The Kingdom of Bahrain is becoming the land where investors have become increasingly excited to start their business. The reasons for this are the country’s elements and necessary expertise that address the needs of regional or expatriate investors. This includes competitive prices, the modern infrastructure, labor laws and most importantly the increased connectivity to the Gulf Corporations council market worth more than USD 1.4 trillion [1] Bahrain has a liberal business environment that offers 100 percent foreign ownership all without any restrictions placed on the free zone, taxes on corporations, personal income, wealth or capital gains. The kingdom's liberal environment helps support lower operating costs making the cost of running a business in Bahrain around 30 per cent lower than other regional centers. [1] The Bahraini society is characterized by its cultural, ethnic and religious diversity. The Kingdom of Bahrain topped Internations’ 2018 list of the best expat countries. The Island was ranked 34th out of 137 countries and fifth in the MENA region in the November 2017 Global Entrepreneurship Development Institute (GEDI) research study on international entrepreneurship, in terms of its ability to foster and encourage entrepreneurial activities, provided a set of indicators that include cultural and social entrepreneurial dimensions (Why start a business in Bahrain? - Invest in Bahrain, 2020). 

Moreover, Bahrain has 1.2 million of population that is made up of 568,000 Bahrainis and 666,000 non-nationals, who are both workers as well as entrepreneurs. More than half of the country's population are expatriates. Amongst this, the largest expatriate community are Indians, numbering about 290,000. The face of today's social issues is shifting rapidly. Even though we've made tremendous progress, many emerging social challenges continue to develop in magnitude and complexity, and new issues emerge every year. Poverty and homelessness are issues that affect people all over the world. A shifting, warmer climate poses a danger to the entire planet. Climate change is one of the most destructive challenges mankind has ever faced, affecting everyone on the planet. As the world's population expands, resources become scarcer, resulting in serious issues such as food scarcity. Women nevertheless trail men in terms of pay and top leadership positions held, despite the fact that they are much more likely to have a college degree. Designing solutions for today's social issues necessitates an entrepreneurial mentality, one that reflects the traits of ambitious thinkers with audacious ambitions, data-driven tactics, and iterative solutions. It's also worth noting that this mentality isn't limited to the conventional concept of a business owner. Today, an increasing number of companies and major non-governmental organizations use this strategy internally to solve problems more effectively. Even though it is relatively a new term in the country, Social entrepreneurship is beginning to become part of the conversation recently, with the increase of entrepreneurship programs across the country. There seems to be no widely recognized definition of social entrepreneurs, unlike traditional entrepreneurs. While people may generally recognize themselves as traditional entrepreneurs, they may be on the road to becoming social entrepreneurs. It is a probability that these entrepreneurs are socially driven, inadvertently. The possible explanation for this is that it seems ambiguous and limitless to be using the word Social Entrepreneurship. To clearly define its purpose, it requires boundaries. The absence of a common definition prompts concerns about what kind of businesses and entrepreneurs may fall under the scope of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship focuses on a social mission and aims to address this mission by engaging in entrepreneurial behaviors and activities [2]. “Entrepreneurial Orientation can be defined as the nature of the decision-making mindset, behaviors, and processes underpinning the firm’s strategy creation practice, competitive posture, and management philosophy and thus encapsulates the entrepreneurial tendencies of the firm.” [2]. Based on these insights, Entrepreneurial Orientation research may be useful in developing an understanding of Social Entrepreneurial Orientation, especially a scale for determining the Social Entrepreneurial Orientation of business enterprises in Bahrain. Kraus’s [2] work has established the development of the Entrepreneurial Orientation construct which he identified as consisting of three dimensions: innovativeness, risk-taking, and pro-activeness which collectively, characterize the entrepreneurship process and individually have encouraged multiple measurement scales. 

Social Entrepreneurial Orientation scales were developed by Kraus and Niemand [2], consisting of the three dimensions of (social) innovativeness, risk-taking, and pro-activeness [2]. An additional dimension of socialness was added. Socialness is the social character, quality or sociability of an individual. He proposed of innovativeness as adopting the desire to create something new through creativity and innovation leading to original or revamped products, services, or processes. Risk-taking was defiled as bold conduct, such as delving into areas with little knowledge, or spending considerable sums of (own or borrowed) money and/or such capital to penetrate into unpredictable environments. He defined pro-activeness as involving opportunity-seeking and forward-looking behavior such as actively exploiting market opportunities in a deliberate attempt to compete with other firms [2].

Statement of the Problem

Entrepreneurial Orientation is a widely researched topic with a strong theoretical construct in the field of Management Research while Social entrepreneurship is considered a budding field of study that has drawn tremendous attention [2]. 

As such, there is more research needed to understand the role of entrepreneurial orientation among social entrepreneurs and how this impact on them. Specifically, the paper examines the relationship between innovativeness and social entrepreneurial orientation, the relationship between risk taking and social entrepreneurial orientation and the relationship between pro-activeness and social entrepreneurial orientation. 

Most of what is learned about social entrepreneurship comes from the related field of corporate entrepreneurship. According to research, what makes an entrepreneur entrepreneurial is the presence of Entrepreneurial Orientation, which consists of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking [3]. It's past time to apply corporate entrepreneurship theory to the study of determinants of social entrepreneurial orientation among expatriate entrepreneurs in Bahrain. The aim of this paper is to make three types of contributions.

To begin, this research fills a void in the literature by quantitatively examining entrepreneurial orientation on the orientation of Social Entrepreneurs using a new data collection. Second, this study responds to calls from researchers in the fields of social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation to conduct quantitative research in developing countries. Alarifia, Robsonb and Kromidhac [3] suggests that future Social Entrepreneurial research should concentrate on developing countries, including those in the Middle East, according to some. Furthermore, future Entrepreneurial Orientation studies should concentrate on countries where Entrepreneurial Orientation has not been studied, such as those in the Middle East.

Thirdly, this research responds to calls for understanding the influence of determinants of social entrepreneurial orientation of expatriate entrepreneurs. The literature suggests that the innovativeness risk-taking and proactiveness effects entrepreneurial orientation positively in social entrepreneurial firms and furthermore this paper intents to check the social entrepreneurial orientation of expatriate entrepreneurs in Bahrain. Therefore, this study will test each Entrepreneurial Orientation dimension separately to test for positive effects with social entrepreneurship orientation of the entrepreneurs. This leads to the research question: How do the individual dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation influence the social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs?

Research Questions

Specifically, this research attempted to answers to the following questions:

• Does Social innovativeness affect the Social Entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs

• Does Social pro-activeness affect the Social Entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs

• Does Social risk-bearing affect the Social Entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs

• Does Socialness affect the social Entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs

• Does Green consumption affect the Social entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs

Research Objectives

This research develops the following objectives on the basis of the questions listed above:

• To measure the effect of Social innovativeness on Social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs

• To measure the effect of Social risk-taking on Social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs

• To measure the effect of Social pro-activeness on Social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs

• To measure the effect of Socialness on Social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs

• To measure the effect of the Green consumption on Social entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs

Research Hypothesis

• HO1: There is no effect of Social innovativeness on Social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs

• HO2: There is no effect of Social risk-taking on Social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs

• HO3: There is no effect of Social pro-activeness on Social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs

• HO4: There is no effect of Socialness on Social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs

• HO5: There is no effect of the Green consumption on Social entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs

Significance of the Study 

Social entrepreneurship is definitely more than an economic model, offering meaningful world-changing ideas to humanity at a period as we need them. In spite of the increasing academic interest, they generate in social entrepreneurs and social enterprises, few studies have explored Social Enterprises's hybridity, including whether they adopt an entrepreneurial orientation. The scope of social entrepreneurship has not been investigated so far. In addition, no research on the social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs was carried out. [2]. This study will be helpful to understand the pragmatic yet nuanced relationship and effect of various variables, such as innovation, proactive behavior, risk-taking, sociality, and greenness on entrepreneurial orientation of expatriate entrepreneurs. The research attempted to identify the scope of social entrepreneurship by measuring the social entrepreneurial orientation of expat entrepreneurs. The result of this study was intended to immensely help facilitators, scholars and entrepreneurs simultaneously. Especially to the researchers as they would be able identify the dimensions of social entrepreneurial orientation that require greater focus and open the door to conduct advanced research. Moreover, measuring Social Entrepreneurial Orientation at an individual level can help guide, prepare and cultivate existing and future social entrepreneurs in social entrepreneurship, as well as help people who want to increase the performance of their social entrepreneurship orientation. Further, for social entrepreneurial startups, the policy makers who suggest endorsing social entrepreneurial ideas, recognizing the aspects of social entrepreneurial orientation would be incredibly beneficial. On a wider scope this study could be used in the Kingdom of Bahrain as well in the Gulf countries.

Theoretical Framework 

The following studies have been identified to be pertinent for framing the conceptual framework of the study. In spite of the increasing empirical interest, they generate in social entrepreneurs and social enterprises, few researchers have analyzed SE's multidimensionality, particularly, if they follow an entrepreneurial orientation [2]. Kraus and Niemand’s [2] study applied mixed approaches. Initially, a study in Delphi with 18 researchers with experience in entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship studies were conducted. Then the authors assessed the content validity by performing a survey analysis with 82 such specialists of the derived items from the Delphi report. As a result, a scale based on established Entrepreneurial Orientation scales that were adapted to the unique model of Social Entrepreneurship were developed by Kraus and Niemand with feedback from researchers in the area of entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. It's the only measure centered on a rigorous empirical analysis and scholars' approvals. The research concentrates on three main components of entrepreneurial orientation, namely innovation, risk-taking, and pro-activeness. All the factors were then tailored to the social mission of social entrepreneurship [2]. The research highlighted that social and financial motives are indivisible for social entrepreneurs who operate for-profit companies. Long-term financial output can never be obtained in these ventures but without development of social equity and the other way round [2]. The scale of Kraus and Niemands helps to classify the organizations are listed as social ventures and as non-profit businesses [4]. as well as providing companies with a metric to assess their social entrepreneurial orientation at the organizational level.

Figure 1: Social Entrepreneurial Orientation Scale by Kraus and Niemand

However, the research performed by Alarifia, Robsonb and Kromidhac [3], in the sense of social entrepreneurship, the conceptual frameworks of entrepreneurial orientation are expanded by the incorporation of organizational performance as a framework for the analysis of entrepreneurial orientation of social enterprises. The study analyzes 303 social enterprises in Saudi Arabia, investigating the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and the firm success of social entrepreneurs. Further the study presses on the fact on how research indicates that what makes an entrepreneur entrepreneurial is the involvement of Entrepreneurial Orientation, which consists of creativity, proactivity and risk-taking. They found that, although SEs cover a wide range of business operations, Entrepreneurial Orientation typically has a positive impact on the company’s effectiveness [3]. Alarifia, Robsonb and Kromidhac’s study found that in a setting where new opportunities rarely exist, Entrepreneurial Orientation can be used as a tool for overcoming constraints imposed by scarce resources. The authors also establish that Entrepreneurial Orientation in Social Entrepreneurship is significantly linked to the success of organizations [3] The study of Abaho, Begumisa.B , Aikiriza, and Turyasingura [5], investigates the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and development of social enterprises. Their research was carried out on 144 social enterprises chosen via simple random sampling in Kampala Region, Uganda. The authors followed Kraus and Niemand’s [2] Figure 1 Delphi social entrepreneurial orientation measurement scales, namely social innovation, social risk-taking and social proactivity, in the measurement of the variables. The survey suggests the important link between risk taking and pro-activeness and the development of social enterprises [5]. The findings stated that there is a strong positive relationship between the presence of innovation and the level of growth of social enterprises. Although some individuals in the social enterprise sector begin and fail, others develop and expand largely because of differences in entrepreneurial orientation. Similar to Alarifia, Robson and Kromidhac’s findings, the study of Abaho, Begumisa, Aikiriza, & Turyasingura suggests that in generating and exploring opportunities for development, the social enterprise field needs to establish Entrepreneurial Orientation structures to be used. In order to support the growth, sustainability and competitiveness of these enterprises, an entrepreneurial capacity building system needs to be created [5]. The qualitative study of Hoang, Hiep, Dai, Duc, and Hong provided detailed basic awareness of the green philosophy and issues and its connection with social entrepreneurship, commitment for community and sustainable growth. The study highlights the fact that there have been relatively few researches into the motivations and influences of green entrepreneurship which is a specific category of social entrepreneurship, despite the abundance of social entrepreneurship research to date. The results of their study showed that green entrepreneurship greatly contributes to the evolving business orientation and lifestyle. Hoang, Hiep, Dai, Duc, and Hong propose to link all types of entrepreneurship together in order to achieve the synergistic impact of their growth for the purposes of intergenerational interest, the benefit of the environment and sustainable development. The research intends to understand green entrepreneurship by studying green tourism and green consumption.

Conceptual Framework

Most entrepreneurial orientation research explores three dimensions that is innovativeness, pro-activeness and risk taking. In the social context, most of the Entrepreneurial Orientation studies have evaluated either three or four variables, but most of the research concentrate on innovation, pro - activeness and risktaking [2] Social Entrepreneurship is a rare non-profit and profit behavior that resides at the joint of innovation, pro-activeness and risk-taking [6]. Social Entrepreneurial Orientation scales were developed by Kraus and Niemand, consisting of the three dimensions of (social) innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness [2].

The use of the extra social element that calculates the degree of sociality in the company was advocated by Kraus and Niemand. Their review demonstrated that merging or adopting existing scales must be carefully carried out. Otherwise without taking into account the social dimensions of social entrepreneurs, there might be the risk of estimating entrepreneurial orientation in social enterprises. Therefore, an additional dimension of socialness was added. Socialness is the social character, quality or sociability of an individual. To date, only minor conceptual considerations have been given to the importance and use of an entrepreneurial orientation in the sense of social entrepreneurship. The aim of this paper was to address this void by testing the Social Entrepreneurial Orientation scale as proposed by Kraus and Niemand which proposes dimensions namely social innovativeness, Social risk-taking, Social proactiveness and Socialness. Further green consumption from the study of Hoang, Hiep, Dai, Duc and Hong as a variable was also introduced to add the relevance of the analysis to the research. Greenness implies that all practices that evaluate, avoid, restrict, mitigate or correct environmental harm are included in environmental products and services. Typically, green products are long lasting, non-toxic, made from recycled materials or minimally packaged.

The conceptual framework proposed by this this study is given below:

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of Social Entrepreneurial Orientation

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study was testing the model in the region of Bahrain. Therefore, the results may be limited to the mid-eastern cultures which have similarity to it. The sample for the study were expat entrepreneurs, however the entrepreneurial landscape may have naturalized citizens who were entrepreneurs or expat entrepreneurs. Further, the other limitation of our study was the scale used in this research might not be pertinent to all kinds of Social Entrepreneurship. Many liberal arts theories with similar ideas lack distinct boundaries and consequently this barrier has dominated social entrepreneurship research. Therefore, it may be difficult to achieve a clear-cut dichotomy of Entrepreneurial Orientation in the profit-earning Social Enterprise and non-profit industry.

Entrepreneurial Orientation 

Kraus [2] pioneered the construction of the Entrepreneurial Orientation construct that he defined as consisting of three dimensions: innovation, risktaking, and proactivity that collectively define the process of entrepreneurship and facilitate multiple measurement scales collectively. He saw risk taking as bold actions, such as venturing into areas with hardly any information or spending large sums of money and/or other capital (owned or borrowed) to explore unknown environments. Ultimately, in a calculated effort to compete with other businesses, he viewed proactivity as involving opportunity-seeking and forward-looking actions, such as deliberately pursuing business opportunities. Kraus and Niemand relates regarding entrepreneurial orientation as a strategic construct whereby the theoretical framework involves certain corporate level outcomes and preferences, beliefs, and behaviors associated with management that are apparent in or articulated by top-level managers of a company. It has not been specifically investigated to what degree an entrepreneurial business requires to possess all of these dimensions at a particular stage, or whether these can differ [7]. Instead of all these five dimensions, most entrepreneurial orientation research explores three dimensions, (innovativeness, pro-activeness and risk taking) suggesting that the scale developed by Kraus and Niemand [2] is the most common in literature on entrepreneurial orientation.

Social Entrepreneurial Orientation 

A plethora of definitions have been suggested by various opinions on SE, each informed by the particular interests of researchers. The concept of 'social enterprise' is defined in European Union records to encompass the below forms of enterprise [8] Firstly, those for which the social or societal purpose of the general welfare is a reason for commercial venture, mostly in the form of a large level of social innovation. Secondly, organizations in which profits are reinvested predominantly in order to accomplish these societal goals. Finally, those organizations who either express their mission through the form of association or system of ownership, by using liberal or collaborative principles, or by considering social welfare. Although some experts define SE in context of social entrepreneurs' typical characteristics and intentions, most concentrate on entrepreneurial practices and social harmony processes [3]. However, the term is said to have been popularized in the 1990s by Bill Drayton, the founder of the social entrepreneurship organization Ashoka and the often-cited founder of the idea of social entrepreneurship. (Social Entrepreneurship | Ashoka | Everyone a Changemaker, 2020). A social enterprise blends the social aims and focus of nonprofits with corporate practices guided by the sector. It does not, nevertheless, do a social good as an advertisement that enhances part of its market or is considered a way of raising profits because it seeks social goals and uses business strategies to do so. It therefore connects the social and economic mission of its activities, thereby expanding the limits of corporate social responsibility. The following figure outlined in Abaho, Begumisa, Aikiriza, and Turyasingura study [5] would further clarify this definition and explanation:

The link between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship and analyses of the applicability and importance of entrepreneurship theories and frameworks to the sense of social entrepreneurship are one area of research with the scope to advance understanding not only of social entrepreneurship but also of entrepreneurship more generally [9]. Although numerous researchers accept that through entrepreneurial behavior, social entrepreneurship addresses social goals [2]. Defourney and Nyssens classify Social entrepreneurship as involving entrepreneurial nonprofits and social companies, which they claim engage in entrepreneurial behaviors to help solve social issues [10]. Describes three separate time periods during which definitions of Social Entrepreneurship were influenced by the dominant, especially political discourse of the time in its analysis of changing and expanding definitions of SE, primarily within England, over the period 1990-2010. At first, social entrepreneurship was seen as a campaign from 1998 to 2001, then as a social enterprise from 2001 to 2005 and lately, from 2005-2010, as part of the third sector, which is engaged in trade practices pursuing a social goal. A classification of Social Enterprise that specifies four distinct types has been established by Defourney and Nyssens. 

Entrepreneurial nonprofits that are supported by Charities and foundations, public sector social enterprises usually funded by state, social cooperatives that adapt a model of multi-stakeholder governance to engage with communities and enhance welfare and, lastly, social enterprises involved in entrepreneurial activities adopting a social mission. Although Lumpkin [11] found that Social Entrepreneurship varies in its social mission, opportunity recognition, access to capital and funding, and participation of multiple stakeholders from commercial companies. Social enterprises and Commercial enterprises are a lot in similar and share so much in common. Nevertheless, Omorede [12] mentions that the field of research is still emerging. In social contexts, Lumpkin [11] examined entrepreneurial processes and the rulings and results that create social entrepreneurship differently. They noted the existence of a social mission and/or incentive to accomplish a social objective, numerous stakeholders connected to the mission and vision, and a viewpoint that when oriented towards social issues, opportunity-identification strategies might be different. They claimed that in the face of backgrounds and results that are linked to social sense, many entrepreneurial processes change little to nothing. Although the involvement of multiple stakeholders and how independence and competitive level of aggression work in a social context are likely to question such systems [11]. Morris [13] noted that the definition of innovation, proactivity, and risk-taking in the social context is more complicated and nuanced and suggested an alternative conceptualization of sub-dimensions arising for all three components that are intended to even further precisely portray the concept of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation in the social context. In the social context, most of the Entrepreneurial Orientation studies have evaluated either three or four variables, but most of the research concentrate on innovation, pro - activeness and risktaking [2].

Social Innovation 

While innovation has many facets, radical-versus-incremental, product-versusprocess and administrative-versus-technological are the most common ones [2]. Actions directed at increasing the productivity and success of a social enterprise, according to Kraus [2] will have to take into consideration the multiple techniques arising from developments in the field of technical and cost-competitiveness strategies, and also the various relevance’s in groups of industry. Social Entrepreneurship is a rare non-profit and profit behavior that resides at the joint of innovation, pro-activeness and risk-taking [6]. Moreover Innovation also represents a desire to engage and encourage new social ideas, innovation, experimentation, and innovative methods that can contribute to novel social goods, social services, or processes of social technology 

Social Pro-activeness

Proactivity is essential in shaping the start-up of social enterprises as it increases the likelihood of performing the necessary tasks that are likely to contribute to the development of new social enterprises [2]. In addition to innovative developments, constructive intentions encourage social entrepreneurs to invent new innovative ideas, since this persistent enthusiasm generates vibrancy within a social enterprise, which is necessary for to succeed in growing markets of social enterprises. In the course of capturing opportunities, proactivity also benefits by searching, monitoring, predicting, and addressing present and potential needs [2]. Thus, by predicting future needs and pursuing proactive strategic measures, pro-activeness influences social enterprise development.

Social Risk-taking 

Risk taking relates to the ability of people or organizations to take risks [5]. Risks are intrinsic in any effort by humans and business. Risk attitude relates to the ability of people or organizations to take risks [5]. Risk is the chance that expectations will not be met by the product of a process. Kraus and Niemand [2] characterize risk as the occurrence of an event that influences and impacts a specific product. Another term for risk is Uncertainty. Risk taking can have a substantial effect on the short and long-term success of a social enterprise, which if they do not consciously handle such risks, these social enterprises are prone to incur losses [5]. Moreover, any company can build new service and product lines with high levels of risk orientation, even though the results remain unpredictable and the technology is untested. Abaho, Begumisa, Aikiriza, & Turyasingura [5] characterize risk orientation in their analysis as the ability of a defined social enterprise to devote capital and time to produce new goods and services in addition to combining new social markets in the wake of uncertainty of results, but with an expectation of positive results.

Green Consumption 

Green entrepreneurship is similar to eco entrepreneurship or sustainable entrepreneurship. Even though there is a plethora of social entrepreneurship research to date, there has been relatively little research into the intentions and variables of green entrepreneurship, which is a particular type of social entrepreneurship. Green projects in the national development plan and policy activities undertaken by both developed and developing nations are the themes of academic research and empirical studies. Green entrepreneurs and their green projects can play a key role in the sustainability of our green economy. Therefore, government agencies and politicians should be finding ways to promote and encourage green entrepreneurship. There is a major rise in the demand for corporations to adopt environmentally friendly practices in their sector and supply chain operations [14]. Green purchasing practice is widely accepted among the young generation of clients. Green marketing provides valuable perspective in order to understand the environmentally conscious and responsible people in society. This helps organizations develop marketing campaigns that enable clients to seek the value of collective advantage over personal gain and self-interest [14]. Green economists have been arguing for years about the value of sustainable economies being developed. In view of the central emphasis on consumer behavior in post-industrial societies in order to embark on a sustainable future, communities will need to shift their attitude toward green consumption. Despite the growing demand and attention towards green consumption and green entrepreneurship, surprisingly, the effect of it on social entrepreneurial orientation has not been investigated by any scholars.

Findings

Following are the major findings of the current study; 

• The mean value of social entrepreneurial orientation is 3.6010. The mean for social innovation is 3.2636. The mean for social risk-taking is 3.2452 and the mean for pro-activeness is 3.0697. The mean for Socialness and Green consumption are 3.2885 and 3.8125 respectively

• All the used constructs are reliable as the value of Cronbach's Alpha for social entrepreneurial orientation is 0.995 whereas the value of Cronbach's Alpha for social innovation is 0.988. For risk-taking the value is 0.984 and for social proactiveness the value is 0.986. The Cronbach's Alpha value for socialness and green consumption are 0.985 and 0.976 respectively 

• The R square value of current model is 0.418, which shows 41.8% percent variation in dependent variable due to current intendent variable use in this model

• Hypothesis 1 shows the significant and positive relationship between social entrepreneurship orientation and social innovation as the beta value is 0.197, which indicates that 1 unit increase in social innovation will bring 0.197 unit change in social entrepreneurial orientation

• Hypothesis 2 also unfold the significant and positive relationship between social entrepreneurial orientation and social risk-taking as the beta value is 0.310, which indicates that 1 unit increase in social risk-taking will bring 0.310 unit change in social entrepreneurial orientation

• Hypothesis 3 that was drawn between social entrepreneurial orientation and social pro-activeness, was found to be having positive and significant relationship as the beta value is 0.212, which indicates that 1 unit increase in social proactiveness will bring 0.212 unit change in social entrepreneurial orientation

• Hypothesis 4 studies the variable socialness which had a positive and significant relationship (β=0.228, p>0.05) with social entrepreneurial orientation as the beta value is 0.228, which indicates that 1 unit increase in socialness will bring o.228 unit change in social entrepreneurial orientation 

• Hypothesis 5 shows a positive relationship between the variable green consumption and social entrepreneurship orientation as the beta value is 0.568 which indicates that 1 unit increase in green consumption will bring 0.568 unit change in social entrepreneurial orientation

Entrepreneurship is an inevitable characteristic of human life. The economic engine drives many nations' economies in the global competitive environment. Entrepreneurship is considered the Gulf Corporation Council's primary forum for economic diversification, employment creation and sustainable growth. However, social entrepreneurship varies from other forms of entrepreneurship as it gives greater emphasis to growth that captures social capital and economic value. In the context of a large-scale entrepreneurial benefit that accrues to a significant portion of society, social entrepreneurs aim to create value and thereby initiate innovative business solutions to social problems. With new strategic concepts, social businesses that foresee future challenges, needs and changes can take appropriate action, predict and build new opportunities in the midst of risk. This paper has presented new insights into an under-researched area, to investigate the links between social entrepreneurial orientation and the variables social innovation, social risk-taking, social pro-activeness, socialness and green consumption. 

A new data set of 416 entrepreneurs in the kingdom of Bahrain have been used and the results found that the independent variables social innovation, social risk-taking, social pro-activeness, socialness and green consumption are positively related to the dependent variable social entrepreneurial orientation. Further the current study answered the five questions. The questions answered are as follows:- About the effect of Social innovativeness on the Social Entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs, this study determined the importance of social innovation in the relationship with social entrepreneurial orientation. The study established the relationship between these two variables based on the empirical data and analysis. Therefore, in order to increase social entrepreneurial orientation, social entrepreneurs in the Kingdom of Bahrain must focus on the increasing social innovation of social enterprises. When it comes to the effect of Social risk-taking on the Social Entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs, social risk-taking emerged as a significant variable that effects the social entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs in Bahrain. The empirical results established the association among two variables that provides suffice rationale to create more attentiveness about the effect of risk-taking on social enterprises in kingdom of Bahrain. Further, when it comes to is the effect of Social pro-activeness on the Social Entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs, social proactivity has emerged as a significant factor influencing the social entrepreneurial orientation of Bahraini expatriate entrepreneurs. 

The empirical findings identified an association between two variables that provides ample justification for more attention to the impact of risk-taking on social enterprises in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Similarly, about the effect of socialness on the social Entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs, the significance of sociality in the relationship with social entrepreneurial orientation was identified in this research. On the basis of empirical evidence and interpretation, the study defined the relationship between these two variables. Therefore, in order to increase the social entrepreneurial orientation of the Kingdom of Bahrain, social entrepreneurs need to concentrate on growing the social character of social enterprises. Finally, regarding the effect of the Green consumption on Social entrepreneurial orientation of the expat entrepreneurs, the social entrepreneurial orientation of Bahraini expatriate entrepreneurs has been affected by green consumption as a significant factor. The empirical results established a correlation between the two variables that provides sufficient rationale for further exposure to the effect on social enterprises of green consumption, suggesting that social entrepreneurs need to concentrate on increasing the greenness of their commodities in order to increase their social entrepreneurial orientation. In addition, the outcome of this study will simultaneously assist facilitators, researchers and entrepreneurs enormously. 

In particular, researchers should define the aspects of social entrepreneurial orientation that require greater attention and unlock the door for detailed study to be carried out. In addition, measuring social entrepreneurial orientation at an individual level will help direct, train and develop social entrepreneurs in social entrepreneurship, and also help individuals who want to enhance the performance of their orientation towards social entrepreneurship. In addition, it will be extremely helpful for social entrepreneurial startups, policy makers who advocate supporting social entrepreneurial concepts, to consider the facets of social entrepreneurial orientation.

Recommendations

The outcome of this research was aimed to aid policy makers, academics and entrepreneurs tremendously at the same time. In particular, researchers should define the aspects of social entrepreneurial orientation that require greater attention and open the door to advanced research. Overall, policies aimed at social entrepreneurs should concentrate on building financial investment by social entrepreneurs in analysis and growth, business environmental scanning to identify market shifts, encouraging new and improved social generation and commercialization to help develop the requisite skills in entrepreneurial patterns, thereby fostering creativity, proactivity and commercialization. There is also a need for managers and aspiring social entrepreneurs to create inspiration for benchmarking with other Gulf region social enterprises. In addition, social enterprises that show high levels of entrepreneurial orientation combined with a background of good stability should be benchmarked. The business life-cycle function and industry-related business conditions must also be integrated into analytical studies. This result calls for further study of the circumstances under which the social entrepreneurial orientation relationship is unfavourable. 

Particular attention should also be paid to distinguishing between particular business backgrounds and advancements. It is therefore obvious that configuration studies should be used more widely in future research to better understand the social entrepreneurial orientation relationship. If we are to enhance our ability to determine whether country-specific research results can be generalized, comparative international studies are also important. Such studies should also take international business and corporate cultures as variables into account in order to allow a methodically based study of the effect of international business culture. This argument is particularly significant since there were no studies that directly explore how the social business relationship is moderated by international culture. Moreover, greater focus is beneficial on comparisons, as such studies can improve the validity, reliability and, in the case of extends, the generalizability of empirical findings. Ultimately, since the social entrepreneurial orientation relationship is vulnerable to the formulation of such factors in primary and configuration analyses, it would also be appropriate for research to address effective performance measures. 

The benefits of social enterprises focus on the person 'position to advance to the creation of this direction-to illustrate social responsibility and to engage in this field. In turn, the Government could pay close attention to the growth of social entrepreneurship: the formation of legal and tax provisions for the production of social entrepreneurship; the implementation of favourable ways of interacting with community groups; and the creation of a social enterprise institutional structure. Creating opportunities for the formation of this business sector would make it possible to improve citizens' measures, serve as a source of stability in the recession of the socio-economic system and promote a more cohesive working of the socio-economic framework overall. We must develop a proper training and development institutions for social entrepreneurs in Bahrain. Some specialist councils and entities must be opened by the government for the systematic growth of social entrepreneurship. In the field of economic entrepreneurship, some of the organizations work; some have to be also available for social entrepreneurship. Including a paper/subject on this subject at higher levels of education is one of the most productive ways of distributing knowledge of social entrepreneurship. Therefore, including this subject in course syllabus is recommended Measures should be taken to enable the masses informed of social entrepreneurship so that people do not get misled among social entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurship work in society. For the same reason, newspapers, social media and other resources can be utilized. The government should provide appropriate amenities for social entrepreneurs with utilities and other funding. The government and other stakeholders must focus on basic social entrepreneurship infrastructure. These services will attract individuals to become social entrepreneurs, so the growth of social entrepreneurship will accelerate in many ways. 

Training programs for the growth of social entrepreneurship must be created. In order to support social entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship projects must be coordinated from time to time, including entrepreneurship creation programs. Such an organization would help to improve social entrepreneurs' learning capacity. Financial support is also critical for social entrepreneurship. The overall degree of problems faced by social entrepreneurship can be better handled if the financing problem of social entrepreneurship is addressed. Ventures of the Government should be submitted to social entrepreneursGovernments of many Countries are planning various programmes for rural and sub areas from periodically. If the priority of allocating such programmes to social entrepreneurs is issued, they will flourish in no time. Government machinery and other advanced frameworks do not more adequately grasp social issues, but social entrepreneurship better understands social problems/disparities. Finally, Social entrepreneurs will be motivated by prizes and public greetings. Periodically on relevant and reputable social entrepreneurship forums must be for their exemplary contribution as a social entrepreneur, publicly awarded similar to traditional entrepreneurs.

Acknowledgments 

First of all, I am thankful to my parents and my loving husband, who supported me with love and understanding. Without them, I could never have reached this current level of success. Second of all, I am very thankful to my advisor Dr. Vishwas Chakranarayan of the College of Administrative and Financial Sciences at AMA International University Bahrain. Dr. Vishwas Chakranarayan was continuously ready to provide his professional assistance whenever I needed his advice regarding my research. He was always happy to give me his professional knowledge and to guide me to the right path whenever it was needed. Also, I would like to thank Ms. Sumiya Yusuf, my manager at work for being a pillar of strength through my academic journey and for allowing me a flexible work schedule to work on my research.

1. Kingdom of Bahrain – eGovernment Portal. Bahrain.bh, 2020.

2. Kraus, S. et al. “Social entrepreneurship orientation: Development of a measurement scale.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, vol. 23, no. 6, 2017, pp. 32–57, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2016-0206.

3. Alarifi, G. et al. “The manifestation of entrepreneurial orientation in the social entrepreneurship context.” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, vol. 10, no. 3, 2019, pp. 307–327, https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1541015.

4. Cooney, K. et al. “Public policies and work integration social enterprises: The challenge of institutionalization in a neoliberal era.” Nonprofit Policy Forum, vol. 7, no. 4, 2016, pp. 415–433.

5. Abaho, E. et al. Entrepreneurial orientation among social enterprises in Uganda. Makerere University Business School, 2017.

6. Helm, S. and F. Andersson. “Beyond taxonomy.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership, vol. 20, no. 3, 2010, pp. 259–276.

7. Rigtering, J. et al. “A comparative analysis of the entrepreneurial orientation/growth relationship in service firms and manufacturing firms.” The Service Industries Journal, vol. 34, no. 4, 2013, pp. 275–294.

8. European Commission. European Commission, 2020.

9. Choi, N. and S. Majumdar. “Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research.” 2020.

10. Teasdale, S. “What’s in a name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses.” Public Policy and Administration, vol. 27, no. 2, 2011, pp. 99–119.

11. Lumpkin, G.T. et al. “Entrepreneurial processes in social contexts: How are they different, if at all?” Small Business Economics, vol. 40, 2013, pp. 761–783.

12. Omorede, A. “Exploration of motivational drivers towards social entrepreneurship.” Social Enterprise Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, 2014, pp. 239–267.

13. Morris, M. et al. “Understanding the manifestation of entrepreneurial orientation in the nonprofit context.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 35, no. 5, 2011, pp. 947–971.

14. Yunus, E. and M. Michalisin. “Sustained competitive advantage through green supply chain management practices: A natural-resource-based view approach.” International Journal of Services and Operations Management, vol. 25, no. 2, 2016, p. 135.