Engineers and Social Responsibility: Influence of Social Work Experience, Hope and Empathic Concern on Social Entrepreneurship Intentions among Graduate Students

Abstract

The synergy of technology-based innovative solutions and Social Entrepreneurship carries an immense potential to provide solutions for numerous environmental, social, and economic issues faced by an emerging economy like India. For an engineering professional, a commitment to society is regarded as integral and can be thought of as being impelled by involvement in various social causes. Therefore, this study seeks to analyze the influence of the Social Work Experience of engineering students on Empathic Concern and the newly identified construct, Hope. Additionally, the effect of Empathic Concern and Hope on Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Social Entrepreneurship Intention (SEI) is examined. Through a questionnaire survey of undergraduate students from 49 engineering and technical institutions across the country, 243 responses were collected. The research employed the Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) to test the proposed hypotheses. This study found that students’ involvement and experience in social activities significantly influenced both Empathic Concern and Hope. Empathic Concern and Hope, the newly introduced antecedent, significantly influenced Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. In line with the previous studies, self-efficacy positively and significantly influenced SEI. The establishment of Hope as an antecedent to study SEI is particularly novel and contributes to future Social Entrepreneurship research. The findings contribute to the body of knowledge on SEI of engineering students in an emerging nation where studies are particularly scarce, and techno-Social Entrepreneurship may be the ray of hope to address social, environmental, and economic concerns.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurial research has permeated many domains, and disruption of the social environment has often propelled entrepreneurs to find innovative solutions to societal tribulations. Social Entrepreneurship (SE) can be defined as an approach adopted by individuals, start-ups, and entrepreneurs to address social, cultural, and environmental issues by developing solutions and putting them into action (Ajzen 1981). Social entrepreneurs create social value by engaging in activities that boost societal well-being and sustainability outcomes (Dwivedi and Weerawardena 2018). SE has been positioned as a viable solution to tackle poverty, empower women, catalyze social transformation, encourage inclusive growth in sustenance markets and facilitate established change (Ansari et al. 2012; Datta and Gailey 2012; Azmat et al. 2015; Choi and Majumdar 2014). Al-Qudah et al. (2022) argue that Social Entrepreneurship and innovation are especially beneficial in the context of developing countries as they drive sustainable economic development. Furthermore, SE promotes civic engagement, the building of social capital, and the activation and involvement of local communities in social and economic activities (Pachura 2021).

Social Entrepreneurship is being hailed as the next big thing to impact India as the country strives to balance inclusive growth with other priorities, such as education, energy efficiency, and climate change. India is a nation with one of the largest youth populations in the world. According to the Social Value Economy report by British Council (2016) on the Social Enterprise Landscape in India, around 57% of social enterprises were led by individuals aged 25 to 44 years. Technology-based social ventures apply technological know-how to solve social problems. An engineer, by the time of graduation, is expected to have knowledge and skills that can be applied to the benefit of society. This sense incorporates thinking favorably of social responsibility for an engineer, not simply as being a reactive response but as a commitment to do good (Cohen and Grace 1994).

This emerging field of entrepreneurship has the potential to attract a new generation of youth, especially engineering students. Many universities have included innovation, entrepreneurship, and transformation in their strategic plans, for the benefit of society (Hall and Lulich 2021) through integrative learning (Selznick et al. 2022) and curricular transformation (McClure 2015). With over 1.5 million students graduating from Indian engineering colleges every year, there is immense potential to transform the country’s technological and Social Entrepreneurship landscape. Encouraging students to partake in such ventures will be arduous unless the factors influencing their decisions are determined in a specific context rather than a general context. Hence, it is essential to know what drives or fuels an engineering student’s intention to partake in such ventures.

There have been very few studies on Social Entrepreneurship among engineering students. Most other studies have focused on the relationship between social experience, individual personality traits, emotional intelligence, entrepreneurial climate, and their effects on propelling youth towards social ventures (Hockerts 2017; Tiwari et al. 2017; Sim et al. 2021). Recent studies have also considered novel factors such as positivity, moral obligation, digital experience, social worth, and networking abilities in determining social Entrepreneurship intention (SEI) (Rambe and Ndofirepi 2019; Ghatak et al. 2020; Choi et al. 2021; Usman et al. 2021).

Social activities are the most prevalent way of acquiring Social Work Experience at Higher Education Institutes (HEIs). The entrepreneurial context along with altruism-promoting factors and experiences are considered crucial aspects of Social Entrepreneurship (Stirzaker et al. 2021). Hence, exposure to social activities may encourage students to be a part of social activities through student clubs and eventually influence their decision to contribute to society through socially positioned ventures. Previous studies have indicated significant positive influences of prior experiences on SEI (Ghatak et al. 2020; Cruz-Sandoval et al. 2022). Entrepreneurial participation of students through projects, experience gained through entrepreneurial reflection, and supplementary knowledge through exposure are indispensable for a career in entrepreneurship (Zeng and Honig 2016).

Furthermore, Empathic Concern can be defined as a proclivity for emotional or compassionate responses to an individual’s mental state (Kytle and Bandura 1978). Many previous studies have established empathy as a necessary precursor to Social Entrepreneurial Intention (Liñán et al. 2010; Bacq and Alt 2018). Hope is a significant positive concept that refers to an individual’s perceived likelihood of attaining desired outcomes and motivating oneself to pursue these outcomes (Snyder et al. 1991). Hope has been established as one of the influencers of self-efficacy (Feldman and Kubota 2015). However, hope is still an undetermined construct in Social Entrepreneurship Intention and is the focal point of this study. Social entrepreneurial self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that individuals can solve societal problems through beneficial contributions (Wang et al. 2015; Tomás et al. 2019). Self-efficacy for social entrepreneurs has also been shown to motivate emotive individuals to establish positive entrepreneurial intentions by enabling the evaluation of information to assess their capabilities in becoming social entrepreneurs (Tracey and Jarvis 2007; Zhao et al. 2005).

Exposure to social issues through student participation in various activities and its influence on hope and Empathic Concern and subsequently on SEI in an emerging economy like India has been seldom researched. Therefore, this paper aims to establish the proposed constructs of Social Work Experience, Hope, Empathic Concern, and Self-Efficacy as antecedents to Social Entrepreneurship Intention (SEI) among engineering students. We put forward the following objectives:

• To assess the influence of Social Work Experience/exposure on Hope and Empathic Concern.
• To examine the effect of Empathic Concern and Hope on Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and subsequently on SEI.

The article is structured as follows: A comprehensive review of previous research and the influence of the study’s independent variables on SEI is presented at the beginning, followed by hypothesis development. The Method section describes the methodology and the key findings of the structural model analysis. Subsequently, the results are presented and later, the conclusion and implications are submitted. Finally, the limitations and the future scope of the study are conveyed.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Engineers, Entrepreneurship, and Society: The Indian Context

India is a middle-income, developing market economy. Ranking fifth in terms of nominal GDP and third in purchasing power parity (PPP), India’s economy is undergoing rapid changes despite a majority of the population being involved in agriculture and agri- related sectors. Nevertheless, the contribution of manufacturing and techno/digital services to the GDP is substantial at 29% and 54%, respectively, implying both the prominence and need for techno- entrepreneurship and innovation as the driver of social and economic growth (Chakrabarty et al. 2021). India ranks third in the global start-up ecosystem index and is home to around 59,593 start-ups as recognized by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT); it is poised to be a global force of innovation and entrepreneurship. A dynamic increase in the number of start-ups in the nation has led to an increase in the number of stakeholders in the growing ecosystem, such as investors, incubators, mentors, and accelerators, which is assisting India’s transition to a knowledge-driven economy (DPIIT 2021).

Globally, business incubators are acknowledged as crucial instruments for boosting the economy and creating jobs. In accordance with the country’s Atma Nirbhar Bharat Mission (translated as Self-Reliant India Mission), the National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Development Board (NSTEDB) under the aegis of the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, has promoted a number of Technology Entrepreneurship Parks (STEPs) and Technology Business Incubators (TBIs). TBIs foster innovation for venture creation by utilizing knowledge and infrastructure already available in the host institute. Housed largely in engineering and management institutes, there are currently 127 TBIs and 18 STEPs (NSTEDB 2022). NSTEDB has launched the NIDHI-Entrepreneurs-in-Residence (EIR), an umbrella program created and developed by DST, for the purpose of nurturing ideas and technology-driven innovations into start-ups by minimizing the associated risks and partially offset the opportunity costs of other lucrative jobs. As of 2022, around 646 entrepreneurs are supported under the program (NIDHI-Entrepreneur-in-Residence Program 2022).

Young engineers have successfully established start-ups in institute-hosted TBIs with innovative solutions with societal impact in a variety of fields, including agriculture, housing, healthcare, and renewables, to name a few. Examples include Blackfrog Technologies, a student start-up providing last mile wireless technology solutions for immunization, Stellapps, India’s largest dairy IoT company, Neomotion, manufacturing assistive devices, and numerous other techno-social start-ups listed on the websites of various institutes with TBIs. With support from the Government and encouragement from the institutes, the future of techno-social start-ups looks promising.

2.2. Social Entrepreneurship: Theoretical Background

The general entrepreneurship theories serve as the foundation for research on Social Entrepreneurship. Consequently, theories used in the context of general entrepreneurship are used to understand Social Entrepreneurship (SE) intentions and behavior (Bacq and Alt 2018). Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model with antecedents Attitude, Subjective Norms, and Perceived Behavior Control is widely used in the context of social enterprises as well often in combination with personality traits and pro-social characteristics (Ernst 2012). Along with the TPB model, the Entrepreneurial Event theory (EET) put forward by Shapero and Sokol (1982) is used extensively to include the factors of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility as the foundation of entrepreneurship needed to foster entrepreneurial intent. Perceived feasibility is regarded as being analogous to the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura 1977), which relates to one’s level of self-confidence in one’s ability to engage in entrepreneurial behavior and access to resources that are influenced by a person’s experiences. This event may be triggered by a single or an ongoing stimulus (precipitating event) (Shapero and Sokol 1982).

Over the past years, Social Entrepreneurship research has moved beyond its initial focus on case evidence’s descriptive and personal accounts. Instead, there have been attempts at defining and delimiting the subject and its related parameters (Ajzen 1981; Bacq and Janssen 2011; Carr and Sequeira 2007). The field has seen the emergence of Social Entrepreneurship theories and propositions rooted in qualitative research (Chlosta et al. 2010; Corner and Ho 2010; Dacin et al. 2011; Datta and Gailey 2012). However, there has been a shift to empirical testing from qualitative analysis in the recent years (Froiland and Worrell 2016).

Researchers have theoretically proposed various antecedents and provided supporting numerical evidence to establish statistical significance over the decade. Constructs for the conceptual model were selected based on prior research done along similar lines. Mair and Noboa (2006) developed a model of Social Entrepreneurship intention adapted from the earlier theories of entrepreneurship. Along with the EET antecedents, constructs that propel Social Entrepreneurship namely empathy, moral judgement, self-efficacy, and social support are used as distinguishing entities thereby integrating these emotional, cognitive and affective factors with the affirmative results of general entrepreneurship theories (Stirzaker et al. 2021). Hockerts (2017) analyzed and extended Mair and Noboa’s model by including past experiences as an important construct that propels social entrepreneurial intent and behavior. Bacq and Alt (2018) demonstrate that self-efficacy and social worth serve as mediators between empathy and the intention to engage in Social Entrepreneurship. This is corroborated by Kruse (2020), who shows prior work in a social enterprise influences Social Entrepreneurial Intention through self-efficacy and empathy. It is important to note that the adapted model does not require the context and experience-based triggering event for Social Entrepreneurship. Instead, moral and emotional motivations are prioritized, even though they may have been influenced by a previous event or experience.

2.3. Social Work Experience

Social activities are the most prevalent way of acquiring Social Work Experience at HEIs. Hockerts (2017) established a positive correlation between experience with social organizations and social entrepreneurial intent. Experience with social problems has been shown to affect empathy, supported by data stating that individuals who have struggled themselves tend to feel more empathy towards those experiencing that issue (Comunian and Gielen 1995). Mair and Martí (2006) have contended that social experiences affect a person’s moral judgment. Cardella et al. (2021) were able to identify education, network, and culture as accelerators to the development of Social Entrepreneurial Intention. Being a relatively new phenomenon, SE courses are rarely found at most universities. Involvement in Social Entrepreneurship courses increased self-efficacy, recognized social support, and influenced Social Entrepreneurial Intentions (Popescu et al. 2016). It is assumed that such experiences increase familiarity with social issues, increasing the likelihood of social enterprises intending to develop solutions to address them.

2.4. Empathic Concern

Empathy is the most important element separating social entrepreneurs from many other entrepreneurs and is a necessary antecedent for SEI. Empathy helps individuals understand and feel what another person is going through and establish an essential antecedent. By assessing the situation and feelings of people around them, people can respond appropriately in social situations. Bacq and Alt (2018) contended that studying the relationship between pro-social traits and empathy outcomes necessitated a perspective that conventional entrepreneurial concepts cannot provide. Self-efficacy, empathy, and social support were found to be primary predictors of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions in Zimbabwe (Rambe and Ndofirepi 2019). Zulfiqar et al. (2021) deduce that social empathy, and related education received in both formal and informal settings have a significant impact on how youth define their intentions to engage in Social Entrepreneurship. Additionally, it was found that empathy increases Social Entrepreneurship self-efficacy, which in turn increases Social Entrepreneurship intention (Younis et al. 2021).

2.5. Hope

Hope is a significant positive concept that refers to an individual’s perceived likelihood of attaining desired outcomes and motivating oneself to pursue these outcomes (Snyder et al. 1991). Additionally, it can be defined as the ability to establish routes to desired objectives and motivate themselves to use those pathways via agency thinking. Hope has dynamic qualities that inspire individuals and look to the future. Therefore, it is regarded as being at the core of any social work practice. People generate hope from their past successes at overcoming challenges (Boddy et al. 2018). Researched extensively in the context of social work and academics, the component of hope was found to be positively associated with academic parameters such as student self-efficacy, optimism, and academic success (Niezink et al. 2012; Teasdale et al. 2011). Hope is still an undetermined construct in Social Entrepreneurship Intention and one of the focal points of this study.

2.6. Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (S-ESE)

Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in successfully carrying out the desired behavior (Tracey and Jarvis 2007; Sezgin and Erdogan 2015). The majority of research linking entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions uses either the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991) or the entrepreneurial event model (Shapero and Sokol 1982), in which entrepreneurial self-efficacy is stated as a measure of one’s willingness to consider starting a business (Fitzsimmons and Douglas 2011; Krueger and Brazeal 1994; Krueger et al. 2000). Sharma (2015) points out that if entrepreneurship education is inefficient in achieving the desired degree of entrepreneurship awareness and knowledge, the actual influence of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions cannot be determined. The association between Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (S-ESE) and Social Entrepreneurial Intention is strengthened by high perceived social support (Younis et al. 2021). Providing transversal Social Entrepreneurship project opportunities through interdisciplinary and integrated courses resulted in higher S-ESE for students (García-González and Ramírez-Montoya 2021). Therefore, HEIs play an important role in developing the student’s skills and thereby boosting self-efficacy. In this paper, Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that individuals can solve societal problems through beneficial contributions (Wang et al. 2015; Tomás et al. 2019).

2.7. Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI)

According to Social Entrepreneurship literature, determining Social Entrepreneurial Intention (SEI) depends on both individual and situational elements (Mair and Noboa 2006). Zahra et al. (2009) defined social engineers as social entrepreneurs committed to identifying problems inherent to existing social structures and resolving them through the implementation of revolutionary and innovative ideas. From this vantage point, social entrepreneurs can be described as deliberate, proactive, and rational individuals who seek to fulfill preconceptions that benefit society (Singh 2012).

3. Hypotheses Development

3.1. Influence of Social Work Experience (SWE) on Empathic Concern (EC)

Volunteering on social issues can be considered the first step for educating a person about the social issues affecting the community and an excellent way of making people cognizant of Social Entrepreneurship. According to Mair and Martí (2006), exposure to social problems was included as a determinant of social entrepreneurial motive. Prior research has established that previous work experience is a significant predictor of entrepreneurial intent (Kautonen et al. 2010).

Prior experience is defined in this study as an individual’s practical experience in working with non-profit organizations. Chlosta et al. (2010) established that private entrepreneurs with prior personal experiences were more likely to engage in philanthropic poverty reduction programs as they can easily empathize with the distressed. These experiences, it is assumed, increase understanding of the types of problems addressed by social enterprises, thereby increasing the probability of evolving intentions to tackle these concerns.

Therefore, we propose that;

Hypothesis 1.

Social Work Experience significantly influences Empathic Concern.

3.2. Influence of Social Work Experience (SWE) on Hope

A sense of hope can be considered a central facet of social work. Hope has been described as a powerful, instinctual, and transforming response to adversity that emerges from tragedy or hopelessness (Duggleby and Wright 2009; Haugan et al. 2013). In nursing care, it has been stated that people find hope in their earlier successes in dealing with adversities. Therefore, hope may be assumed to be inextricably linked to social work, as exposure to social work offers many opportunities to deal with difficulties and injustice and provides hope for a better future (Boddy et al. 2018). Since students are exposed to various social causes through volunteering and social club activities, it is essential to examine the link between the two in the context of Social Entrepreneurship. Hence, we posit the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2.

Social Work Experience significantly influences Hope.

3.3. Influence of Empathic Concern (EC) on Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (S-ESE)

Empathy can be defined as a proclivity for emotional or compassionate responses to another individual’s mental state (Kytle and Bandura 1978). Liñán et al. (2010) consider and establish empathy as a necessary precursor to Social Entrepreneurial Intentions (SEIs). Empathy is classified as cognitive empathy (the capacity to understand a person’s emotional response) and affective empathy (a proclivity to react to a person’s emotional state). Though it is unclear whether empathy is classified as a trait or behavior, it has been considered an antecedent in several previous models of SEI. Specifically, Mair and Martí (2006) suggested that empathy may result in Social Entrepreneurial Intentions because empathic individuals tend to partake in beneficial activities, based on numerous psychological studies that demonstrate a link between high levels of empathy and increased pro-social behavior or voluntary participation in actions benefiting others (Weerawardena and Mort 2006; Davis et al. 1999). Such individuals may develop an interest in Social Entrepreneurship to assist others in overcoming social problems (Mair and Martí 2006). This argument has recently been backed up by empirical evidence (Eisenberg et al. 1989; Hockerts 2017). The ability to emotionally react to others’ suffering is critical for stimulating the desire to help through social ventures (Miller et al. 2012).

Therefore, we put forward the following hypothesis;

Hypothesis 3.

Empathetic Concern has a significant influence on S-ESE.

3.4. Influence of Hope on S-ESE

According to Snyder (2002), self-efficacy is primarily connected to the expectation that one can conduct behaviors. By comparison, hope is concerned with one’s belief in their ability to accomplish goals, compared to self-efficacy (Snyder 1995). Aligned with this supposition, Kytle and Bandura (1978) have affirmed that individuals tend to believe that a given course of action will create specific outcomes, but if they have substantial doubts about their ability to complete the required actions, such information has no bearing on their conduct. Hope concerns expectancies to achieve goals by combining goal-directed planning and motivation. Individuals with high hope and self-efficacy believe in themselves and can rise to the challenge to achieve organizational and personal goals (Swanepoel et al. 2015). While hope may motivate a person to engage in a social cause relentlessly and aim to make a difference, the required empirical affirmation on its effect on self-efficacy is sparse in Social Entrepreneurship research. Therefore, we argue that;

Hypothesis 4.

Hope positively influences S-ESE.

3.5. Influence of Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (S-ESE) on SEI

Self-efficacy has been linked to pro-social behavior and has even been linked to entrepreneurial action (Virtanen et al. 2019). Self-efficacy for social entrepreneurs has also been shown to motivate emotive individuals to establish positive entrepreneurial intentions by enabling the evaluation of information to assess their capabilities in becoming social entrepreneurs (Tracey and Jarvis 2007; Zhao et al. 2005). S-ESE and social support was found to have a significant impact on SEI in Bangladesh. The results of the study also demonstrated that, in some cases, gender had a moderating impact on being a social entrepreneur (Hossain et al. 2021). S-ESE allows individuals to envision the feasibility of launching a social enterprise, thereby advancing SE intentions (Hockerts 2017). Therefore, we put forward the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 5.

Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy significantly influences SEI.

3.6. The Conceptual Model

Earlier research has argued that the success of Social Entrepreneurship is contingent on the intentions of individual entrepreneurs to develop and maintain such ventures. According to intention-based research, most human behavior is determined ahead of action, and intention generally precedes behavior (Yitshaki and Kropp 2016). The significance of intentions in a social entrepreneurial study is their potential capacity to strengthen and sustain efforts toward entrepreneurial goals (Zahn-Waxler and Radke-Yarrow 1990). One of the central tenets of Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behavior is that intention is often a proximal determinant of behavior. Therefore, finding what affects Social Entrepreneurial Intention would paint a clearer picture of what influences Social Entrepreneurial Behavior. Based on the hypotheses proposed, the conceptual model developed for this research is presented in Figure 1.

4. Method

4.1. Data Collection

Data was collected via an online questionnaire, on a five-point Likert scale, over three months from various locations in India. The sampling method followed was convenience aampling primarily because of the sampling frame’s unavailability and due to its relative ease, speed, and economy. Respondent groups were chosen based on contacts, and the online questionnaire was circulated via emails and on social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp groups, Instagram, etc. However, care was taken to avoid bias associated with the convenience sampling. Firstly, responses ensured nearly equal representation from all parts of the country and included both government and private engineering colleges with a NIRF ranking of 100 or lower due to the likelihood of the presence of a TBI in the institute. Responses were taken from students with prior Social Work Experience and without, getting adequate representation from both categories.

A total of 250 responses from 49 institutes of various branches of specialization were collected for this research across the country. However, seven responses had to be excluded due to straight-lining and incoherent answering. Finally, 243 responses were included for data analysis—107 (44%) responses from female and 136 (66%) responses from male students. Efforts to reach out to institutes across India resulted in a good spread of respondents across North (23%), South (31%), East (14%), and Western parts (32%) of the country. Demographic details of respondents are presented in

Table 1. Demographic Information of respondents.

Gender	Number of Responses
Male	136
Female	107
Year of study	Number of responses
3rd year	81
4th year	162
Specialization	Number of responses
Electronics engineering	40
Mechanical engineering	38
Computer science engineering/IT	32
Aeronautical/Aerospace engineering	30
Chemical engineering	18
Electrical engineering	16
Civil engineering	15
Industrial/Production engineering	10
Automobile engineering	09
Biotechnology	07
Instrumentation technology	07
Biomedical engineering	06
Mechatronics engineering	04
Metallurgy	03
Polymer technology	03
Print and media	03
Food technology	02
Region/State-Wise Responses
Region	State/Union Territory	No. of Responses
North India (55)	Delhi NCT	24
	Haryana	10
	Madhya Pradesh	07
	Uttar Pradesh	12
	Uttarakhand	02
South India (75)	Andhra Pradesh	11
	Karnataka	40
	Kerala	08
	Tamil Nadu	10
	Telangana	06
East India (36)	Bihar	15
	Chhatisgarh	04
	Jharkhand	06
	Odisha	02
	West Bengal	09
West India (77)	Goa	06
	Gujarat	12
	Maharashtra	58
	Rajasthan	01

.

4.2. Research Design

This study follows a cross-sectional, empirical research design with a questionnaire-based survey using convenience sampling. The research employs the Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modelling to test the hypotheses (PLS-SEM). PLS-SEM constitutes two models: measurement models, specifying the relationships between a construct and its measures, and structural models, which establish the relationships between proposed constructs (Hair et al. 2021). Measurement model assessments are used to determine the instrument’s validity and reliability; structural model analysis is conducted for hypothesis testing. Social Work Experience was adapted using a questionnaire from Hockerts (2017).

Similarly, Empathic Concern was assessed utilizing a questionnaire from Liñán and Chen (2009); Hope was measured using the Hope Scale (Snyder et al. 1991); Social Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy was evaluated using scales developed by Zhao et al. (2005) and Miller et al. (2012). Social Entrepreneurial Intention questions were adopted from the standardized questionnaire by Liñán and Chen (2009). The questionnaire draft was initially sent to four experts in the field of entrepreneurship to validate the content. A pilot study was also conducted with 36 responses to pretest the instrument. Changes to the questionnaire were made based on content validity and pilot study. After refinement, the final questionnaire had 32 items to measure the five constructs of the research model (

Table 2. Questionnaire items and factor loadings.

Item Code	Item Description	Outer Loadings
Empathic Concern
EC1	When I see someone less fortunate being taken advantage of, I feel protective toward them.	0.818
EC2	I often have concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.	0.841
EC3	I would describe myself as a compassionate person.	0.689
EC4	Seeing socially disadvantaged people triggers an emotional response in me.	0.765
EC5	I try to imagine what socially disadvantaged people go through.	0.727
Hope
HS1	I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are important to me.	0.710
HS2	Even when others get discouraged, I know I can find a way to solve the problem.	0.576
HS3	My past experiences have prepared me well for my future.	0.807
HS4	I consider myself successful for my age.	0.727
HS5	I meet the goals that I set for myself.	0.751
Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy
ESE1	I can easily identify new opportunities for helping social causes.	0.739
ESE2	I believe that I can think creatively to benefit others.	0.766
ESE3	I can effectively market an idea for a social cause or enterprise.	0.699
ESE4	I want my contribution to the society to have a social impact.	0.693
ESE5	I am comfortable working in a team/with a team committed to a particular cause.	0.695
ESE6	I am committed to helping people.	0.748
ESE7	I can successfully identify social problems.	0.728
Social Work Experience
SWE1	I have some experience working with social causes.	0.909
SWE2	I often volunteer at social organisations.	0.905
SWE3	I have worked with social organisations in the past.	0.816
SWE4	I have a fair bit of knowledge about how social organisations function/operate.	0.832
SWE5	I am actively involved in student clubs/organisations involved in social causes.	0.831
Social Entrepreneurial Intention
SEI1	I can effectively apply my skills to make a difference in reducing social inequality.	0.741
SEI2	In the future, I can apply my work experience to help social enterprises address social issues.	0.771
SEI3	I will make every effort to use my acumen to bring about social change.	0.809
SEI4	I am determined to have a direct social impact through my work in the future.	0.797
SEI5	I have considered working for a social enterprise.	0.724
SEI6	I see myself establishing a social enterprise at some stage in the future.	0.788

).

5. Results

5.1. Common Method Bias and Multi-Collinearity Test

Checking for common method bias (CMB) is important to rule out any bias that might have occurred due to measuring independent and dependent variables using the same instrument. Harman’s single-factor analysis was performed on the data set to assess CMB. This test revealed that a single factor accounted for only 34.94% of the total variance. This value is less than 50% (Lee et al. 2014), indicating no single dominant factor in the collected data. Hence, it was proved that CMB was not an issue with the data set.

Multi-collinearity issues in the model can result in biased results. Therefore, it had to be ensured that the research model was devoid of multi-collinearity. Variance inflation factor (VIF) is a measure that provides an understanding of the collinearity among the constructs in a regression analysis. The VIF values were found to be in the range of 1.348 and 3.486, significantly lower than the cut-off value of 5 (Tams and Marshall 2010; Venkatesh et al. 2012), proving that multi-collinearity issues were not present in the model.

5.2. Measurement Model Analysis

The structural model analysis can be performed only after the measurement model quality criteria are fulfilled. The instrument’s validity was assessed through convergent and discriminant validity analysis. Convergent validity refers to how two or more indicators measuring the same construct agree (Lee et al. 2013) and is determined by analyzing average variance extracted (AVE) and outer loadings. AVE is the average measure of variance among indicators that the corresponding construct can explain. Convergent validity is established when the AVE values for each dimension exceed 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Hair et al. 2021) and the outer loadings for each construct item exceed 0.60 (Lee et al. 2014). The measurement model analysis revealed that the AVE values of the constructs were in the range of 0.516 to 0.739 (

Table 3. Construct Reliability and Validity.

Latent Variable	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	AVE
Empathic Concern	0.827	0.879	0.593
Hope	0.766	0.840	0.516
SE Intention	0.865	0.898	0.596
SE Self-Efficacy	0.849	0.885	0.525
Social Work Experience	0.911	0.934	0.739

), and all the item factor loadings were above 0.6 (Table 2), thus proving convergent validity. Cronbach’s α and composite reliability were used to determine the instrument’s reliability. All latent variables (Table 3) had their reliability statistics above the cut-off value of 0.70 (Hair et al. 2021), indicating acceptable reliability and internal consistency levels.

The degree to which unassociated constructs are unrelated is referred to as discriminant validity (Lee et al. 2013). The discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell–Larcker (FL) criterion and Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratios. According to the FL criterion, discriminant validity exists if the square root of AVE values is greater than the latent variable correlations. All the constructs were found to satisfy the FL criterion (

Table 4. Fornell–Larcker Criterion.

Latent Variable	Empathic Concern	Hope	SE Intention	SE Self-Efficacy	Social Work Experience
Empathic Concern	0.770
Hope	0.323	0.718
SE Intention	0.411	0.407	0.772
SE Self-Efficacy	0.622	0.595	0.581	0.725
Social Work Experience	0.322	0.520	0.437	0.575	0.860

Note: Bold diagonals indicate square root of AVE.

). Further, HTMT ratios were also found to be less than the cut-off value of 0.90 (Thong 2001), indicating that the model exhibited discriminant validity (

Table 5. Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio.

Latent Variable	Empathic Concern	Hope	SE Intention	SE Self-Efficacy
Hope	0.410
SE Intention	0.476	0.483
SE Self-Efficacy	0.738	0.725	0.668
Social Work Experience	0.358	0.582	0.491	0.640

).

5.3. Structural Model Analysis

The structural model analysis is performed to analyze the hypothesized relationships. The hypothesized model consists of five constructs linked through five direct research hypotheses. The coefficient of determination values (R²) of the endogenous constructs—empathetic concern (R² = 0.104), hope (R² = 0.271), SE self-efficacy (R² = 0.560), and SE intention (R² = 0.338) exhibited adequate levels of predictive accuracy. The structural model results with standardized regression weights (β) are given in Figure 2, and the hypothesis testing results are presented in

Table 6. Hypothesis results and path coefficients.

Hypothesized Relationship	β-Values	T Statistics	Hypothesis Result
Social Work Experience -> Empathic Concern	0.322 *	4.786	Supported
Social Work Experience -> Hope	0.520 *	11.288	Supported
Empathic Concern -> SE Self-Efficacy	0.480 *	7.749	Supported
Hope -> SE Self-Efficacy	0.440 *	9.223	Supported
SE Self-Efficacy -> SE Intention	0.581 *	13.902	Supported

Note: * p-values < 0.001.

. All the postulated hypotheses were supported with beta values ranging from 0.322 to 0.581. Social work experience positively impacts Empathic Concern (β = 0.322, p < 0.001) and hope (β = 0.520, p < 0.001), thus confirming Hypothesis 3. There was a significant positive impact of both Empathic Concern (β = 0.480, p < 0.001) and hope (β = 0.440, p < 0.001) on SE self-efficacy, thus confirming Hypothesis 1 and 2.

6. Discussion

The analysis results have established the conceptual model with empirical evidence to support the relationships between the constructs. The results found that Social Work Experience significantly and positively influenced both Empathic Concern (β = 0.322, p < 0.001) and Hope (β = 0.520, p < 0.001). Also, both the constructs, namely Empathic Concern (β = 0.480, p < 0.001) and Hope (β = 0.440, p < 0.001) have a significant and positive impact on Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. The results also establish the influence of Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy on Social Entrepreneurial Intention (β = 0.581, p < 0.001).

Social Work Experience was found to influence Empathic Concern significantly. Due to the lack of studies among engineering students, we try to draw parallels with studies done in other contexts. Our findings agree with findings in social work practice, where empathy was found to be constituted from direct social perception through involvement in social work (Eriksson and Englander 2017). Our findings are also in line with studies where fairly high levels of Empathic Concern were observed among social work students in the UK and USA (Turnage et al. 2012) and in India (Stanley and Bhuvaneswari 2016). Similarly, in the USA, undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students, who care for patients, were also found to exhibit significant levels of affective empathy (Greeno et al. 2018).

Our findings also revealed the significant impact of Social Work Experience on hope. Though the construct of hope is not fully established in the context of techno-Social Entrepreneurship, in the context of social work, it is a central concept. Past successful experiences in resolving difficult situations are thought to generate hope (Boddy et al. 2018). The significant influence of social work exposure on hope in social work, medical trauma, and nursing has been explored and established in previous studies (Houghton 2007; Adamson and Roby 2011).

Likewise, Empathic Concern and Hope were found to influence Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. How someone pursues a career choice is likely to show variation in how they choose to act on feelings of empathy in their occupation (Zhao et al. 2010). These findings support evidence from past studies of entrepreneurial intention, suggesting empathy as a precursor to self-efficacy (Ajzen 1991; Shapero and Sokol 1982; Forster and Grichnik 2013; Hockerts 2017). The findings agree with previous studies conducted in developed nations where Empathic Concern and Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy were found to be significantly related (Di Giunta et al. 2010). In a study conducted in India, students’ emotional intelligence and self-efficacy were found to be related (Tiwari et al. 2017). Our findings related to hope agree with studies in academic achievement where hope and self-efficacy were positively correlated (O’Sullivan 2011). Similarly, in an organizational setting, the relationship between hope and self-efficacy was significant (Swanepoel et al. 2015).

Finally, we found that Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy significantly influences Social Entrepreneurship Intention. Previous studies corroborate our findings as social entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy has been shown to motivate emotive individuals to establish positive entrepreneurial intentions (Tracey and Jarvis 2007; Hockerts 2017; Virtanen et al. 2019).

7. Implications

7.1. Theoretical Implications

The establishment of ‘hope’ as an antecedent to study SEI is particularly novel and contributes to future Social Entrepreneurship research. Additionally, since hope was found to have a significant influence on Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, this study may help us understand the role of hope in social entrepreneurial ventures among university students, which to our knowledge, no prior studies have addressed. Our analysis also confirms the position of social experience, Empathic Concern, and Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as precursors to SEI in the context of engineering students. Though not generalizable, this result may aid in understanding the formation of SEI among students in the context of developing nations where techno-Social Entrepreneurship may be the ray of hope for countries dealing with social, environmental, and economic concerns.

7.2. Practical Implications

Universities play an essential role in both the technical and social development of a student. Many colleges have ongoing specialized programs and initiatives to help engineering undergraduates reach their career paths to develop nascent start-ups and successfully take their ventures to fruition. Encouraging students to participate in social activities through student clubs and making social activities a part of the curriculum would undoubtedly influence their career decisions in Social Entrepreneurship. However, inadequate funding, licenses, and necessary authorizations are often issues for such student-run organizations, owing to the lack of a proper policy framework. The Government of India has recognized the importance of technology entrepreneurship. It has developed a technology and incubation centers network to accelerate the process and promote start-ups for innovation and entrepreneurship (Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises 2020). Often a lack of qualified technical workforce has been reported, which leads to a need to understand why students are not pursuing the avenues of social technical entrepreneurship and putting their skills to benefit the community. Empirical studies such as this identify antecedents that significantly influence students’ entrepreneurial decisions. Policy changes and adequate funding may propel the Government to establish more specific initiatives on student social entrepreneurial ventures and induct necessary changes in the curriculum to encourage these initiatives early by providing them with exposure and essential support.

The practical consequences of our research findings suggest that if policymakers and institutions wish to encourage students to engage in Social Entrepreneurship, one way is to have increased engagement and involvement of students in social causes either through their institutes (via social clubs and activities) or through sensitization to social issues through the curriculum. Additionally, students may be encouraged to participate in interdisciplinary entrepreneurship-related events that necessitate learning across the social, business, environmental, technical, and other academic fields to boost their Social Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. More importantly, since various studies have unanimously established empathy as a pivotal contributor to SEI, involving students in various social activities both on and off-campus may aid networking and skill development and build their confidence and intention to become social entrepreneurs.

8. Limitations and Future Scope

This research used a case study approach to examine engineering colleges and academic institutions across the country. Despite efforts to collect as many responses as possible from technical institutes across the nation and the sizable number of responses received, we still opine that the sample size is an important limitation of the study. We feel that an increased sample size with a more diverse representation of the student population would further strengthen the findings. Future research may attempt to cover additional student representation from each institution as well as the inclusion of additional colleges in order to augment the sample size. Furthermore, students from both public and private universities from both technical and management fields, and diploma colleges may be included in the study. Due to the unavailability of a usable sampling frame, the study adopted convenience sampling because of which the findings cannot be readily generalizable. However, the findings fit a small piece to the larger puzzle of Social Entrepreneurial Intention of engineering students in India where to our knowledge, studies are few.

Future research may combine quantitative and qualitative methods to address ambiguous and difficult-to-explain results, particularly in the current pandemic-like situation. Additionally, future research can focus longitudinal studies on Social Entrepreneurial Intentions in the wake of contemporary research highlighting a possible generational decrease in empathy among undergraduates (Konrath et al. 2010).

Though our results indicate that prior Social Work Experience significantly and positively affect the SEI through the recognized antecedents, there may be many instances wherein students go on to establish social ventures without previous exposure and involvement in social causes. An in-depth qualitative study in this area could provide a new dimension to the understanding of Social Entrepreneurship unraveling newer dynamics. Additionally, it is understood that hope and empathy play out differently regarding gender. Gender also plays a vital role in STEM education which forms the basis of engineering studies in India. Future research may combine these parameters and ascertain the influence of gender on SEI in the context of engineering students.