Koop_Guru’s_Social_and_Co-Operative_Strategies_That_Boost_Entrepreneurial_Ventures

KOOP GURU’S SOCIAL AND CO-OPERATIVE STRATEGIES THAT BOOST ENTREPRENEURIAL VENTURES Siti Sarwani Mohamad Salleh Naila Aaijaz Faculty of Entrepreneurship and Business, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan siti.sarwanie@yahoo.com naila@umk.edu.my ABSTRACT There has been a massive growth in studies on entrepreneurship since the 1980s. Much of this growth has been in studies of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Such studies of entrepreneurship tend to be preoccupied with the individual, and the purely economic aspects of starting a new enterprise and subsequent business development. There has also been much smaller range of studies in social and public entrepreneurship, including co-operative. It is often said that cooperation is powerful in practice but weak in theory. Even though not relatively true it is a fact that cooperation has been little researched, has weak associations with typical economics and, to a certain extent for these reasons, the theory and practice remains unexpectedly unfamiliar. The intention of this paper is to correct the situation by reviewing a) the social strategies that benefits entrepreneurship ventures within co-operatives, and b) the benefits members gain from the membership programs. The main points of departure in a cooperative organization are that membership is voluntary and open to all and that it produces services in the interests of its members. The cooperative form of company and entrepreneurship is in extensive use throughout the world. Today, cooperation has an important social role to play in the organization of economic relations, including entrepreneurship. While originally cooperatives guaranteed the balanced improvement of the market financial system, in the innovative globalizing world these national, democratically controlled organizations ensure that the economy maintains to provide the daily needs of the average people especially the members’ of Koop Guru. Keywords Corporate/ cooperative social responsibility, entrepreneurship, Kelantan, Malaysia, Satisfaction Paper type Conceptual paper BACKGROUND AND ORIGINS The cooperative form of enterprise is widespread use all over the world, applied in most market economy countries and to increasing extent in the newly developing countries. Cooperation is an age-old way of achieving a goal that is beyond the resources of an individual or when working together offers a more practical or favorable solution. The cooperative as a distinct form of company is already over a 150-years old. Its birth occurred at the time when the modern market economy was in its infancy and the need arose for an alternative structure than one based on the ownership of capital – or in modern terminology, a company owned by its members and/or customer- owners. Over the years quite substantial commercial and industrial operations have developed on this basis in many countries (Skurnik, 2002). The central principles of a cooperative society are that it is open to all, unlimited in membership and, as an alternative to producing a profit on capital invested, produces benefits in the form of services for its members. The most general goal is to create a force on the market consisting of many small companies working together for the same objectives, and in which the aims and methods are decided upon democratically in advance according to the principle that the benefit of the collectively owned and operated business accrues as evenly as possible to all participants. There are quite considerable differences between countries in the structures of cooperative enterprises, the regulation of cooperative societies and their actual operating principles. However, irrespective of the market conditions in which they operate, these cooperatives share a common origin and history in the establishment by the flannel weavers of Rochdale, England, in 1844 of the first (consumer) cooperative cooperative society and the rules pertaining to it (Watkins, 1990; website http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/laurel/cooproots/history.html). Despite this glorious background, cooperation remains surprisingly unfamiliar. It is also said – with justification – that cooperation is strong in practice but weak in theory (Skurnik – Vihriälä, 1999). These factors together mean that throughout its long history, cooperation has often suffered from an identity or image problem (poor recognition, prejudices, misunderstandings, etc.). For this reason it is pertinent to briefly discuss what cooperation is really about – theoretically, historically and in practice. Principles and Values of Cooperation The cooperative firm differs from other types of companies largely because of its ownership model and basic aims. Thus a Cooperative enterprise also differs in its structure and operating objectives from other companies in the private sector (Fulton, 1999). This is also as important when a cooperative is forced for some reason or other (mainly in response to pressures from the operating environment) to acquire elements alien to the original model and so create a hybrid model containing different types of companies. In order that the aim of cooperating on a basis other than capital investment should succeed in practice, internationally applicable principles have been developed over the years – largely through trial and error – for the cooperative form of entrepreneurship derived from the Rochdale pioneers. In practice these consist of certain generally accepted guidelines for cooperation in producing member services – rather like the rules of fair play. The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) has brought this tradition up to date. At its centenary congress in 1995, the ICA defined the cooperative firm as follows (MacPherson, 1996):”A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically controlled enterprise.” On the same occasion, the ICA defined – for the first time – the social values upon which the principles of cooperation are based:”Cooperatives are based on the values of – Self-help, self-responsibility – Democracy – Equality – Equity and – Solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of – Honesty – Openness – Social responsibility and – Caring for others.” The cooperative principles are guidelines by which cooperatives put their values into practice. History of Koperasi Guru Melayu Kelantan Berhad Koperasi Guru Melayu Kelantan Berhad, or known as KGMKB, was founded by YM Tengku Mahmood Mahyiddeen Ibni Almarhum Tengku Abd Kadir Kamaruddeen in 1938. KGMKB was first registered on the 11th of September 1940 under the name of “Sharikat Tolong Menolong Penjimatan bagi Guru-Guru Sekolah Melayu Kerajaan Kelantan dengan Tanggongan Bersakat” with 122 members and capital worth of RM10, 596.00. The first office of the company was located in a small room in Sekolah Melayu Padang Garong when later in 1950, it moved out to a rented building in Jalan Ismail, Kota Bharu. Later in 1960, the company moved again and rented a building in Jalan Tok Hakim in Kota Bharu. (Koop Guru, 2011) The main activity of Koop Guru is the Islamic financing loan, constructions, consumerism as well as investments. When it comes to CSR, Koop Guru apparently developed its own CSR program known as Tabung Kebajikan Am (TKA) or General Charitable Fund and Kumpulan Wang Biasiswa/ Dermasiswa (KWBD) or Scholarship Fund/ Bursary. Koop Guru’s members mainly consisting of teachers, lecturers, school or university employees and also employees of Kelantan Department of Education. In addition, members also entitle to receive contribution upon retirement, critical diseases, death of family members, natural disasters such as flood and also achievement in education. Beside these contributions, Koop Guru have also involved with community services and be likely to make donations to foster houses, mosques, schools, the poor and some others. Research Design This study is carried out using content analysis as a technique to identify and describe patterns of the entrepreneurial ventures which benefits co-operatives. Pilot study has been done using 30 subjects, consisting members of Koop Guru. Subject of the study were interviewed using structured interviews. The sample group would consist of Koop Guru’s members, namely teachers, lecturers, school or university employees and also employees of Kelantan Department of Education. At present, Koop Guru based at Jalan Kebun Sultan Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Subjects are amongst Bumiputera since the membership of Koop Guru is only open to such citizenship. Respondents were personally approach at the customer service centre or Pusat Khidmat Anggota (PKA) at the ground level of Koop Guru’s building. The researcher administered several questions towards the members. Questions include reasons of joining co-operatives, motivations driven by joining co-operatives, the entrepreneurial efforts done by Koop Guru towards its members and how Koop Guru will satisfy its member’s needs in a long term period. The intended final outcomes of the study will be used as an evidence for the development of guidelines for outlining the entrepreneurship effort Koop Guru and the whole organization. LITERATURE REVIEW Current entrepreneurship theory explaining venture creation is generally organized around three basic constructs, namely market, money and management “3Ms”. An entrepreneur needs to have access to markets (Schumpeter, 1934; Kirzner, 1985; Shane, 2003), money (Penrose, 1959; Bruno & Tyebjee, 1982) and management (in the form of human and organizational capital) (Aldrich, Organizations Evolving, 1999)in order to launch a venture. We begin with the premise that all entrepreneurship is socially embedded (Davidsson, 2003; Steyaert & Katz, 2004), and explicitly explore this embeddedness through incorporation of these two facets. Socialization will also act as a form of intrinsic motivation, since by sharing and participating in the organization values one can understand the sense of individual work better and the participation and the assumption of responsibilities are encouraged (Canet-Giner & Fernandez-Guerrero, 2010) All the strategic actions of the cooperative and its different activities were marked by a commonly shared vision of wanting to expand in order to develop the firm’s mission in different contexts. The mission of the firm has two main purposes: a social purpose and a more business oriented one; job creation (purposes or objectives that are characteristic of associated work cooperatives). The third purpose, which constituted a necessary condition for the development of the other two discussed above, is that the firm must reach the indispensable levels of profitability that are reinvested in the service firm (Canet-Giner & Fernandez-Guerrero, 2010) Throughout history, entrepreneurship has been found to be important and meaningful in society at points of transition, for example, traditional to modern, modern to post modern, and state controlled economies to free market. At each of these points, entrepreneurship is harnessed by societies as a common approach to solving dilemmas, to break old, stable and hierarchical traditions and institutions to introduce new, innovative ways of behavior. Thus, it is suggested that entrepreneurship can be regarded as an instrument for changing the culture of an era. (Morrisson, 2000) Social and business entrepreneurship of community members emerges from within passions, motivations and linkages and thereby increases social and economic stability of the community. More than that, local entrepreneurs usually have strong commitment to their community (McNamara and Bromiley, 1995) and entrepreneurial endeavors within the local community have the characteristics of self-development projects – potentially generating economic community potential and benefiting the local economy. There were various cooperation projects among the social assistance cooperatives that have been developed. In the context of the first one, different action programs had been established, with the support of local government: programs for immigrants, disabled people and the socially isolated, Alzheimer patients and relatives of addicts. The firm has been working on another cooperation project, again among the social initiative cooperatives, that focused on the realization of a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (Canet-Giner & Fernandez-Guerrero, 2010) Social and organizational networks can provide many of the resources that new start-ups seek; often more immediately and effectively than government-sponsored programs. Since social networks are usually an outgrowth of long-standing human social relationships they are a significant portion of an entrepreneur’s social capital and also serve to enhance the return on human capital such as intellect and education (Burt, 1997). The importance of these network ties is underscored by findings that in many countries – including transitioning economies such as Bulgaria (Manev et al., 2005), as well as industrialized ones such as Holland (Bosma, et al., 2004) – human and social capital have been shown to impact small business Performance. These networks are particularly significant in the early stages of a start-up where internal resources are frequently very limited. Entrepreneurs require a diverse set of skills that enable them to tap their knowledge base to identify, evaluate, and exploit opportunities (Ackerman, et al., 2003). In addition to social networking mentioned previously, skill sets found to closely link to entrepreneurial venture success include communications (especially persuasion), creativity, critical thinking and assessment, leadership, negotiation, problem solving, time management, and teamwork skills (Anderson, et al., 2008); Cesar, 2000; Fayolle, et al., 2006; Rae, 1997; (Roodt, 2005). Although it has been argued that an entrepreneurial marketing orientation is important to businesses of all sizes, opportunity recognition and value creation are especially important for new and small businesses that have relatively limited organizational resources in the form of financial and social (i.e. employees) capital (Hills, et.al, 2008) Austin, et al., (2006) elaborate a distinction between “social” and “commercial” entrepreneurship reaching the conclusion that they share many similarities as well as exhibiting obvious differences. We argue that this dichotomy is itself unhelpful, undermining the commercial potential of enterprising activity that is undertaken by groups of people using an innovative ownership and control structure, primarily the co-operative. This form of entrepreneurship we have termed “associative entrepreneurship” (Cato, The Pit and the Pendulum: A Co-operative Future for Work in the South Wales Valleys, 2004) Hypothesis Development This paper addresses two main hypotheses related to co-operative entrepreneurial of Koop Guru. Hypothesis 1: Koop Guru’s social strategies benefits entrepreneurial ventures Entrepreneurship education is critical to economic growth in developed and developing countries across the globe (Millman & Matlay, 2008; Matlay, 2009). Although distinctive benefits arise from entrepreneurial enterprises, 56 per cent of new businesses fail to survive beyond their first three years in existence and 69 per cent fail by the end of their sixth year (US News & World Reports, 2010). For many potential entrepreneurs facing these kinds of risks alone may be too challenging, which is another of the benefits of the joint or associative form of entrepreneurship (Cato & Arthur, 2008) Several scholars have demonstrated that entrepreneurship is not only beneficial but necessary for a healthy economy (Gorman, et al., 1997; Henry, et al., 2003); Zelealem et al., 2004). There is a growing evidence to suggest that there is a significant causal relationship between entrepreneurship, economic growth and poverty reduction. The emergence of entrepreneurship derives from formation of entrepreneurial opportunities, understandings of entrepreneurial aspiration, which cause new business enterprise started. Hypothesis 2: Koop Guru’s co-operative membership program benefits entrepreneurial ventures. With regard to the former, the strategic process will require more participation and involvement from organizational members, while at the same time becoming more rational and better planned, (Andersen, 2000) Consequently, partially emergent and visionary strategy formation processes, in which agent involvement and initiative is very high, require high levels of vertical decentralization and of socialization of the firms’ members (Moreno-Luzon, Peris, & Gonzales, 1998) Fry (1987), Kanter (1988), Hisrich & Peters (1986) and Tiessen (1997) suggest that corporate entrepreneurship is influenced by resource availability and their leverage and many studies reveal that social capital benefits entrepreneurship (Liao & Welsch, 2003; Aldrich & Martinez, 2001; Davidsson & Honig, 2003) Analysis and Findings Reliability analysis The first draft of the questionnaire will be pre-test for comprehension especially terms that are used in describing entrepreneurship. Participants are amongst customers or members of Koop Guru where the main objective is to see whether they are fully familiar with the role of Koop Guru in the organization entrepreneurial strategies. The reliability of measurement will be assessed through Cronbach’s alphas. A pilot survey carried out based on 32 usable questions by using standard format (e.g. Likert Scale model), from demographics to questions regarding entrepreneurial towards 30 respondents to obtain mainly qualitative responses from respondents, complemented by short interviews and focus groups. Latent construct | No of items | Cronbach’s Alpha | Koop guru’s social and cooperatives strategies that boost entrepreneurial ventures | 6 | 0.855 | Guru’s social strategies benefits entrepreneurial ventures | 13 | 0.813 | Koop Guru’s co-operative membership program benefits entrepreneurial ventures | 13 | 0.804 | Table 1.1 Reliability analysis Frequency analysis Frequencies and percentages will be used to desscribe the respondents. Means and standards deviation used to describe members point of views on entrepreneurial strategies done by Koop Guru. | Gender | Age | Marital status | Education qualification | Employment Status | Mean | 1.60 | 2.97 | 1.33 | 3.00 | 2.87 | Median | 2.00 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | Mode | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | Std. Deviation | .498 | .928 | .547 | 1.114 | .629 | Sum | 48 | 89 | 40 | 90 | 86 | | Income | Membership duration | No of visits a year | Applied CSR schemes | Mean | 2.53 | 4.07 | 3.30 | 4.43 | Median | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 | Mode | 2 | 5 | 4 | 6 | Std. Deviation | 1.167 | 1.388 | .915 | 2.063 | Sum | 76 | 122 | 99 | 133 | Table 1.2 Frequency analysis Correlation Correlations | | VENTURES | SOCIAL | MEMBERSHIP | VENTURES | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .648** | .709** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | | .000 | .000 | SOCIAL | Pearson Correlation | .648** | 1 | .770** | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | | .000 | MEMBERSHIP | Pearson Correlation | .709** | .770** | 1 | | Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | | | N | 30 | 30 | 30 | **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | Table 1.3 Pearson’s Correlation The Pearson's correlation is used to find a orrelation between at least two continuous variables. The value for a Pearson's can fall between at least two continuous variables. The value for a Pearson's can fall between 0.00 (no correlation) and 1.00 (perfect correlation). Other between 0.00 (no correlation) and 1.00 (perfect correlation). Other factors such as group size will determine if the correlation is significant. Generally, correlations above 0.80 are considered pretty high (SPSS, 2011). Based on the table above, the value of social strategies is 0.648 while the membership program strategies show the value of 0.709 showing that generally the correlation between these independent variables and dependent variable are somehow good. Regression Model Summaryb | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Change Statistics | | | | | R Square Change | F Change | Sig. F Change | .727a | .528 | .493 | .34520 | .528 | 15.110 | .000 | a. Predictors: (Constant), MEMBERSHIP, SOCIAL | b. Dependent Variable: VENTURES | Table 1.4 Regression In the other hand, linear regression is used to specify the nature of the relation between two variables. Another way of looking at it is, given the value of one variable (called the independent variable in SPSS), and the value of some other variable (called the dependent variable in SPSS). Based on the table above, the value of R square is .528 indicates that 52.8% of the factors is explained by the hypothesis tested, but somehow there is a significant value between hypotheses tested. KMO Bartlett’s test KMO and Bartlett's Test | Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. | .726 | Bartlett's Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square | 44.806 | | df | 3 | | Sig. | .000 | Table 1.5 KMP and Bartlett’s Test The above output shows several important parts of the output. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartletts’s test of sphericity. The KMO statistic varies between 0 and 1. A value of 0 indicates that the sum of partial correlations is large relative to the sum of correlations, indicating diffusion in the pattern of correlations (hence factor analysis is likely inappropriate). A value close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. Kaiser (1974) recommends accepting values greater than 0.5 as acceptable. Values between 0.5 and 0.7 are mediocre, values between 0.7 and 0.8 are great and values above 0.9 are superb. For these data, the value is 0.726 which is considered to be great, which means that factor analysis is averagely appropriate for these data. Total Variance Explained | Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | 1 | 2.419 | 80.634 | 80.634 | 2.419 | 80.634 | 80.634 | 2 | .361 | 12.026 | 92.660 | | | | 3 | .220 | 7.340 | 100.000 | | | | Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. | Table 1.6 Total Variance Explained Before extraction, SPSS has identified 5 linear components within data set. Factor 1 explains 80.634% of the total variance shows relatively large amounts of variances whereas subsequent factors explain only small amounts of variances. SPSS extracts all factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which leaves with 1 factor. Results and Managerial Implications Based on the correlations results, it has been proven that the hypothesized relationships supported by the data analysis. Both social strategies and membership program seem to have direct impact with entrepreneurial ventures with the value of 0.648 and 0.709. This means that H1 and H2 are supporting the dependent variable. The R for these four relationships is 0.528 indicates that 52.8% of the factors is explained by the hypothesis tested. Factor analysis is seemed to be appropriate for these data where the value is 0.726 is explained to be great. Conclusion and Recommendation Findings clearly show that there is a relationship between benefits in social strategies and membership programs with entrepreneurial ventures in Koop Guru. This demonstrates the impact of both hypotheses towards organizational entrepreneurship ventures especially the beneficial factors provided by Koop Guru. Business environment is seemed to grow and become dynamic each and every year, and there are also rapid changes in cooperative sector. Koop Guru should keep on coming out with more programs regarding entrepreneurship to encourage people, especially its members and other stakeholders to join the organization in the future. Women-owned business to be known as one of the fastest growing entrepreneurial populations in the world, so as in Kelantan, Malaysia. Women entrepreneurship may contribute to the large growth to innovation, employment and economic condition. Despite this growth, fewer studies had been carried out. Thus, Koop Guru should take this big opportunity to come out with good entrepreneurial program within women, especially women in the organization. This would also be in line with the 10th Malaysia Plan (2011-2015), which the main areas focused including charting development for high income nation with 6% of growth target inclusive of increasing female labour force from 46% in 2010 to 55% in 2015. Building a progressive and more inclusive society including empowering women a key agenda by increasing numbers in decision making, labour force, support for widows, single mothers and low-income women (Bernama, 2010). Thru this, the entrepreneurial scenario would be rather changing due to expansion of efforts done in this area. Limitations and future research This paper investigates the social and co-operative strategies that boost entrepreneurial ventures in the context of co-operative in Kelantan, Malaysia. Like all empirical studies, this study has limitations. Since this study involves pilot study for 30 respondents, further or actually study should take place in order for this study to represent the whole population in the organization. Personal interview could be used for future studies. Since the sample was drawn from Koop Guru, Kelantan alone, which is a relatively developing region, future research might include other cities under more regulatory environments. Comparative studies could be done on the entrepreneurial ventures involving cooperatives and corporate organization, as well as studies should be expand more on demographic, socio-economic, cultural and geographic areas to give more ideas about the topic discussed. Bibliography Ackerman, D., Gross, B., & Perner, L. (2003). “Instructor, student, and employer perceptions on preparing marketing students for the changing business environment. Journal of Marketing Education , Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 46-56. Adams, C., Hill, W., & Roberts, C. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: legitimating corporate behaviour' British Accounting Review , Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 1-21. Albino, V., Balice, A., & Dangelico, R. (2009). “Environmental strategies and green product development: an overview on sustainability-driven companies. Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 83-96. Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations Evolving. Sage, London. Aldrich, H., & Martinez, M. (2001). Many are called, but few are chosen: an evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 41-56. Andersen, T. (2000). Strategic planning, autonomous actions and corporate performance. Long Range Planning , Vol. 33, pp. 184-200. Anderson, A., Gordon, R., & Jack, S. (2008). Role typologies for enterprising education: the professional artisan' Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 259-73. Asuncion, B., Martin, D., & Quintana, A. (2004). Model of customer loyalty in the retail banking market. European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 253-75. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: some, different, or both' Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-22. Bearden, W., & Teel, E. (1983). Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 21-8. Bernama. (2010, Jun 10). Key points of the 10th Malaysian Plan. Retrieved Mar 18, 2012, from MySinChew.com: http://www.mysinchew.com/node/40194 Bhattacharya, C., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 85, pp. 257-72. Bitner, M. (1990). “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing , Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-83. Bosma, N., van Praag, M., Thurik, R., & de Wit, G. (2004). The value of human and social capital investments for the business performance of start-ups. Small Business Economics , Vol. 23 No. 3, p. 227. Bruno, A., & Tyebjee, T. (1982). The environment for entrepreneurship in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. and Vesper, K. (Eds),. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 288-307: The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall. Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 42, pp. 339-65. Business Dictionary. (2011). Likert Scale. Retrieved Oct 30, 2011, from Business Dictionary: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Likert-scale.html Canada, I. (2010, October). Industry Canada. Retrieved January 2011, from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/csr-rse.nsf/eng/rs00129.html Canet-Giner, M., & Fernandez-Guerrero, R. (2010). Changing the strategy formation process in a service cooperative. Journal of Organizational Change Management , Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 435-452. Carroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons , Vol. 34, pp. 39-48. Caruana, A. (2002). “Service loyalty: the effects of service quality and the mediating role of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 36 Nos 7/8, pp. 811-28. Cato, M. (2004). The Pit and the Pendulum: A Co-operative Future for Work in the South Wales Valleys. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Cato, M., & Arthur, L. (2008). Entrepreneurial energy Associative entrepreneurship in the renewable energy sector in Wales. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research , Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 313-329. Cesar, J. (2000). Encouraging students’ attitude of innovation in research universities . European Journal of Engineering Education , Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 115-21. Chiou, J., Droge, C., & Hanvanich, S. (2002). Does customer knowledge affect how loyalty is formed' Journal of Service Research , Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 113-25. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing , Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68. Davidsson, P. (2003). The domain of entrepreneurship research: some suggestions”, in Katz, J. and Shepherd, D. (Eds). Cognitive Approaches to Entrepreneurship Research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth , Vol. 6, Elsevier/JAI Press, Oxford, pp. 315-72. Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing , Vol. 18, pp. 301-31. Deegan, C., & Gordon, B. (1996). A study of the environmental disclosure policies of Australian corporations. Accounting and Business Research , Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 187-99. Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1997). The materiality of environmental information to users of annual reports. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 562-83. Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Voght, P. (2000). Firms’ disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum , Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 101-30. Dick, A., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty towards an integrated framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113. Donaldson, T., & Peterson, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation – concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review , Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-92. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment , Vol. 11, pp. 130-41. Evans, A., Jamal, A., & Foxall, G. (2006). Consumer Behaviour. Wiley, London. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurial education. Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 701-20. Fry, A. (1987). The post-it-note: an intrapreneurial success. SAM Advanced Management Journal , Summer, pp. 4-9. Fulton, M. (1999). Cooperatives and Member Commitment. The Finnish Journal of Business Economics , pp. 418–437. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten year literature review. International Small Business Journal , Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 56-78. Griffiths, A. (2004). Corporate sustainability and innovation. Innovation Management Policy and Practice , Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. vi-xiv. Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. (1989). Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting & Business Research , Vol. 19 No. 76, pp. 343-52. Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2004). Sustainable development innovation and competitive advantage: implications for business, policy and management education. Corporate Sustainability: Governance, Innovation Strategy, Development and Methods , Vol. 6, pp. 129-40. Helicon Publishing. (2011). Primary Data. Retrieved Oct 12, 2011, from Talktalk: http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0034842.html Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2003). Developing a coherent enterprise support policy: a new challenge for governments. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy , Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-19. Herremans, I., Akathaporn, P., & McInnes, M. (1993). An investigation of corporate social responsibility reputation and economic performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 18 Nos 7/8, pp. 587-604. Hills, G., Hultman, C., & Miles, M. (2008). The evolution and development of entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Small Business Management , Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 99-112. Hisrich, R., & Peters, M. (1986). Establishing a new business venture unit within a firm . Journal of Business Management , Vol. 1, pp. 307-22. Investopedia. (2011). Sample. Retrieved Oct 30, 2011, from Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sample.asp#axzz1c8AyUhpI Investopedia. (2011). T-Test. Retrieved Nov 1, 2011, from Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/t-test.asp#axzz1cZjj8t4C Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior , Vol. 10, pp. 169-211. Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 145-59. King, W. (2011, January). What is Corporate Social Responsibility' A Brief Overview. Retrieved January 2011, from Ezine Articles: http://ezinearticles.com/'What-is-Corporate-Social-Responsibility'-A-Brief-Overview&id=4564508 Kirzner, I. (1985). Discovery and the Capitalist Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Koop Guru. (2011, Sept). Koperasi Guru Melayu Kelantan Berhad. Retrieved Sept 2011, from http://www.koopguru.com.my Liao, J., & Welsch, H. (2003). Social capital and entrepreneurial growth aspiration; a comparison of technology- and non-technology-based nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of High Technology Management Research , Vol. 14, pp. 149-70. Lichtenstein, D., Drumwright, M., & Braig, B. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing , Vol. 68, pp. 16-32. Lukewood. (2011, Jan). CSR Malaysia. Retrieved Jan 2011, from Squidoo: http://www.squidoo.com/CSR_Malaysia MacPherson, I. (1996). Co-operative Principles for the 21st Century. Retrieved from http://www.coop.org/ica/info/enprinciples.html Management Study Guide. (2008-2012). Secondary Data. Retrieved Oct 12, 2011, from Management Study Guide: http://www.managementstudyguide.com/secondary_data.htm Manev, I., Gyoshev, B., & Manolova, T. (2005). The role of human and social capital and entrepreneurial orientation for small business performance in a transitional economy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management , Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, p. 298. Matlay, H. (2009). Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a critical analysis of stakeholder involvement and expectations. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 355-68. Millman, C., & Matlay, H. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in China: a case study approach. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 802-15. Moreno-Luzon, M., Peris, F., & Gonzales, T. (1998). Strategic approaches, organizational design and Strategic approaches, organizational design and. International Journal of Quality Science , Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 328-47. Morrisson, A. (2000). Entrepreneurship: What triggers it' International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research , Vol. 6, pp.59-71. Murray, K., & Voge, C. (1997). Using a hierarchy-of-effects approach to gauge the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate good will toward the firm: financial versus non-financial impacts. Journal of Business Research , No.38. p141-59. Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organisations and Society , Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 265-82. Newson, M., & Deegan, C. (2002). An exploration of the association between global expectations and corporate social disclosure practices in the Asia–Pacific region. The International Journal of Accounting , Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 183-213. Oliver, R. (1980). Cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 17, November, pp. 460-9. Oliver, R. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty' Journal of Marketing , Vol. 63, pp. 33-44. Paluszek, J. (2008). Ethics and Brand Value: Strategic Differentiation. Business and Organizational Ethics Partnership Meeting . Patten, D. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: a note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organization and Society , Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 471-5. Pellervon, V. (2001). Osuustoiminta-lehti. 5/2001. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of Growth of the Firm. New York, NY: Wiley. Rae, D. (1997). Teaching entrepreneurship in Asia: impact of pedagogical innovation. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change , Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 193-227. Roberts, R. (1992). Determinants of corporate responsibility disclosure. Accounting, Organisations and Society , Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 595-612. Roberts, R. (1992). Determinants of corporate responsibility disclosure. Accounting, Organisations and Society , Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 595-612. Roodt, J. (2005). Self-employment and the required skills. Management Dynamics , Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 18-33. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Scribd. (2011). Research Design. Retrieved Oct 28, 2011, from Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58015927/11/Research-Design-Definition Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 34, pp. 158-66. Seth, N., Desmukh, S., & Vrat, P. (2006). A conceptual model for quality of service in the supply chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , Vol. 36 No. 7, 2006, pp. 547-575. Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. Skurnik, S. (2002). The role of cooperative entreprenuership and firms organizing economic activities - pst, present and future. The Finnish Journal of Business , Vol. 1, pp.103-124. Smith, N. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: whether or how' California Management Review , Vol. 45, pp. 52-76. SPSS. (2011). Chapter 7 - Factor Analysis - SPSS. Retrieved Oct 24, 2011, from SPSS: http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/arm/SPSS/spss7.pdf SPSS. (2011). SPSS Tutorial. Retrieved Oct 23, 2011, from SPSS: http://academic.uofs.edu/department/psych/methods/cannon99/level2a.html Steyaert, C., & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development , Vol. 16, pp. 179-96. Tiessen, J. (1997). Individualism, collectivism and entrepreneurship: a framework for international comparative research. Journal of Business Venturing , Vol. 12, pp. 367-84. Tilt, C. (1994). The influence of external pressure groups on corporate social disclosure: some empirical evidence. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 56-71. US News & World Reports. (2010). Best business schools specialty rankings: entrepreneurship. Retrieved 2011, from http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/ Vaaland, T., Heide, M., & Gronhaug, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: investigating theory and research in the marketing context. European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 42, pp. 927-53. Vlachos, P., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A., & Avramidis, K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 37, pp. 170-80. Weisstein, E. Chi Square Test from Mathworld. Wood, D. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academic of Management Review , 16(4). Worchester, R. (2009). Reflections on corporate reputations. Management Decision , Vol. 47, pp. 573-89. Zairi, M., & Peters, J. (2002). The impact of social responsibility on business performance . Managerial Auditing Journal , Vol. 17, pp. 174-8. Zeithaml, & Bitner. (2003). Definition of Service Quality. Retrieved February 2011, from All about business and information: http://hero-bussiness.blogspot.com/2009/12/definition-of-service-quality.html Zeithaml, V., & Bitner, M. (2003). Services Marketing, 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill.