FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE FORMATION OF INDONESIAN SMEs’ SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: A CASE STUDY OF WEST JAVA

This study aimed to identify the formation of SMEs’ social entrepreneurship in rural communities. The majority of people living in rural areas have their businesses. However, their welfare level is relatively low. This study tried to examine how the efforts to form SMEs’ social entrepreneurship facilitate improving community welfare. The authors employed a deductive approach. They collected data in a cross-sectional manner; quantitative data processing was done using the Structural Equation Model (SEM) for 340 respondents in Indonesia who have SMEs. The results of this study showed that the influence of such factors, as intention, digital innovation thinking, and leadership attitudes have a significant effect on social entrepreneurship. However, the risk perception did not significantly affect SMEs’ social entrepreneurship because of rising operating expenses. This research contributes to existing knowledge by providing novel insights facilitating social change.


Introduction
SMEs' social entrepreneurship is the upgrade version of independent entrepreneurship. This business operates in the community, intending to explore and take advantage of opportunities to create social values for social change (Mair & Martı, 2006). Besides, it also explores global phenomena of solving social problems with innovative approaches. Developing countries need entrepreneurship to reduce unemployment (Asaju, Arome, & Anyio, 2014). Besides, entrepreneurship can create social impact, social change, and social transformation (Mair & Martı, 2006;Wakkee, van der Sijde, Vaupell, & Ghuman, 2019). The goal of forming SMEs' social entrepreneurship leads to significant social, political, and economic changes for society and generates innovations and social transformations (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004).
In the history of the business world, entrepreneurship on a purely business basis considers innovation, perceptions of risk or uncertainty, leadership strength for making the right decisions, good capital and management, and service-oriented (Tauber, 2019). SMEs' social entrepreneurship is a derivative of entrepreneurship that engages in the social sector by involving the community or people according to the Social Theory, namely Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1999), which identifies human behavior as an interaction of personal and behavioral factors well as the environment. Social entrepreneurship goals are to explore and take advantage of opportunities to create social value for social change (Mair & Martı, 2006) and explore global phenomena in solving social problems with innovative approaches. The general goals will impact the social environment, social change, and social transformation (Mair & Martı, 2006;Wakkee et.al., 2019). The social entrepreneurship activity itself is not merely looking for profit but also jointly growing and developing a business. It makes the right instrument for creating economic value and a means for dealing with various challenges of social problems. The essence of SMEs' social entrepreneurship lies in private sector reform supported by the concerns of the government, business people, and other organizations such as non-profits.
Studies on social entrepreneurship in the last ten years have focused on findings highlighting the impact of education and practical exposure to business that can affect a person's intention to entrepreneurship and are associated with family and ethnic factors (Basu & Virick, 2007). Another study that relates to the design of entrepreneurial programs/services has aimed to foster and assist potential entrepreneurs in opening their businesses (Wu & Wu, 2008). In 2014, Steven Ney's research results suggested two dimensions associated with social entrepreneurship: social space and social change through collaboration between entrepreneurs and communities (Ney, Beckmann, Graebnitz, & Mirkovic, 2014). Another study in 2015 shows that attention to social entrepreneurship training in education is a form of implementation to get instrument support from the government (Bikse, Rivza, & Riemere, 2015). Research on social entrepreneurship that previous researchers had already conducted was generally about Social Entrepreneurship, which predicted the relationship between intention and knowledge. The intention was predicted to be a supporting factor for entrepreneurship that expected results (Koe, Sa'ari, Majid, & Ismail, 2012). Some researched the measurement of social impact in social innovation (E. K. M. Lee, Lee, Kee, Kwan, & Ng, 2019). The rest of the research was about institutional complexity impacting social entrepreneurship opportunities (Cherrier, Goswami, & Ray, 2018).
The unpopularity of social entrepreneurship in Indonesia, specifically, in West Java, can also indicate that people's intention to develop social entrepreneurship is still low. The low intention might be caused by a desire to own a business. People feel being capable of self-employment, and want to get full benefits without sharing with others. Another reason is that there is still no leadership attitude from the majority of the local communities. Social entrepreneurship demands a leader as a decision-maker to support the process of entrepreneurial activities. The leader must be competent so that they can manage personnel or employees and have good decision-making skills (Eduardo & Gabriel, 2017). Reliable leaders understand social change: leaders who collect and process information and transfer them to people who understand social change (Mack, Khare, Krämer, & Burgartz, 2015). Other than that, risk perception includes what the local community conceives about opening and developing social enterprises. The risk is a factor that the community must consider. Furthermore, the specific objectives of this study were to find out how the intention, digital innovation thinking, leadership attitude, and participant risk perception in the formation of SMEs' social entrepreneurship function to help deal with social problems such as poverty and unemployment. Likewise, it also aims to reap sustainable benefits from social enterprises. Robinson, exploring global phenomena of solving social problems with innovative approaches (Mair & Martı, 2006) state, that social entrepreneurship will impact the social environment, will lead to social change, and social transformation (Mair & Martı, 2006;Wakkee, van der Sijde, Vaupell, & Ghuman, 2019). The empirical study of intention, digital innovation, and leadership attitudes in SMEs' social entrepreneurship is related to the Theory of Planned Behavior between intentions and perceived entrepreneurial attitudes (Ajzen, 1991;Douglas & Shepherd, 2002;Krueger & Carsrud, 1993).

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
The entrepreneurial intention of a person is a variable that is considered in predicting entrepreneurial behavior, especially in the formation of SMEs' social entrepreneurship. However, researchers do not have a precise definition of individual entrepreneurial intentions. Several studies have shown that individual attitudes towards entrepreneurship appear to be related to their entrepreneurial behavior. This behavior is mediated by intention, suggesting that individual attitudes are essential factors influencing their entrepreneurial intentions (Ajzen, 1991;Hill, Fishbein, & Ajzen, 1977;Ajzen, Czasch, & Flood, 2009b). This behavior is also important in the process of entrepreneurial activities (Lee, Wong, Foo, & Leung, 2011). As with Lee's research, start-ups and previous intentions have a very significant relationship between activities carried out. The intention is predicted to be involved in entrepreneurship (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000); intention also predicts behavior (Hartwick, Warshaw, Edell, & Burke, 1998). The findings model is embodied in a Behavioral Planning Theory (Ajzen, 1991). Intention can also be brought closer to meaning with passion, which can support success for an entrepreneur. A person's entrepreneurial intention is crucial in achieving his hopes of becoming an entrepreneur (Shook & Bratianu, 2010). Therefore, this study considers the intention factors, which are expected to influence the formation of social entrepreneurship.
H1. The intention will have a significant positive impact on the formation of SMEs' social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship innovation is crucial for maintaining the continuity of the business. Without innovation, businesses cannot compete with new, more innovative products. In this contemporary era, innovation is directly related to digitalization. Products that are packaged and offered by utilizing digitalization will undoubtedly be more attractive and spread faster considering the presence and power of social media. Innovation develops various advanced technologies by creating entrepreneurial and innovative opportunities to produce goods and services that will result in rapid scientific and technological advances in national economic activity (Raghupathi & Raghupathi, 2017). Furthermore, it means that digital-based entrepreneurship will open up business opportunities based on digital technology facilities, while other businesses are looking for business opportunities by focusing on knowledge and institutional support (Pan, Sandeep, Du, & Li, 2018). They are also aware that by mastering the digital world, they will benefit while encouraging people to advance and get help, one of which is through technology (Planing, 2017). Meanwhile, innovation thinking includes solutions to technological, economic, and business problems, organizational strength, and the social environment that can be immediately applied and used (Becker & Eube, 2018). The existence of digital entrepreneurship will gradually change traditional entrepreneurial activities, as explained by Hull in 2007 in his research. He stated that digital-based entrepreneurship is the subcategory of entrepreneurship, gradually changing traditional entrepreneurship into digital entrepreneurship. (Hull, Hung, Hair, Perotti, & Demartino, 2007). The influence of digital technology will also affect institutions and society; therefore, a strategy is needed in the competitive market economy (Baron, 1995). Proactive human resource development affects entrepreneurial business transformation (Berglund & Sandström, 2017), and knowledge can also influence digital entrepreneurship (Geissinger, Laurell, Sandström, Eriksson, & Nykvist, 2018). Digital innovation can also develop economic collaboration, namely the performance economy and platform economy, which generally means vertical disintegration. Vertical disintegration relates to connecting sellers and buyers in digital information-based forums to reduce transaction costs (Acquier, Daudigeos, & Pinkse, 2017;Mair & Reischauer, 2017). Furthermore, the researcher would consider the factors of digital innovation thinking predicted to influence social entrepreneurship formation.
H2. Digital innovation thinking will have a significant positive impact on the formation of SMEs' social entrepreneurship. Leadership is essentially needed in the formation of SMEs-social entrepreneurship that carries out social business activities in a community environment. The activities involving many people genuinely need a leader. The leader can also be chosen from among those whom a community group has trusted. In addition, the leader can solve problems and be responsible for the running of a business. As Ruth said in her research, leaders generate ideas, motivate people, and frame narratives for a business (Rüth & Netzer, 2019). Furthermore, a leader hopes that

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2021 Volume 9 Number 2 (December) http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2021.9.2(4) his/her sensitivity and imagination skills will have goals soon. They must be able to predict how the subsequent development of the business will be. At the same time, a reliable leader is a leader who understands social change; the leader who collects and processes information and transfers it to people who understand social change (Mack et al., 2015). Mishra also explained in his research that entrepreneurship is associated with leadership so that people can be creative, innovative, and organized (Mishra & Misra, 2017). Besides, entrepreneurial leadership also requires skills that can provide examples of acts of courage, skills to interact with one another, provide experiential methods and reflective forms that inspire a business (Mishra & Misra, 2017). Last, regarding the leadership attitude that might become a solution creator of a problem, is the attitude of a leader who dares to take risks and can control his/her internal emotions to resolve conflicts, either internal or external (Antoncic et al., 2018). There have not been many researchers who have conducted research on leadership that contributes and is uniquely relevant to entrepreneurship because social entrepreneurship is a relatively new field of study, slightly different from research on entrepreneurship in general (Weerawardena & Sullivan Mort, 2006). Social entrepreneurship is a different business model, so there is a need for leadership that will balance humanistic values and economic-motivated activities. Given the importance of leadership in SMEs-social entrepreneurship, it is possible to contextually identify the drivers that support a balance of social impact and profitability. A person's leadership attitude will encourage humanitarian behavior, which is a driving force in social entrepreneurship activities (Miller, Grimes, Mcmullen, & Vogus, 2012). Based on this realization, the researcher would identify the possibility of leadership attitudes predicted to affect the formation of social entrepreneurship. H3: Leadership attitude will have a significant positive impact on the formation of SMEs' social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs always think about risks, and social entrepreneurs do likewise. In theory, it is also stated that an entrepreneur has and considers a more significant risk factor than any other job (Brockhaus Sr., 1980). Hence, it can be said that in carrying out a business activity plan, an entrepreneur always consciously thought of risky actions. The importance of taking risks should be considered in social entrepreneurship (Germak & Robinson, 2014). Some entrepreneurs were thoughtless about risk, in the beginning, so they immediately started their business without thinking about risk. Some argue that individuals who want to start a business think that understanding entrepreneurial work has less risk than non-entrepreneurs (Palich & Bagby, 1995). Jilinskaya-Pandey & Wade revealed in their research that risk-taking is one of the dimensions of the Social Entrepreneur Quotient (SEQ) psychometric scale (Jilinskaya-Pandey & Wade, 2019). Future research is expected to analyze additional factors or variables that are directly or indirectly have possibilities in predicting the formation of SMEs-social entrepreneurship through consideration of risk for business. Other risk perception factors that may be considered include changes in someone's employment status (Amit, Muller, & Cockburn, 1995), the early stages of starting a business (Dubini, 1989), and other accesses on how to start a new business (Chrisman, Hoy, & Robinson, 1987). Furthermore, this study took predictions according to the initial phenomenon to understand the relationship between risk perception or risk considerations and the formation of SMEs-social entrepreneurship; therefore, the authors convinced the stages of analysis and development of the issue. Apart from risk perception, another study that other researchers had been carried out is a social risk (Amit, Muller, & Cockburn, 1995;Birley & Westhead, 1994).
H4: Risk perception will have a significant positive impact on the formation of SMEs' social entrepreneurship. The novelty of this research is that it is the first time a study focuses on researching SMEs-social entrepreneurship. Besides, it is the first time the concept of SMEs-social entrepreneurship conceptualized to link the factors of intention, digital innovation thinking, leadership attitude, and risk perception in forming the SMEssocial entrepreneurship. All of this is obtained after reviewing the related literature. It has been identified that the previously mentioned factors are the best predictors of the formation of SMEs' social entrepreneurship. After that, the researchers proposed a hypothesis, which is outlined in Figure 1.

Respondents and survey tools
Research on the formation of SMEs' social entrepreneurship is based on a deductive approach by involving 340 SMEs entrepreneurs in West Java, Indonesia. Their average ages ranged from 18 to 65 years. The survey tool employed the distribution of questionnaires prepared in advance with the design of the research instrument. It was expected that these social tools could be accepted simply and can be understood by small businesses in the community (Anderson, 1983). Moreover, the questionnaire was constructed from the literature analysis considering the variables abovementioned.

Sampling procedure and sample size
Data was obtained from communication activities with community small businesses. The sampling technique was carried out randomly on the same occasion in order not to cause sample bias. The questionnaire was distributed manually by visiting the potential respondents face to face at a set time and place. Furthermore, from the analysis results of the questionnaire, the researchers guaranteed that the data was confidential, accurate, and anonymous. The data was recorded accurately since after the respondents filling out the questionnaire, the data went directly to the researcher. Initially, there were 32 points of statements distributed to some of the community's small businesses. In the end, 27 valid statement items were obtained, which were then used to form a questionnaire (See the appendix for questionnaire details). The questionnaire was then distributed to all respondents, totaling 340 small community businesses.

Measurements
The measurement used in this study was a Likert scale measurement with 5 points, ranging from '1' (strongly disagree) to '5' (strongly agree), with the following details: intention consists of 6 items, Digital Innovation Thinking consists of 6 items, Leadership Attitude consists of 6 items, Risk Perception consists of 5 items, and Social Entrepreneurship consists of 5 items (See the appendix for details).

Digital Innovation Thinking
Leadership Attitude

Data Analysis Techniques
This study employed a cross-sectional data collection technique. The type of tool used was a survey lift distributed to analyze the answers of 340 respondents from 6 villages in West Java, Indonesia. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used for data analysis purpose.

Respondents' Demography
The respondents' demographic profile has a valuable function for understanding social and economic problems and can identify several solutions (Nwankwo & Gbadamosi, 2013). Based on the data obtained, the total respondents who have SMEs (Small and Medium-sized enterprises) were 340, consisting of 184 male respondents (54%) and 156 female respondents (46%). The age of the respondents was described as follows: 44 of respondents aged 18 to 30 years (13%) and 90 of respondents aged between 31 to 40 years (26%), 119 respondents aged 41 to 50 years ( 35%), and respondents aged 51 to 65 years were 87 (26%). Concerning the length of time they have opened their business, it ranged from 1 year to 10 years with 96 respondents (28%), 11 years to 20 years with 146 respondents (43%), over 20 years with 98 respondents (29%). The data can be seen in Table 1.

Descriptive statistics, reliability assessment, and Pearson's correlation
The observation of respondent participation applied descriptive statistics. The highest average value for the variable intention is 1.657, and leadership attitude is 1.644. At the same time, the medium one is the variable for digital innovation thinking with 1.245, and then the lowest was risk perception with 866. Apart from that, an average score was obtained for the social entrepreneurship variable with 1.735. At the same time, the criteria for the classification of research variables are displayed in Table 2.
Likewise, the highest value for deviation standard is in variable risk perception (1.947), while the lowest is for social entrepreneurship (1.116). Values of 1.157, 1.111, and 1.163 were observed for the variables intention, digital innovation thinking, and leadership attitude, respectively. While the highest consistency is in the social entrepreneurship variable (0.857), compared to other variables (intention = 0.817, digital innovation thinking = 0.707, leadership attitude = 0.835 and risk perception = 0.573). Finally, the value of Pearson correlations ranges between 0.100 and 0.477 (Table 3).

The Fitness Model and Hypothesis Testing
Researchers used the model suitability statistics (absolute and incremental indices) to determine the strength of the test from the count statistical. Regarding the Absolute Conformity Index, the chi-square value highlighted the insignificant value of χ2 / CMIN (2.855; p> 0.005), which confirmed the positive sign of model fit with the data. Meanwhile, the goodness of fit index (GFI) is indexed 0.951, and the conformity index (AGFI) is in a good category with 0.927, and the root mean square error of the approximation (RMSEA) is 0.047. The following are the index values: incremental fit (NFI) with 0.937 and comparative suitability index (CFI) with 0.945. Both of them were found to be acceptable. This score satisfies the absolute model requirements (Cheung & Chan, 2009;Yvette Reisinger & Mavondo, 2008) (Table 4). To explain the relationship between several variables, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used. The use of the technique allows researchers to reveal the relationship of several dependent and independent variables instantly (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & Kuppelwieser, 2014). Processing the proposed relationship data was based on standard error (SE), critical ratio (CR), and significance level (at p = <0.01). These results indicate a significant positive relationship between the intention variable and the formation of SMEs-social entrepreneurship (SE = 0.067; CR = 6,677; p = <0.01). Therefore, H1 is supported. Likewise, the SEM weight for H2 (SE = 0.077; CR = 6.415; p = <0.01) stated a positive and significant relationship between digital innovation thinking and social entrepreneurship. Hence, H2 is accepted. Furthermore, for H3, it shows SE = 0.086; CR = 6,515; p = <0.01,

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2021 Volume 9 Number 2 (December) http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2021.9.2(4) then H3 is accepted, indicating a significant positive relationship between the leadership attitude variable and social entrepreneurship. Finally, the proposed association between risk perception and social entrepreneurship (H4) was not accepted since SE = 0.023; CR = 0.474; p = <0.01 (Table 5 and Figure 2). In short, H1, H2, and H3 were accepted, while H4 was not accepted or rejected. This study has proposed four hypotheses taken from the conceptual model description: the effect of intention, digital innovation thinking, leadership attitude, and risk perception on social entrepreneurship. The data processing results show that there is an effect of intention on the formation of SMEs-social entrepreneurship, which is positive and significant. Hence, H1 is accepted. It can be predicted from the results of the analysis of respondents that the intention of the community to own and develop a social business can be said to be enormous. Furthermore, with their intention, they also think that the results will be greater than the efforts done individually since they share the workload and funding if the efforts are carried out together. Different thoughts can be constructive so that social enterprises may develop rapidly. The attitudes and thoughts of these individuals are essential factors that influence their intention in entrepreneurship (Ajzen, 1991). The statement, as mentioned earlier, is also supported by Krueger, who states that intention will affect entrepreneurial activities (Krueger, et all, 2000). Thus, it is not difficult for people who already have small businesses to grow their intention to expand their business to become entrepreneurs (Shook & Bratianu, 2010). They do not forget to think about the most important goal of social business activity, which will impact the social environment, social change, and social transformation (Mair & Martı, 2006;Wakkee, et. all, 2019). The influence of digital innovation thinking on social entrepreneurship shows a positive and significant effect; therefore, H2 is accepted. The significant effect is supported by research conducted by Raghupathi, which states the idea of mastery of innovation can develop entrepreneurial, and scientific and technological advances are obtained from the creation of goods and services that will increase creative and productive economic activities (Raghupathi & Raghupathi, 2017).
Pan confirms the abovementioned statement in his research, digital-based entrepreneurship opens up opportunities based on the use of digital technology (Pan et al., 2018). There is still a possibility of digital technology being applied for social business activities. Responding to digital innovation thinking, people need knowledge or guidance on using social media as a means of communication to expedite their business activities. In general, it can be defined that virtual communication involves people (members), interaction, cyberspace, and the achievement of common goals (Koh & Kim, 2004& Liu & Li, 2012. However, they believe that communication can still be done online and offline daily. From a social perspective, research studies on digital innovation thinking are also directed at using social media in terms of interaction for social business activities and the creation of social values (Henri & Pudelko, 2003).

Figure 2. Structural Equation Model
Source: Research Findings, 2021 As for H3, there is also a positive and significant influence between leadership attitudes towards social entrepreneurship; hence, H3 is accepted. The results of this analysis suggest that society needs a leader who can lead social enterprises responsibly and has excellent and innovative leadership characteristics (Agarwal,  74 Campbell, Franco, & Ganco, 2016). However, social entrepreneurship in Indonesia has not been widely evolved in urban and rural areas because most people tend to be self-employed and have not thought about joining together to form social entrepreneurship. However, there is still a possibility in the future for them to form social entrepreneurship. The community also takes into consideration who would lead them later and whom they can trust. Furthermore, they still agree that a leader is truly responsible and has good leadership character for their joint efforts. As said by Ruth in her research, leaders are people who can come up with ideas, motivate people, and frame narratives for a business (Rüth & Netzer, 2019). At the same time, the community hopes that a leader can mobilize and set an example for them to be creative, innovative, and organized (Mishra & Misra, 2017). Besides, the leaders are also willing to collect and able to provide examples of acts of courage, skills to interact with one another, provide experiential methods, and reflective forms that inspire a business (Mack, Khare, Krämer, & Burgartz, 2015;Mishra & Misra, 2017).
The effect of risk perception on the formation of SMEs-social entrepreneurship is stated to have no positive and significant effect; hence, H4 is rejected. It is because people do not feel too burdened by thoughts of risk. They think that social enterprise will ease their work, especially in terms of funding. Therefore, they do not consider risk perception. In other words, they ignore it because it will hinder social business activities. Furthermore, based on empirical research, it can be claimed that the risk tendency is not related to the formation of a business (Busenitz & Barney, 1997). Therefore, social entrepreneurship does not always indicate risk perception. Another finding reveals that not all entrepreneurs always think of a higher risk to start a business. However, other research states that entrepreneurs have a greater risk tendency than others (Brockhaus Sr., 1980). This statement was also denied by Palich & Bagby, who stated that entrepreneurial work had less risk than non-entrepreneurs (Palich & Bagby, 1995). This objection was reinforced by Jilinskaya-Pandey & Wade, who said social entrepreneurs might need to be prepared to accept a higher level of risk than their colleagues (Jilinskaya-Pandey & Wade, 2019). From the results of this study, it is emphasized once again that the effect of risk perception on social entrepreneurship does not have a positive and significant effect.
Another thing that has been revealed from this study's results is the community's desire to sustain a competitive advantage. This revelation is very reasonable for them to convey because they have high hopes for this social entrepreneurship activity which involves innovative actions. Thus, it is hoped that their needs will meet the result of the social problems that are being handled. Meanwhile, other research revealed that the desired outcome of a social enterprise activity that involves innovation is an increase in human welfare and the environment, with apparent changes in both the quality and quantity of life. In other words, social entrepreneurship has goals of social change, welfare, and reducing unemployment. The main objective of social entrepreneurship research is the social impact (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006). The role of social impact on social entrepreneurship is very positive (Ormiston & Seymour, 2011). Therefore, social entrepreneurship must also prioritize profit besides focusing on social goals (Nicolás, Rubio, & Fernández-Laviada, 2018). The community will keep actively struggling for the sustainability of the social enterprise with a competitive advantage. Hence, a leader is also needed in financial affairs, who can read future profits and manage them properly, honestly, and responsibly.

Contributions
Supporting factors of social entrepreneurship for small and medium enterprises in rural areas include intention, digital innovation thinking, and leadership attitude. These are the things that need to be implemented in the community to create a social enterprise that will bring social change. Furthermore, this research aimed to provide awareness to rural communities to carry out economic activities based on togetherness and digital to create and innovate following the trends and era. By implementing these efforts, the community can compete in the national and even international economy scale. Besides, the results of this research can also be a means for learning among other communities worldwide. It is also expected that the result of this research can be a source of inspiration and ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES ISSN 2345-0282 (online) http://jssidoi.org/jesi/ 2021 Volume 9 Number 2 (December) http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2021.9.2(4) 75 emotional consistency for small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, even prominent entrepreneurs in developing social entrepreneurship, which in turn will improve the national economy.

Conclusions
On the one hand, this study found a positive and significant impact on intention, digital innovation thinking, and leadership attitude towards forming social entrepreneurship in rural areas in Indonesia. On the other hand, risk perception was not proven to be positively significant in predicting social entrepreneurship. People felt that the work and capital burden on the business could be considered and handled together; therefore, risk perception is not needed. Moreover, people were more concerned with the development of SMEs-social entrepreneurship, which would result in a social change, one of which is increasing welfare rather than thinking about the risks that will be faced.