 0.893; RMSEA = 0.052

Thus, relevant hypotheses, H5, H6 and H7, are supported, where the regression weight of
SNO is the highest (0.275), the next was the effect of ADB (0.269), and the influence of PBC is
lowest (0.164). In brief, the findings are shown in Table 5, which shows the role of SC in
influencing the IDB. Some discussions and implications of findings are presented in the
following sections.

6. Discussions
First, the study reconciled the scales of existing constructs. The findings showed a significant
change in the number and contents of measurement indicators for initial scales. Particularly,
the ADB, SNO, and PBC toward diversifying agribusiness are measured by three-indicator,
five-indicator and two-indicator scales, which significantly differ from the measurements
proposed by Hansson et al. (2012). Furthermore, the scale of the goals toward diversifying
agribusiness only has one facet with five indicators, which indicates a big difference from the
initial scale with six facets adapted from Barbieri and Mahoney (2009). Besides, theIDB is
measured by a five-indicator scale, which is also different from the initial scale obtained from
Senger et al. (2017). All reconciled measurement scales are rigorously tested to indicate
reliability and validity, which implies a meaningful contribution to the current literature. It
provides more suitable scales for the agribusiness industry in the emerging market. These
measures are strongly recommended to apply for relevant studies in the area. These findings
also provide a reliable background for developing suitable practical implications, discussed
in more detail in the next section.
 JIC

results
Table 5.
Structural model
Structural model results
Hypotheses Std. β Unstd. β SE p Hypotheses testing

H2a Civicness → goals toward diversifying agribusiness 0.289 0.243 0.051 *** Supported
H2c Community cohesiveness → goals toward diversifying agribusiness 0.020 0.012 0.032 ns Not supported
H3d Trust in political institutions → goals toward diversifying agribusiness 0.285 0.215 0.044 *** Supported
H4a Goals toward diversifying agribusiness → attitude toward diversifying agribusiness 0.432 0.458 0.062 *** Supported
H3a Generalized social trust → perceived behavioral control 0.262 0.285 0.076 *** Supported
H3b Trust in public services → Perceived behavioral control 0.343 0.369 0.095 *** Supported
H1c Bonding–bridging social capital → Attitude toward diversifying agribusiness 0.275 0.246 0.047 *** Supported
H3c Trust in political institutions → perceived behavioral control 0.043 0.039 0.069 ns Not supported
H2d Community cohesiveness → subjective norms 0.054 0.040 0.035 ns Not supported
H2b Civicness → subjective norms 0.639 0.629 0.052 *** Supported
H1a Linking–corporate social capital → intention to diversify agribusiness 0.018 0.011 0.028 ns Not supported
H4b Goals toward diversifying agribusiness → intention to diversify agribusiness 0.053 0.081 0.076 ns Not supported
H7 Perceived behavioral control → intention to diversify agribusiness 0.164 0.209 0.056 *** Supported
H6 Subjective norms → intention to diversify agribusiness 0.275 0.360 0.056 *** Supported
H5 Attitude toward diversifying agribusiness → intention to diversify agribusiness 0.269 0.388 0.072 *** Supported
H1b Linking–corporate social capital → intention to diversify agribusiness 0.435 0.377 0.036 *** Supported
Note(s): *** 5 significant at levels of 1%. ns 5 nonsignificant
 Second, this study developed a new integrated measurement of SC. This scale has seven Effect of social
facets with a total of twenty-eight indicators, which was confirmed to be more adequate and capital on
rigorous than scales developed by past studies, such as the measure of SC proposed or
adopted by Boohene et al. (2019), Chmel
ıkov
a et al. (2019), and Sallah and Caesar (2020). It is
agribusiness
also more suitable, reliable and rigorous than the SC statements proposed by Gomez-Limon
et al. (2014). This result is seen as advancements in theory, which strongly respond to calls
from prior studies by other researchers (e.g. Gomez-Limon et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2018;
Chmel
ıkov
a et al., 2019; Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2020). This new measurement will be very
useful for studies that apply the theories of SC, human resources or intellectual capital. Some
applied studies in the agribusiness area can also use this scale to suggest more suitable and
practical solutions. Also, social policymakers can apply it for building sustainable social or
agricultural development strategies.
Third, the study explored causal relationships amongst the facets of SC, behavioral
goals, ADB, SNO, PBC and IDB toward diversifying agribusiness. More specifically, the
linking–corporate SC has a powerfully direct and positive effect on IDB (0.435), while the
bonding–bridging SC directly affects ADB (0.275). These findings are meaningful
exploratories, indicating the important role of SC’s structural dimension for practical
applicability. However, the significant relationship between the linking–corporate SC and
ADB has not yet been found. Thus, the result does not fully support but makes more explicit
Lan and Luc’s suggestions (2020) regarding the direct and positive effects of social
interactions and ties on ADB.
Besides, civicness has positive effects on behavioral goals (0.639) and SNO (0.289),
whereas the relationship of community cohesiveness and behavioral goals or SNO has not
yet been found. This result is a meaningful addition to the theory of SC that past studies
(e.g. Lan and Luc, 2020) have not yet indicated the significant relationships between
civicness and behavioral goals or SNO. Also, the study indicated the direct and positive
effects of generalized social trust (GST) and trust in public services (TPS) on PBC, in where
the regressional weight of TPS is higher (0.343 compared to 0.262). Furthermore, trust in
political institutions (TPI), seen as the third facet beside the two above facets of the
relational dimension of SC, is also found to directly and positively affect behavioral goals.
However, the result does not support our suggestion of the significant relationship
between TPI and PBC. These findings strongly empirically consolidate the suggestions of
Lan and Luc (2020) regarding the direct effects of social trust on determinants of the TPB.
This result also implies the important role of relational SC in creating a network to
exchange and integrate resources to create value or a business advantage, as indicated by
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (2000), Shi et al. (2015), or Corvino et al. (2019). In brief, these
findings significantly contribute to the current literature by providing advancements in
theory.
Finally, the role of behavioral goals in creating IDB is also made more transparent and
affirms the significant effects of ADB, SNO,and PBC on IDB. Behavioral goals indirectly
affect IDB, and then ADB directly affects IDB (0.269). This result consolidates other
scholars’ work (e.g. Murugesan and Jayavelu, 2015; Ting et al., 2016; Aleksandrova et al.,
2019; Lan and Luc, 2020; Wu et al., 2020) regarding the significant effect of ADB on IDB.
Furthermore, the study also shows significant effects of SNO and PBC on IDB (0.275;
0.164). This result increases the representation of the findings of Ting et al. (2016), Lan and
Luc (2020), and Wu et al. (2020) due to research in the other area (i.e. the agribusiness
industry). In short, these findings not only consolidate but also expand the existing
literature. The study also supplies a reliable background to develop suitable practical
implications to push agribusiness diversification, discussed in the next section in more
detail.
JIC 7. Contributions
7.1 Theoretical contributions
First, the study improves the measurement scales of the existing constructs in the emerging
market (i.e. Vietnam) badly affected by COVID-19. All new scales of behavioral goals,
attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intention toward diversifying
agribusiness are reliable and valid. These findings significantly contribute to the existing
literature due to providing scales with more suitable measurement indicators for the
agribusiness industry.
Second, this study provides an integrated measurement of SC, which indicates a significant
contribution to SC theory. This new measure has seven facets, including bonding–bridging
SC, linking–corporate SC, generalized social trust, trust in political institutions, trust in public
services, civicness and community cohesiveness, with a total of twenty-eight indicators,
developed based on three dimensions of SC (i.e. structural, cognitive and relational dimensions).
This measurement is indicated to be more adequate and rigorous than existing scales. Thus,
this meaningful contribution is the evidence for the theory advancement, i.e., a supplement of
two new measurement scales of structural and relational dimensions of SC that are seen as two
core components of intellectual capital (Pedro et al., 2019). On the other hand, relevant studies,
for example, examining the impact of SC on specific behavioral intentions, could be strongly
recommended to apply this measurement scale (Whitehead et al., 2019).
Third, the study explores relationships amongst facets of SC, behavioral goals, ADB, SNO,
PBC and IDB toward diversifying agribusiness. This study’s findings clarify the role of SC,
seen as essential intangible resources under the perspective of the RBV, in creating IDB.
Furthermore, the study also provides reliable empirical evidence of ADB, SNO, and PBC’s
direct and positive effects on IDB. These findings not only contribute to a deeper understanding
but also significantly add to the existing literature. Also, the findings imply potential
combinations of the theories of SC, human capital, reputation capital, etc. to create an
integration of various theoretical frameworks in studies of intellectual capital, as suggested by
Bamel et al. (2020).

7.2 Practical implications

Agribusiness diversification is an important strategy that agribusinessmen can apply to
overcome their current difficult situation badly impacted by COVID-19. The diversification
can adopt the forms that Barbieri and Mahoney (2009) synthesized. On the other hand,
agribusinessmen strengthen their SC by exploiting seven aspects of SC explored by the
current study. More specifically, agribusinessmen should note to extend social networks,
network ties and formation of linkages between individuals or between the individual and
groups to increase the bonding–bridging SC and linking–corporate SC (i.e. structural SC).
Agribusinessmen also need to reinforce interactions to increase the trust and accept shared
norms and vision from other persons and relevant organizations to enhance aspects of
relational SC (i.e. generalized social trust, trust in political institutions and trust in public
services). Besides, agribusinessmen should be interested in the community through
civicness and community cohesiveness to strengthen their cognitive SC. SC can also be
significantly enhanced through effective knowledge transfer and acquisition practices
(Ramadan et al., 2017) or synthesis of knowledge resources and intrapreneurship, that is,
better organize, synchronize and support (Asiaei et al., 2020). As a consequence, SC helps
facilitate agribusinessmen’s exchange of resources, product innovation, competencies, and
competitive advantage and then strengthens their business performance (Molina-Morales
and Mart
ınez-Fern
andez, 2010; Agostini et al., 2017; Boohene et al., 2019; Corvino et al., 2019;
Oliveira et al., 2020) as well as positively affects behavioral intentions to diversify
agribusiness.
 On the other hand, for social policymakers to push agribusiness diversification, they need Effect of social
to focus on behavioral goals, determinants of the TPB and behavioral intentions. More capital on
specifically, it is essential to base these factors’ measurement indicators to develop suitable
solutions to create a significant impact on agribusinessmen’s perception, thoughts, decisions
agribusiness
and then actual behaviors. The solution suggested simultaneously uses mass (e.g. televisions,
newspaper, radio and digital marketing solutions) and niche media (e.g. word-of-mouth by
officials and special magazines) to communicate the benefits of agribusiness diversification
and encourage agribusinessmen to develop their SC.

8. Conclusion, limitation and future research

8.1 Conclusion
The study improved the scales of existing constructs with more suitable measurement
indicators for the agribusiness industry, including behavioral goals, determinants of theTPB
(i.e. behavioral attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) and behavioral
intention. Simultaneously, the most significant contribution, the study indicated an
integrated measurement of SC and the extent and impact of specific aspects of SC on
diversifying agribusiness through behavioral goals and determinants of theTPB. More
specifically, we answered two key research questions: first, we developed a new scale of SC
with seven facets and twenty-eight indicators, which could be seen as the first reliable, valid
and integrated measurement in the area; second, we explored the direct and positive effects of
these seven specific facets on behavioral goals and determinants of the TPB and then on the
IDB. To answer these research questions, our study utilized a mixed-method approach and
the two important theories, that is, the TPB and RBV, in which the TPB is seen as the most
n
an and Chen, 2009; Heuer
suitable theory to predict an individual’s behavioral intention (Li~
and Li~ n
an, 2013; Zhang and Cain, 2017), while the RBV implies SC as one of the most
important resources of an organization’s success (Barney, 1991; Newbert, 2008; Ag
enor and
Dinh, 2015). The findings from the current study contribute to a deeper understanding of the
existing literature on the theory of SC and the TPB and indicate an advancement in theory.
The found causal relationships and measurement indicators provide a reliable background
for practitioners suggesting sustainable social or agricultural development strategies.

8.2 Limitation
The current paper offers theory advancements, but it is also not free from certain limitations.
There may still be a lack of consensus on facets of SC. The integrated measurement of SC is
only tested based on agribusinessmen’s responses who are small holders in an emerging
market. The study has also not yet clarified the effect of SC on agribusinessmen’s technology
adoption or business performance. Some other critical intangible resources, such as
reputation capital, symbol capital and human capital have still not been included.

8.3 Future research

There is a need for future studies to test and or add facets of SC in the more extensive sample size
or other groups of respondents. A more rigorous test of measurement of SC with respondents in
advanced markets should also be implemented. Studies investigating the effect of SC or
intellectual capital on specific behavioral intentions, identifying antecedents of SC, or its role in
creating organizations’ technology adoption and business performance are also considerable.

References
Ag
enor, P.R. and Dinh, H.T. (2015), “Social capital, product imitation and growth with learning
externalities”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 114 No. C, pp. 41-54.
JIC Agostini, L., Nosella, A. and Filippini, R. (2017), “Does intellectual capital allow improving innovation
performance? A quantitative analysis in the SME context”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 400-418, doi: 10.1108/JIC-05-2016-0056.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, Prentice
Hall, NY.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Aleksandrova, E., Gerry, C.J. and Verkhovskaya, O. (2019), “Missing entrepreneurs: the importance of
attitudes and control in shaping entrepreneurial intentions in Russia”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-33, doi: 10.1108/JEEE-11-
2018-0133.
Alexander, J.K., Jeannette, A.M. and Daniel, K. (2016), “A resource-based view of stakeholder
marketing”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5553-5560.
Allameh, A.M. (2018), “Antecedents and consequences of intellectual capital: the role of social capital,
knowledge sharing and innovation”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 858-874.
Al-Omoush, K.S., Sim
on-Moya, V. and Sendra-Garc
ıa, J. (2020), “The impact of social capital and
collaborative knowledge creation on e-business proactiveness and organizational agility in
responding to the COVID-19 crisis”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 279-288.
Arora, R. and Stoner, C. (2009), “A mixed method approach to understanding brand personality”, The
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 272-283.
Asiaei, K., Barani, O., Bontis, N. and Arabahmadi, M. (2020), “Unpacking the black box: how
intrapreneurship intervenes in the intellectual capital-performance relationship?”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 809-834, doi: 10.1108/JIC-06-2019-0147.
Bamel, U., Pereira, V., Del Giudice, M. and Temouri, Y. (2020), “The extent and impact of intellectual
capital research: a two decade analysis”, Journal of Intellectual Capital. doi: 10.1108/JIC-05-
2020-0142.
Bamel, N., Pereira, V., Bamel, U. and Cappiello, G. (2021), “Knowledge management within a strategic
alliances context: past, present and future”, Journal of Knowledge Management. doi: 10.1108/
JKM-06-2020-0443.
Barba-S
anchez, V. and Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2018), “Entrepreneurial intention among engineering
students: the role of entrepreneurship education”, European Research on Management and
Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 53-61.
Barbieri, C. and Mahoney, E. (2009), “Why is diversification an attractive farm adjustment strategy?
Insights from Texas farmers and ranchers”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 58-66.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 9 No. S1, pp. 71-78.
Barrutia, J.M. and Echebarria, C. (2021), “Harnessing social interaction and intellectual capital in
intergovernmental networks”, Journal of Intellectual Capital. doi: 10.1108/JIC-09-2019-0226.
Bergevoet, R.H., Ondersteijn, C.J.M., Saatkamp, H.W., Van Woerkum, C.M.J. and Huirne, R.B.M. (2004),
“Entrepreneurial behaviour of Dutch dairy farmers under a milk quota system: goals, objectives
and attitudes”, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Bhatti, S.H., Vorobyev, D., Zakariya, R. and Michael Christofi, M. (2020), “Social capital, knowledge
sharing, work meaningfulness and creativity: evidence from the Pakistani pharmaceutical
industry”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 243-259, doi: 10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0065.
Boohene, R., Gyimah, R.A. and Osei, M.B. (2019), “Social capital and SME performance: the
moderating role of emotional intelligence”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 79-99.
Calcagnini, G. and Perugini, F. (2019), “Social capital and well-being in the Italian provinces”, Socio-
Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 68, 100668, doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2018.11.005.
Carter, S. and Rosa, P. (1998), “Indigenous rural firms: farm enterprises in the UK”, International Small Effect of social
Business Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 15-27.
capital on
Chen, X., Wang, P., Wegner, R., Gong, J., Fang, X. and Kaljee, L. (2015), “Measuring social capital
investment: scale development and examination of links to social capital and perceived stress”,
agribusiness
Social Indicators Research, Vol. 120 No. 3, pp. 669-687.
Chmel
ıkov
a, G., Krauss, A. and Dvoulet
y, O. (2019), “Performance of microfinance institutions in
Europe: does social capital matter?”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 68 No. C, doi: 10.
1016/j.seps.2018.11.007.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Cleaver, F. (2005), “The inequality of social capital and the reproduction of chronic poverty”, World
Development, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 893-906.
Cofr
e-Bravo, G., Klerkx, L. and Engler, A. (2019), “Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking
social capital for farm innovation: how farmers configure different support networks”, Journal
of Rural Studies, Vol. 69, pp. 53-64.
Coleman, J.S. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital”, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 94, pp. S95-S120, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234387.003.0010.
Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Corvino, A., Caputo, F., Pironti, M., Doni, F. and Martini, S.B. (2019), “The moderating effect of firm
size on relational capital and firm performance”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 510-532.
Creswell, J.W. and Clark, V.L.P. (2017), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Creswell, J. (2002), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and
Qualitative Research, Merrill Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
DeCarolis, D. and Saparito, P. (2006), “Social capital, cognition and entrepreneurial opportunities: a
theoretical framework”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Dollinger, M.J. (1999), Entrepreneurship: Strategies and Resources, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, New
York, NY.
Dubey, R., Bryde, D.J., Foropon, C., Tiwari, M., Dwivedi, Y. and Schiffling, S. (2020), “An investigation
of information alignment and collaboration as complements to supply chain agility in
humanitarian supply chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 59 No. 5,
pp. 1586-1605, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1865583.
Fornell, C. and Larker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Hamish Hamilton, London.
Fukuyama, F. (2001), “Social capital, civil society and development”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Gasson, R. (1973), “Goals and values of farmers”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 521-542.
Gedajlovic, E., Honig, B., Moore, C.B., Payne, G.T. and Wright, M. (2013), “Social capital and
entrepreneurship: a schema and research agenda”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 455-478.
General Statistics Office of Vietnam (2020), “Results of the 2016 rural, agricultural, and fishery
census”, available at: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2019/03/results-of-the-2006-
rural-agricultural-and-fishery-census/ (accessed September 2020).
Getz, D. and Carllsen, J. (2000), “Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated businesses in
the rural tourism and hospitality sectors”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 547-560.
JIC Glover, J.L. (2013), “Capital usage in family farm busGinesses”, Journal of Family Business
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 136-162.
Gomez-Limon, J.A., Vera-Toscano, E. and Garrido-Fernandez, F.E. (2014), “Farmers’ contribution to
agricultural social capital: evidence from southern Spain”, Rural Sociology, Vol. 79 No. 3,
pp. 380-410.
H€allsten, M., Edling, C. and Rydgren, J. (2015), “The effects of specific occupations in position
generator measures of social capital”, Social Networks, Vol. 40, pp. 55-63.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J. and Black, W.C. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Vol. 7, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hansson, H., Ferguson, R. and Olofsson, C. (2012), “Psychological constructs underlying farmers’
decisions to diversify or specialize their businessese - an application of theory of planned
behaviour”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 465-482.
Hansson, H., Ferguson, R., Olofsson, C. and Rantam€aki-Lahtinen, L. (2013), “Farmers’ motives for
diversifying their farm business: the influence of family”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 32,
pp. 240-250.
Harman, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Heuer, A. and Li~n
an, F. (2013), “Testing alternative measures of subjective norms in entrepreneurial
intention models”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 35-50.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Ilbery, B.W. (1991), “Farm diversification as an adjustment strategy on the urban fringe of the West
Midlands”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 207-218.
Johnson, G., Whittington, R. and Scholes, K. (2011), Exploring Strategy Text and Cases, Pearson
Education, Essex.
Joreskog, K.G. (1971), “Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 109-133.
Kim, P.H. and Aldrich, H.E. (2005), “Social capital and entrepreneurship”, Foundations and Trends in
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 55-104.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., Guilford Press, NY.
Koçak, A., Phan, A.T. and Edwards, V. (2013), “Role of social capital and self-efficacy in opportunity
recognition of female entrepreneurs: insights from Turkey and Vietnam”, International Journal
of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 211-228.
Kramer, R.M. and Goldman, L. (1995), “Helping the group or helping yourself? Social motives and
group identity in resource dilemmas”, in Schroeder, D.A. (Ed.), Social Dilemmas: Perspectives on
Individuals and Groups, Praeger, New York, pp. 49-67.
Lan, P.X. and Luc, P.T. (2020), “A conceptual model of social entrepreneurial intention based on three
dimensions of social capital”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 115-128.
Latif, F., Perez, A., Alam, W. and Saqib, A. (2019), “Development and validation of a multi-dimensional
customer-based scale to measure perceptions of corporate social responsibility CSR”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 492-512.
Lee, R. and Jones, O. (2015), “Entrepreneurial social capital research: resolving the structure and
agency dualism”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 338-363.
Lee, S., Park, J.G. and Lee, J. (2015), “Explaining knowledge sharing with social capital theory in
information systems development projects”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 115
No. 5, pp. 883-900.
Li, Y., Wang, X., Huang, L. and Bai, X. (2013), “How does entrepreneurs’ social capital hinder new Effect of social
business development? A relational embeddedness perspective”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 66 No. 12, pp. 2418-2424. capital on
Light, I. and Dana, L.P. (2013), “Boundaries of social capital in entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship:
agribusiness
Theory and Practice, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 603-624.
Lim, W.M. and To, W.M. (2021), “The economic impact of a global pandemic on the tourism economy:
the case of COVID-19 and Macao’s destination- and gambling-dependent economy”, Current
Issues in Tourism, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2021.
1910218.
n
an, F. and Chen, Y.W. (2009), “Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument
Li~
to measure entrepreneurial intentions”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 593-617.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2006), “New directions in goal-setting theory”, Current Directions in
Psychological Science, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 265-268.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2011), “Construct measurement and validation
procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 293-334.
McNally, S. (2001), “Farm diversification in England and Wales e what can we learn from the farm
business survey?”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 247-257.
Molina-Morales, F.X. and Mart
ınez-Fern
andez, M.T. (2010), “Social networks: effects of social capital
on firm innovation”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 258-279.
Moliterno, T.P. and Wiersema, M.F. (2007), “Firm performance, rent appropriation, and the strategic
resource divestment capability”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 1065-1087.
Morrow, J.L. Jr, Joyce, R.P. III, McMahon, W.J., DeMaia, A.M., McVicker, S.C., Parsons, A.E. and
Wilcox, K. (2017), “Cooperation among Ugandan farmers: cultivating social capital”, The
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 673-688.
Murugesan, R. and Jayavelu, R. (2015), “Testing the impact of entrepreneurship education on
business, engineering and arts and science students using the theory of planned behaviour: a
comparative study”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 256-275.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (2000), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, in Lesser, E.L. (Ed.), Knowledge and Social Capital, Elsevier, Atlanta.
Neves, B.B. and Fonseca, J.R. (2015), “Latent class models in action: bridging social capital and
internet usage”, Social Science Research, Vol. 50, pp. 15-30.
Newbert, S.L. (2008), “Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: a conceptual-level
empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 745-768.
Oliveira, M., Curado, C., Balle, A.R. and Kianto, A. (2020), “Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and
organizational results in SMES: are they related?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 893-911, doi: 10.1108/JIC-04-2019-0077.
Pearson, A.W., Carr, J.C. and Shaw, J.C. (2008), “Toward a theory of familiness: a social capital
perspective”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 949-969.
Pedro, E., Leit~ao, J. and Alves, H. (2019), “The intellectual capital of higher education institutions:
operationalizing measurement through a strategic prospective lens”, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 355-381.
Peteraf, M. and Barney, J. (2003), “Unraveling the resource-based tangle”, Managerial and Decision
Economics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 309-323.
JIC Pirolo, L. and Presutti, M. (2010), “The impact of social capital on the start-ups’Performance growth”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 197-227.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Powell, W.W. (2001), “Competitive advantage: logical and philosophical considerations”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 875-888.
Putnam, R.D. (2000), Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon &
Schuster, New York, NY.
Ramadan, B.M., Dahiyat, S.E., Bontis, N. and Al-dalahmeh, M.A. (2017), “Intellectual capital,
knowledge management and social capital within the ICT sector in Jordan”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 858-874.
Sabatini, F. (2009), “Social capital as social networks: a new framework for measurement and an
empirical analysis of its determinants and consequences”, Journal of Behavioral
and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 429-442.
Sallah, C.A. and Caesar, L.D. (2020), “Intangible resources and the growth of women businesses:
empirical evidence from an emerging market economy”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in
Emerging Economies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 329-355.
Sanchez-Famoso, V., Maseda, A., Iturralde, T., Danes, S.M. and Aparicio, G. (2020), “The potential of
internal social capital in organizations: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the
future”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 32-72.
Seghers, A., Manigart, S. and Vanacker, T. (2012), “The impact of human and social capital on
entrepreneurs’ knowledge of finance alternatives”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 63-86.
Senger, I., Borges, J.A.R. and Machado, J.A.D. (2017), “Using the theory of planned behavior to
understand the intention of small farmers in diversifying their agricultural production”, Journal
of Rural Studies, Vol. 49, pp. 32-40.
Shi, H.X., Shepherd, D.M. and Schmidts, T. (2015), “Social capital in entrepreneurial family businesses:
the role of trust”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 814-841.
Singh, S., Kumar, R., Panchal, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2020), “Impact of COVID-19 on logistics systems
and disruptions in food supply chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 59
No. 7, pp. 1993-2008.
Smith, J.R., Terry, D.J., Manstead, A.S., Louis, W.R., Kotterman, D. and Wolfs, J. (2007), “Interaction
effects in the theory of planned behaviour: the interplay of self-identity and past behaviour”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 2726-2750.
Snoxell, S., Harpham, T., Grant, E. and Rodriguez, C. (2006), “Social capital interventions: a case study
from Cali, Colombia”, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 65-81.
Srnka, K.J. and Koeszegi, S.T. (2007), “From words to numbers: how to transform qualitative data into
meaningful quantitative results”, Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 29-57.
Storer, M., Hyland, P., Ferrer, M., Santa, R. and Griffiths, A. (2014), “Strategic supply chain
management factors influencing agribusiness innovation utilization”, International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 487-521.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tatarko, A. and Schmidt, P. (2016), “Individual social capital and the implementation of
entrepreneurial intentions: the case of Russia”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Taylor, M. (1982), Community, Anarchy and Liberty, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) Effect of social
enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.
capital on
Ting, H., Run, E.C., Cheah, J. and Chuah, F. (2016), “Food neophobia and ethnic food consumption
intention: an extension of the theory of planned behaviour”, British Food Journal, Vol. 118
agribusiness
No. 11, pp. 2781-2797.
Veerle, V., Wim, P., Jan De, M. and Sara, W. (2012), “Measuring the Immeasurable? Operationalising
social capital in health research”, Health, Vol. 4 No. 9, pp. 555-566.
Vik, J. and McElwee, G. (2011), “Diversification and the entrepreneurial motivations of farmers in
Norway”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 390-410.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “The Resource-Based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 171-180.
Whitehead, K., Zacharia, Z. and Prater, E. (2019), “Investigating the role of knowledge transfer in
supply chain collaboration”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 284-302.
Willock, J., Deary, I.J., Mcgregor, M.M., Sutherland, A., Edwards-Jones, G., Morgan, O., Dent, B., Grieve,
R., Gibson, G. and Austin, E. (1999), “Farmers; attitides, objectives, behaviours, and personality
traits: the edinburgh study of decission making on farm”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 5-36.
Wilson, G.A. (1996), “Farmer environmental attitudes and ESA participation”, Geoforum, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D. (2000), “Social capital: implications for development theory, research,
and policy”, The World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 225-249.
Wu, M., Coleman, M., Abdul Rahaman, A.R. and Edziah, B.K. (2020), “Successor selection in family
business using theory of planned behaviour and cognitive dimension of social capital theory:
evidence from Ghana”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 27 No. 6,
pp. 905-926, doi: 10.1108/JSBED-05-2019-0152.
Xu, Y., Liang, Q. and Huang, Z. (2018), “Benefits and pitfalls of social capital for farmer cooperatives:
evidence from China”, The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 21
No. 8, pp. 1137-1152.
Zhang, P. and Cain, K.W. (2017), “Reassessing the link between risk aversion and entrepreneurial
intention: the mediating role of the determinants of planned behavior”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 793-811.
Zhang, C. and Laroche, M. (2020), “Brand hate: a multidimensional construct”, The Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 392-414, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-11-2018-2103.

Corresponding author
Le Dang Lang can be contacted at: ledanglanguel@gmail.com, langld@tdmu.edu.vn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com