The Zakat, Technological Innovation, and Social Entrepreneurship: A PLS-SEM Analysis of Perceived Sustainable Development Impact
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31436/jif.v15i2.1128Keywords:
Islamic social finance, Zakat, social entrepreneurship, technological innovation, sustainable developmentAbstract
This study investigates whether stakeholders’ awareness of and commitment to zakat are associated with perceived sustainable development impact, and whether technological innovation and social entrepreneurship mediate this relationship. Grounded in maqasid al-shariah as a normative lens and resource orchestration as the explanatory logic, the study develops a four-construct model linking zakat awareness and commitment (ZAC), technological innovation (TIN), social entrepreneurship (SEO), and perceived sustainable development impact (ZSD). Data from 218 purposively sampled stakeholders were analysed using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) with 5,000 bootstrap resamples and percentile confidence intervals. The findings indicate that technological innovation is the strongest correlate of social entrepreneurship (β = 0.381, p < 0.001), while social entrepreneurship is the strongest correlate of perceived sustainable development impact (β = 0.338, p < 0.001). Although ZAC exhibits a direct association with the final outcome (β = 0.155, p = 0.028), it is not significantly associated with social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship mediates the association between technological innovation and perceived sustainable development impact (indirect effect = 0.129, p < 0.001). However, evidence regarding the indirect paths originating from ZAC remains inconclusive across the inferential criteria. The model accounts for 24.0 per cent of the variance in the target outcome (adjusted R² = 0.229). This paper offers a preliminary, perception-based evaluation of the zakat–innovation–entrepreneurship–development continuum as an integrated system and identifies the conditions under which broader claims may be warranted.
Downloads
References
Abdullah, M. (2018). Waqf, sustainable development goals (SDGs) and maqasid al-shariah. International Journal of Social Economics, 45(1), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-10-2016-0295
Ahmed, H., Mohieldin, M., Verbeek, J., & Aboulmagd, F. (2015). On the sustainable development goals and the role of Islamic finance (Policy Research Working Paper No. 7266). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-7266
Bin-Nashwan, S. A., Abdul-Jabbar, H., Abdul Aziz, S., & Sarea, A. (2021). Zakah compliance in Muslim countries: An economic and socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 19(3), 392–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-03-2020-0057
Chapra, M. U. (2008). The Islamic vision of development in the light of the maqasid al-shariah. Islamic Research and Training Institute, Islamic Development Bank.
El Amri, M. C., Mohammed, M. O., & AlKhalili, M. M. S. (2025). Fintech adoption and its investment impact in Islamic social finance: The case of zakat. QIJIS (Qudus International Journal of Islamic Studies), 12(2), 213–254. https://doi.org/10.21043/qijis.v12i2.17069
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
Ninglasari, S. Y., & Muhammad, M. (2021). Zakat digitalization: Effectiveness of zakat management in the Covid-19 pandemic era. Journal of Islamic Economic Laws, 4(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.23917/jisel.v4i1.12442
Obaidullah, M. (2008). Introduction to Islamic microfinance. IBF Net Limited. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1506072
Obaidullah, M., & Shirazi, N. S. (2017). Islamic social finance report 2017. Islamic Research and Training Institute, Islamic Development Bank.
Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N., & James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 428–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560063
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Qardawi, Y. (1999). Fiqh al-zakah: A comparative study of zakah regulations and philosophy in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah (M. Kahf, Trans.). Scientific Publishing Centre, King Abdulaziz University.
Saad, R. A. J., & Haniffa, R. (2014). Determinants of zakah (Islamic tax) compliance behavior. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 5(2), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIABR-10-2012-0068
Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390–1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385695
Widiastuti, T., Auwalin, I., Rani, L. N., & Ubaidillah Al Mustofa, M. (2021). A mediating effect of business growth on zakat empowerment program and mustahiq’s welfare. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1882039. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1882039
