sustainability not only in financial terms but in their capacity to reproduce meaningfully within communities.

The shift is not simply about “profit plus community” but about the practical redefinition of what

entrepreneurship itself entails when its justification must include social impact as a criterion of legitimacy. Yet

in Malaysia, youth participation in social entrepreneurship remains limited, signaling a readiness gap and a lag

between policy aspirations as codified in the National Entrepreneurship Policy 20202030. Drawing on qualitative

methods, this study employed semi-structured, in-depth interviews with six social entrepreneurs to examine how

readiness is discussed and experienced. The thematic analysis thus revealed three dimensions: awareness

regarding social issues, entrepreneurial support, and the impact of role models on social enterprises. According

to the findings, respondents emphasized that the dynamic character of readiness emerged through practice,

contextual learning, and the encounter with lived challenges, rather than as an initial precondition for entry into

The present concern with social entrepreneurship is not merely with new “business models” nor with the

conventional vocabulary of market expansion or nonprofit initiative, but with the recognition that what has

emerged is a socio-economic fact of considerable significance, a hybrid formation that unsettles traditional

boundaries between public, private, and voluntary domains (Dacin et al., 2010; Mair & Marti, 2006). These

hybrid ventures in social enterprises have come to address some of the most entrenched societal challenges;

poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation. The claim, of course, is that they step in precisely where the

older solutions, welfare systems and market mechanisms alike, fall short (Palakshappa et al., 2024; Littlewood

& Holt, 2018). What it means to say this is not entirely simple. It is one thing to note, as the Global Innovation

Index 2024 does (WIPO, 2024), that there are between 10 and 11 million such ventures worldwide, producing

inclusive, resilient, and equitable. In this sense, social entrepreneurship is not simply a marginal supplement to

existing economic logics but a paradigmatic re-description of how societies imagine their capacities to innovate,

It is now widely acknowledged in Malaysia that social entrepreneurship is becoming a vital element of national

economic development. What this means in practice, however, remains open to discussion. The state has taken

deliberate steps to embed it within policy, most notably through the National Entrepreneurship Policy 20202030

and the establishment of Malaysian Research Accelerator for Technology and Innovation (MRANTI), the new

institution formed by merging Malaysian Global Innovation and Creativity Center (MaGIC) and Technology

Park Malaysia. These measures point clearly to an official commitment to positioning social entrepreneurship as

a tool for building a resilient and inclusive economy. Around this vision stand ministries and agencies such as

participation, and in particular, do they succeed in engaging the youth who are so often invoked as the drivers of

Malaysia’s future? It is here, in the gap between policy ambition and everyday practice, that the limits of

It is evident from Figure 1 that youth participation in Malaysia’s social enterprise sector remains strikingly

limited. Only 7% of social entrepreneurs are between the ages of 18 and 25, while 12% fall within the 26 to 30

brackets. The majority are concentrated instead in the 31 to 50 age range. In contrast, most social entrepreneurs

These pressures affect not only the sustainability of existing ventures but also shape how young people perceive

the very feasibility of social entrepreneurship as a career path. When funding is limited, support is scarce, and

awareness of the ecosystem is low, the readiness of young people is easily weakened. External constraints of this

kind, combined with internal factors such as limited exposure or a lack of role models, suggest that readiness is

never merely an individual trait but something embedded in the wider environment. Addressing these

interlocking barriers is therefore essential if the gap in youth participation is to be narrowed and a more enabling

Readiness for social entrepreneurship cannot be reduced to only technical skills or funding. It involves the

broader capacities, both psychological and experiential, that allow young people to perceive opportunities,

confront social challenges, and carry ventures forward with impact. Qualities such as self-efficacy, empathy,

through role models, community interactions, and direct exposure to local social issues, which together form the

Figures 1 and 2 reveal an urgent need to examine social entrepreneurship readiness among Malaysian youth.

Figure 1 shows a clear generational gap, with those aged 18-30 making up only a small portion of the social

business sector. This suggests that many young Malaysians do not see themselves as ready or equipped to

participate. Figure 2 highlights the structural barriers that reinforce this absence: limited access to capital, low

public awareness, and insufficient entrepreneurial support all restrict entry and threaten sustainability within the

sector. These interconnected gaps indicate that readiness is shaped not only by individual traits but also by

broader environmental, psychological, and socio-cultural factors. Understanding youth readiness is therefore

essential, both to see how young people develop the confidence, motivation, and capacity to engage, and to

inform interventions that can close the participation gap, strengthen ecosystem support, and align with national

goals like the National Entrepreneurship Policy 2020-2030. By examining six diverse case studies of social

enterprises, this study investigates the experiential, relational, and contextual factors that shape readiness in real

Malaysian settings. These community-based ventures function as small ecosystems of entrepreneurial learning

and social change, demonstrating that readiness is not just taught but experienced, practiced, and passed on

Over the past few decades, social entrepreneurship has gained significant global attention (Fiseha & Oni, 2022).

related to traditional entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship differs in mission and focus. It aims primarily to

address societal problems while balancing social and economic goals (Adnan et al., 2018). As it grows within

the entrepreneurial ecosystem, it merges profit-making with social impact, encouraging creativity, job creation,

community development, and cross-sector collaboration (Saufi & Hong, 2024). These contributions have led

Social entrepreneurship first emerged in Malaysia in 1986 with the founding of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia (AIM).

Since that time, it has steadily gained visibility and attracted the attention of a wide range of stakeholders,

including the Malaysian government (Law et al., 2024). A pivotal moment arrived in 2022 when the Ministry of

Entrepreneur Development and Cooperative (MEDAC) introduced the Social Entrepreneurship Blueprint 2030

Youth play a vital role in advancing social entrepreneurship in Malaysia. They make up a substantial portion of

the population, bringing creativity, fresh perspectives, and technological expertise to bear on pressing social and

environmental challenges (Ramasamy et al., 2024). SEMy2030 positions youth as pivotal actors in the growth

of sustainable social enterprises, acknowledging that their participation is essential for translating policy visions

into tangible social and economic outcomes. As Bublitz et al. (2021) emphasize, with the right combination of

training, mentorship, and access to resources, young people are well equipped to launch ventures that deliver

both social impact and economic value. Yet much of this potential remains unrealized. Data indicate that while

many young Malaysians hold favorable views toward social entrepreneurship, only a small proportion translate

Readiness, as Istiqomah et al. (2022) describe, is the capacity to respond appropriately to different situations. In

the context of entrepreneurship, this readiness goes beyond simply knowing how to run a business; it involves

supports, and capacities that help individuals navigate life, pursue goals, overcome setbacks, and enhance their

well-being (Panov, 2024). They are what people rely on when pressures mount, when challenges appear, when

resilience and insight must be marshalled. In entrepreneurship, the term narrows: resources are the assets and

capabilities that enable entrepreneurs to reach their objectives; operational, human, technical, financial, and the

like (Zhou & Gao, 2019). Not every resource qualifies as entrepreneurial, and this distinction matters. In social

entrepreneurship, resources take on a tangible and strategic role; they are what social entrepreneurs possess or

can access to transform ideas into functioning ventures, to turn vision into practice, and to generate social impact

(Drencheva et al., 2022; Clough et al., 2019). They guide decisions, highlight which opportunities matter, and

translate abstract ideas into concrete action that moves beyond planning into tangible effect. Through these

resources, entrepreneurs are able to craft ventures that do more than exist; they make a real, lasting difference in

youth involvement in social enterprise. It also answers calls in the literature for more practice-based studies in

Five participants recounted that their entry into social entrepreneurship emerged not from abstract ideas or formal

instruction, but from close, lived encounters with pressing social issues in their own communities. This

awareness was not the product of abstract ideas or formal study but arose from experiences charged with emotion,

embedded in the everyday realities they navigated. One participant looked back on a childhood in a low-income

household, observing his mother’s struggles as a single parent, and described how these experiences forged his

commitment to empowering marginalized women through skill-based training. Another participant, now running

a food distribution social enterprise, traced her readiness back to early experiences of food insecurity during her

college years far from home. These early experiences generated a strong, internal drive to take action. One

structures include government programs, community networks, online platforms, and cooperative training

initiatives. Participants emphasized that such organized activities; seminars, workshops, and structured training

sessions provided by institutions such as Agrobank and INSKEN, are significant in their developmental

trajectories. Others described gaining early momentum through peer mentoring and cooperative business models,

At the same time, many participants pointed to the lack of centralized guidance and the fragmented nature of

support, particularly in rural areas, as a persistent barrier to sustained growth. Yet these constraints did not simply

This account suggests that the challenge is not only one of motivation or initiative. It lies in the provision of

support that is accessible, contextually relevant, and oriented toward community. Such support allows young

social entrepreneurs to move from intention to action, to translate awareness into practice, and to navigate the

The influence of role models, among them are mothers, teachers, founders of cooperatives, peers, is significant

in shaping participants’ engagement with social entrepreneurship. These figures were not merely inspirational;

observation and active engagement. Observing role models who shared similar histories, values, or social

contexts proved particularly influential. This pattern speaks directly to Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986),

which emphasizes that learning often occurs through observation, and that the effect is strongest when

Readiness for social entrepreneurship, as these findings make clear, is not to be mistaken for a technical skillset

acquired once and for all, but a socially mediated process that grows out of the intersections of lived experience,

social support, and identification (Kolb, 1984). Awareness of social issues, for instance, arises not as abstract

“knowledge” but through concrete encounters with inequality, hunger, and exclusion; encounters that impress