Integrating Cognitive Competency, Social Competency and Risk Propensity with the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Attain Sustainable-Development-Goal-8-Driven Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions

Abstract

This paper empirically examines whether integrating entrepreneurial abilities with the theory of perceived behaviour positively influences Sustainable-Development-Goal-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SDG-8 SEIs). The data used in this study were gathered from 540 students from top-ranked Indian engineering colleges that offer entrepreneurship courses and have access to company incubators. According to the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), perceived behavioural control, subjective norms, and entrepreneurial drive are the three elements of perceived entrepreneurial behaviour. The TPB’s dimensions in this study have entrepreneurial competencies as their antecedents. Cognitive competency, risk propensity, and social competency and resilience are antecedents of the TPB’s dimensions. One entrepreneurial viewpoint uses sustainable UNDP-SDG-8 as a metric for assessing intentions; its objectives are the promotion of inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. This study used partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). According to the findings, engineering students in India are more likely to have entrepreneurial-focused intentions based on sustainability if they adhere to the TPB’s dimensions along with additional constructs. Using an expanded TPB model, we show that the TPB has learnable and stimulating antecedents, with these having a positive effect on SDG-8 SEIs, thus extending entrepreneurial activity in India. Policymakers, universities, and students will find these results very intriguing. The TPB’s dimensions and three additional dimensions are proposed as antecedents in a new conceptual model aimed at sustainable entrepreneurship in this study.

1. Introduction

The theoretical foundation of the notion of planned behaviour serves as the foundation for many studies on entrepreneurship that link entrepreneurial action with intentions. Since the theory of reasoned action (TRA) [1] cannot account for behaviours that people with incomplete volitional control undertake, the TPB [2,3] emerged as an extension of the TRA. The TPB model clarifies whether an individual’s behaviours are determined exclusively by their intentions.

Attitude, social norms, and perceived behavioural control are three dimensions an of entrepreneur’s perceived behaviour. According to Abdulrab et al. (2021) [4] attitude and intention are highly correlated. Social norms (SNs) are people’s perceptions of the behaviours that they should expect from significant others in their lives, like their family, friends, and teachers [5], as well as if individuals in society view a specific activity as suitable [6]. The degree to which an individual has the skills, means, and knowledge necessary to carry out an activity is the behavioural control variable [5]. The capacity to reveal one’s current actions and anticipate one’s future actions increases in proportion to the level of control one has over those actions.

The entrepreneurial competencies identified by Loué and Baronet (2012) [7] include the following: (i) intuition/vision; (ii) opportunity recognition/exploitation; (iii) financial skills; (iv) human resource skills; (v) communication skills; (vi) leadership skills; (vii) self-discipline; and (vii) marketing. The most important skills, according to Man et al. (2002) [8], include commitment; conceptual skills; opportunity identification skills; relationship skills; and organisational skills. Other studies highlight the value of interpersonal skills and emotional empathy in achieving business objectives.

Perceptions of innovation and innovative outcomes were found to be positively impacted by creativity skills, according to Gundery et al. (2014) [9]. According to Miller (2011) [10], learning to think like an entrepreneur improves one’s capacity to take risks and speeds up the creative process. Some studies highlighted the importance of non-cognitive entrepreneurial skills and concluded that what one individual perceives as a risk could be viewed as an opportunity by another [11,12,13,14]. Romer-Paakkanen et al. (2008) [15] highlighted the importance of experiential learning and problem-solving skills in higher education.

Deriving inspiration from the work of Lopes et al. (2023) [16], which suggests that the TPB’s dimensions are positively affected by risk-taking propensity, a proactive personality, and perceived creativity, this study considered entrepreneurial competencies antecedents of the TPB’s dimensions. Cognitive competency is an antecedent of entrepreneurial motivation; risk propensity is an antecedent of perceived behavioural control, and social competency and resilience are antecedents of subjective norms. Furthermore, in this study, sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial-perceived intentions are measured through UNDP-SDG-8.

According to Gujrati et al. (2019) [17] and Muñoz and Cohen (2018) [18], entrepreneurship has gained importance in the past few decades as a means to attain more sustainability by addressing social disparities and protecting the environment and natural resources. According to Cohen et al. (2007) [19], a new idea called sustainable entrepreneurship has emerged as a result of the merging of conventional entrepreneurship with environmental and social concerns. Sustainable development is now a global priority, and sustainable entrepreneurship helps improve society, the environment, and the economy. Higher educational institutions (HEIs) have become more important due to their emphasis on sustainable business. Managers and professors in higher education institutions with business incubations and entrepreneurial development cells have a duty to train students in entrepreneurial initiation and management abilities. Given this, this study expanded the TPB framework to include three additional antecedents: cognitive competency; risk propensity; and social competency and resilience. The relationship between personality and attitude is presented in the context of information sharing, leading to a better understanding of the elements that people should cultivate [20,21].

Kummitha and Kummitha (2021) [22] and Wagner et al. (2021) [23] argue that higher education plays a vital role in the long-term dissemination and application of knowledge in entrepreneurial activities. Higher education institutions support the advancement of entrepreneurship, hence aiding in sustainable development. Education about sustainable entrepreneurship is crucial for enhancing sustainable entrepreneurial objectives [24]. India adopted a New Education Policy in 2020, which focuses on skill enhancement, experiential learning, and research-led activities. The goal is to give students the tools to learn and be entrepreneurs. Formal entrepreneurship education (EE) programmes want students to be entrepreneurial [25]. Taneja et al. (2023) [26] found that experiential learning spurs business startup.

Janowski et al. (2023) [27] found discrepancies, unlike other studies. The researchers examined how education affected Polish entrepreneurial success during economic transition. This was the first EU study to interview entrepreneurs with 20-year-long careers who survived political change. The entrepreneurs interviewed suggested higher education might hinder entrepreneurship. The authors mentioned that Polish schools, like most schools in Europe, struggle to adapt to the market. Universities lack practical knowledge and means of application; therefore, secondary education may be better for entrepreneurs. This requires a major overhaul of European entrepreneurship education to teach students practical skills and how to seize new opportunities. The study emphasises the importance of effective entrepreneurship programmes for Poland’s economic growth (SMEs make up almost half of its GDP).

Studies in Western cultures have consistently shown a strong connection between entrepreneurial education and the desire to start a firm [28,29,30]. However, some studies (e.g., [31,32]) indicate that EE had a minimal impact on student entrepreneurial intention (EI). Aljouni et al. (2020) [33] conducted a study that showed an increase in entrepreneurial awareness but a drop in entrepreneurial intention as a result of an educational course.

Research has shown that attitude can significantly influence individuals’ intentions [34,35]. This current study aimed to evaluate the relationship between students’ entrepreneurial attitude (EA) and their emotional intelligence (EI), as proven by Liu et al. (2019) [36], who indicated that EA acts as a mediating factor in shaping EI. Adu et al. (2020) [34] and Del Giudice et al. (2021) [35] found that attitudes may influence intentions. Liu et al. (2019) [36] confirmed that EA mediates EI.

A recent study has focused on how cognitive perspective can impact entrepreneurial intention [37,38]. Cognitive perspectives help people spot and seize entrepreneurial opportunities [39]. Creativity can augment entrepreneurial intention by enhancing understanding and proficiency in entrepreneurial competencies [40]. Creativity and traditional business aspirations are directly linked, as shown in studies by Laguía et al. (2019) [41] and Liñán et al. (2011) [42]—a relationship also shown in sustainable ambitions according to Fatoki (2020) [43]. Some experts argue that being creative does not lead to positive intentions to start a new business [44,45]. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and perceived behavioural control are linked to creativity [45,46].

Motivation for Study

Research on the influence of education on intentions is necessary because opinions on how education affects entrepreneurial intentions vary [27,28,29]. As per McBer’s research, Boyatzis (1982) [47] documented six competencies associated with managerial effectiveness, whose clusters comprised leadership knowledge, action management knowledge, directing subordinate knowledge, other focused knowledge, human resource management knowledge, and specialised knowledge. The group of competencies included in this work are based on the study by Loué et al. (2012) [7] and Lopes et al. (2023) [16]. This current study has been conducted to further investigate the impact of education on entrepreneurial intentions by including entrepreneurial competencies like risk propensity, perceived behavioural control, and social norms, as well as their relationship to SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions, with the following research questions in mind:

• What are the entrepreneurial factors that influence SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions?

• Are the TPB’s dimensions (attitude; perceived behavioural control, and social norms) direct antecedents of SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions?

• Can cognitive competency, risk propensity, and social competency and resilience, through mediation by the TPB dimensions of attitude, perceived behavioural control, and social norms, help transform these to SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions?

In Section 2, a succinct summary of the relevant literature is provided. The research concept and techniques are presented in Section 3. This section also presents an explanation of the data demographics and investigation scales. Section 4 provides an explanation of the research’s measurements and structural models, and Section 5 offers discussion. This study is concluded in Section 6, and the study’s weaknesses and potential directions for future research are also discussed.

2. Literature Review

Ajzen (1991) [2] introduced the theory of planned behaviour as an expansion of Fishbein et al.’s (1975) [1] theory of rational behaviour. First introduced by Bird (1988) [48], entrepreneurial intention (EI) refers to individuals’ cognitive state when setting entrepreneurial goals. A persistent scholarly focus has been on understanding the factors that influence entrepreneurial conduct. EI is the most reliable indicator of entrepreneurial behaviour, as it existed before entrepreneurial actions were taken [49,50]. Research on the topic of EI is rapidly progressing, according to Tariq et al. (2018) [38]. A direct and statistically significant correlation exists between the intention to engage in sustainable entrepreneurship and the attitude towards such conduct. Furthermore, the intention to engage in sustainable entrepreneurship is indirectly influenced by subjective norms via attitude towards such behaviour.

SDG-8 aims to encourage long-lasting, comprehensive, and sustainable economic development, as well as ensure full and productive employment and decent work opportunities for everyone. This study focuses on the three sub-scales of SDG-8 SEIs: inclusive and sustainable economic development; diversification, innovation, and enhanced economic productivity; and policies to foster job creation and entrepreneurship. Inclusive and sustainable economic growth covers the following: the promotion of inclusive growth, an enabling environment for sustainable enterprises, and an increase in productivity in all sectors. The diversification, innovation, and enhanced economic productivity dimension covers the following: the enhancement of economic productivity by diversifying and upgrading technology, as well as fostering innovation; the integration of women into the labour market; and the participation of young people in decision making. The last dimension, centred on the promotion of policies to support job creation and entrepreneurship covers the following: the creation of incentives for entrepreneurship; the promotion of life-long learning, skills matching labour market needs; and the adoption of a human-centred approach to embrace new technologies.

The idea of planned behaviour identifies three components of entrepreneurial perceived behaviour: subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and entrepreneurial incentive. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) has been used in various research fields such as health science [51], psychology [52], and marketing [53] to elucidate and forecast intentions and behaviours. Samo et al. (2016) [54] in their research advances the theory of planned behaviour by adding entrepreneurial attentiveness as a component influencing entrepreneurial aspirations. Hussain Samo et al. (2022) [55] revealed that perceived opportunities moderate the relationships between factors like workplace harassment, power distance, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial aspirations. Like perceived opportunities, the study explored how subjective vitality moderates the relationships between the aforementioned factors and entrepreneurial career choice.

This study took entrepreneurial competencies as antecedents of the TPB’s dimensions. Cognitive competency is an antecedent of attitude; risk propensity is an antecedent of perceived behavioural control, and social competency and resilience are antecedents of social norms. Scholarly investigations of conformist theories related to entrepreneurial intentions have established that these may be influenced indirectly by proactive traits via TPB dimensions [44,46].

Research by Chekima et al. (2016) [56] and Gatersleben et al. (2014) [57] shows that an individual’s attitude influences their actions towards sustainable practices. People’s inclination to participate in a specific behaviour, such as entrepreneurial activities in this research, is largely determined by their attitudes, according to [58]. Numerous scholarly works have identified attitude as a significant determinant of intention [49,50,59]. Based on the TPB, Anjum et al. (2023) [50] developed the EI model, which included attitude towards technology (ATT) as a key antecedent variable exerting a considerable influence on EI. There exists a positive association between students’ entrepreneurial mindset and their subsequent propensity to establish their own enterprises [59].

H1. 

The cognitive competency of Indian students in higher education positively impacts their attitude towards sustainable entrepreneurship.

H2. 

The cognitive competency of Indian students in higher education positively impacts SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions when mediated by attitude.

Perceived control over one’s behaviour is defined by Linan et al. (2011) [42] as the extent to which the operation of that behaviour is perceived as effortless or challenging. The positive relationship between perceived behavioural control and entrepreneurial intentions was confirmed by 90% of the articles analysed in a review [60]. This relationship has also been supported by research conducted on university students [37,40,46,61]. Linan et al. (2009) [62] surveyed Spanish and Taiwanese college students and found no evidence of a relationship between subjective norms and intentions. Cognitive competency, risk propensity, and social competency and resilience are antecedents of the TPB’s dimensions. According to Nguyen et al. (2021) [45], perceived behavioural control is positively correlated with creativity. The positive impact of reinforcement on EI is supported by the findings of Hussain et al. (2021) [63], who concluded that individuals exhibiting high-risk tendencies can acquire such reinforcements even in an unfamiliar environment. This study aims to investigate the potential relationship between risk propensity (RP) and entrepreneurial intention via perceived behavioural control, considering the inherently hazardous nature of entrepreneurial pursuits.

H3. 

The risk propensity of Indian students in higher education has a positive impact on their perceived behavioural control.

H4. 

The risk propensity of Indian students in higher education positively impacts SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions when mediated by perceived behavioural control.

Through the integration of social competency and resilience into the entrepreneurial intention model, this study explores an unexplored attribute of entrepreneurs. Andrade et al. (2021) [64] and Munir et al. (2019) [37] refer to previous studies that found a link between the two via subjective norms. Based on these findings, these individuals are more likely to take the lead in making beneficial environmental changes, and they may even believe that there are positive subjective norms centred around starting a company with a focus on sustainability [65]. Social isolation may contribute to heightened anxiety and diminished psychological health, according to Younis et al. (2020) [66]. Additionally, Neneh (2022) [67] argues that SS can assist entrepreneurs in overcoming the obstacles that arise during the entrepreneurial process by bolstering their confidence and sense of security, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy. Networking enhances the funding prospects of an incubator centre [68,69]. Thus, in this current study, perseverance and networking are taken as sub-dimensions of social competence and resilience. The related hypotheses are as follows:

H5: 

The social competency and resilience of Indian students in higher education positively impact their social norms.

H6: 

The social competency and resilience of Indian students in higher education positively impact SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions when mediated by social norms.

3. Research Design and Methodology

The proposed conceptual model is shown in Figure 1. This research covers perceived behaviour control (PBC), social norms (SNs), and entrepreneurial attitudes (EA) as an added mediating variable between entrepreneurial competencies (such as risk propensity, cognitive competency, and social competency and resilience) and SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions. The research analyses the combined indirect effect of PBC, SNs, and EA on SDG-8 SEIs.

3.1. Data and Research Population

We acquired ethical approval from the institute’s research board for data collection (SHSS/PHD/901710011). The participants were asked to provide their voluntary, informed permission. Student engineers from both public and private universities across several Indian states made up the bulk of the research subjects. An in-depth self-report questionnaire was distributed to the participants, and they were asked to gather the necessary data for assessing the suggested theoretical framework. The government’s NEP 2020 program encourages engineering schools to implement adaptable curricula that would allow students to major in entrepreneurship. The methodology utilized in this research was convenience sampling, which is considered suitable for an entrepreneurial sample [70].

To begin, the top 100 institutions were identified through the use of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF). This selection of 100 institutions only includes those that offer entrepreneurship courses or programs and have either business incubation (BI), entrepreneurial development cells (EDCs), or both. Engineering students thinking about starting their own business are the intended readers of this research. From each of the three regions under consideration, namely Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh, a selection was made of six public institutions and six private institutions. To ensure generalizability, Hair (2019) [71] suggests that the optimal sample size for each variable should consist of 15–20 observations. A total of seven variables were employed in the course of this investigation. A total of 540 participants were included in this study. Consequently, the sufficiency of the sample size was evaluated [72]. This research used a student sample to examine the EIs of “potential entrepreneurs”, in keeping with the methodology proposed by Kickul et al. (2019) [73]. Phase 1 took place from 1 June 2019 to 30 August 2020, and Phase 2 ran from September 2020 to October 2021, both of which were responsible for collecting the data. The research model that was proposed was computed utilising a smart partial least squares algorithm. This study favoured PLS-SEM over covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM). Prior researchers favoured the latter approach when it came to interpreting intricate relationships between observed and latent variables [70]. Smart-PLS can be utilised to analyse both independent and dependent variables, according to recent research [71,72]. In light of the extensive application and endorsement of PLS-SEM, variance-based PLS-SEM was employed in lieu of covariance-based CB-SEM in this investigation.

3.2. Scales

The perceived entrepreneurial behaviour scale utilised in this investigation was developed on the basis of prior research [2,74,75,76]. EA, PBC, and SNs constituted the three sub-constructs that comprised the PEB scale. The survey regarding attitudes towards sustainable entrepreneurship consisted of eight modified questions from the studies of [77,78]. Subjective norms and perceived behavioural control were both examined using seven questions by [43,77]. The sub-dimensions of entrepreneurial perceived behaviour were EA, SNs, and PBC. Both the cognitive competency and social competency and resilience scales included eight questions. These were adapted from [7,38,39,44,79]. The risk propensity scale utilising seven questions was adapted from the works of [7,80]. The cognitive competency scale comprised two sub-dimensions, Opportunity Identification Skills (OIC) and Strategic Thinking and Planning Ability (STandPA), as determined by EFA. Problem-solving abilities (PSS), creative abilities (CS), and leadership capabilities (LS) were sub-components of risk propensity. Two subscales comprised social competency: networking (NW) and perseverance skills (PS). On a five-point scale, “strongly disagree” was represented by “1”, and “strongly agree” was represented by “5”; this was used to grade the answers to each question. By implementing a pilot survey and expert review by the faculty and managers of affiliated business incubators, the scale items were validated. Based on the work of Linan and Chen (2009) [56], this study used the EI scale. A small number of components were incorporated into SDG-8 SEIs from the studies conducted by Lopes et al. (2023) [16], Maresch et al. (2016) [81], and Shirokova et al. (2016) [82]. Appendix A details the questionnaire items.

4. Research Findings

4.1. Measurement Model

According to Hair Jr. et al. (2021) [72], Henseler et al. (2015) [83], and others, validating the reliability of the model produced from the structural model using the PLS approach is essential. The data’s reliability was assessed by computing Cronbach’s alpha. Based on the data presented in Table 1, the observed values (0.704 to 0.915) fall within an acceptable range, specifically exceeding 0.70. With a composite reliability over 0.70 and an AVE over 0.50, all the scales demonstrated good convergent validity, as described by Nunnally (1975) [84].

Discriminant validity (DV) was assessed by employing the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) in conjunction with the correlation coefficients between components [85] to evaluate the test’s reliability. Table 2 demonstrates that the data did not exhibit any issues pertaining to discriminant validity, as indicated by the diagonal values, which represent the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE), surpassing the associated correlations. Consequently, we moved forward with further investigation.

The absence of multicollinearity in the VIF values (all < 3), as shown in Table 3, indicates that the structural model could be progressed with.

The final component of the measurement model to be examined were the outer and inner VIF values. All the VIF values as reflected through Table 3 were below 3; consequently, the data were devoid of multicollinearity. Therefore, moving forward with the structural model was appropriate [72,86].

Subsequently, it was critical to examine outer loadings. The results reflected through Table 4 indicate that the cognitive competency and social competency and resilience scales, as well as the risk propensity scale, exhibited outer loadings that varied from 0.915 to 0.938. The entrepreneurial attitude, perceived behavioural control, and social norms outer loadings varied between 0.825 and 0.919. The range of values for the SDG-8 SEI sub-scales was 0.735 to 0.867. All outer loadings exceeded 0.70 and were statistically significant.

4.2. Structural Model

Estimating the structural model continued with a verification of the measurement model. One multivariate analytical method that has been suggested for testing the conceptual or theoretical model and finding correlations is structural equation modelling, or SEM. The two main methods of structural equation modelling (SEM) that researchers can choose from when using SEM are covariance-based (CB-SEM) and partial least squares (PLS-SEM). PLS-SEM was used in this study because it is flexible and can be applied to fewer situations.

PLS-SEM is widely acknowledged for its strong statistical capabilities, specifically in managing complex interactions. In contrast to CB-SEM, which places significant emphasis on the precise approximation of the observed covariance matrix, PLS-SEM incorporates the explained variance in the endogenous constructs using the fit method [72]. This decision fit the demands and intricacies of the research, enabling a thorough investigation of the interconnections within the suggested framework.

The relationship between SDG-8 SEIs and the TPB is validated, leading to support of H1, H2, and H3 as shown in Table 5. The results of PLS_SEM are also depicted through Figure 2. The findings support H1, showing a positive and statistically significant relationship (β = 0.231) with EA→SDG-8 SEIs. Regarding supporting hypotheses H2 and H3, there is also a positive relation between PBC and SDG-8 SEIs (β = 0.315), as well as SNs and SDG-8 SEIs. The F-Square indicates that the effect size is large for all, viz. entrepreneurial attitude→SDG-8 SEIs; perceived behavioural control→SDG-8 SEIs, and for social norms→SDG-8 SEIs. In accordance with Cohen’s (1988) study [87], the effect size is small ($F^2 \ge 0.02$), medium ($F^2 \ge 0.15$), and large (F² ≥ 0.35).

H4 is supported for the antecedents of the TPB’s dimensions, namely CC→EA (β = 0.775). H5 and H6 are also supported by the positive relations between risk propensity and PBC, as well as social competence and resilience→social norms (β = 0.684 and β = 0.756, respectively). The effect sizes are substantial for CC→EA, RP→PBC, and SC and R→SNs. These relations indicate that antecedents have an effective relationship with the TPB’s dimensions.

The hypothesis H7, cognitive competency→entrepreneurial attitude→SDG-8 SEIs, is supported by ($\beta =0.179, p \le 0.001$). H8, risk propensity→perceived behavioural control→SDG-8 SEIs, is corroborated ($\beta =0.179; p\le 0.001$). H9 (social competence and resilience→social norms→SDG-8 SEIs) is supported by the results ($\beta =0.328$; $p \le 0.001$). Confirming hypotheses H7, H8, and H9, the results indicate that social competency and resilience, as well as cognitive competence, are positively related to SDG-8 SEIs, as mediated by the sustainability-oriented dimensions of the TPB. $R^2$ is the determination coefficient for the endogenous variables EA, PCB, SNs, and SDG-8 SEI. The model derived through implementing the PLS method is applicable for elucidating the variables. The independent variables account for 84.8% of the variance ($R^2=0.848$). In conclusion, the model’s fit is satisfactory (NFI: 0.847; standard root mean square residual: 0.079).

Entrepreneurial motivation and the mediation of intention with competencies are related to achieving entrepreneurial success, as measured through UNDP-SDG-8. Goal 8.1 of SDG-8 addresses sustainable economic growth; Goal 8.2 calls for diversification, innovation, and upgrading to boost economic productivity; and Goal 8.3 urges policymakers to foster the development of new jobs and expanding businesses. The bootstrapping results have been depicted through Figure 3. This study aims to determine if these approaches can effectively stimulate entrepreneurial success measured through the realisation of SDG-8. Since perceived entrepreneurial behaviour influences intention, its direct impact is also examined. This study also investigates the mediation of entrepreneurial competencies (cognitive competency, risk propensity, and social competency and resilience) amid entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial success through the realisation of SDG-8.

5. Discussion

All the research hypotheses that were put forward have been confirmed. The research findings presented in our study are consistent with previous research conducted by Yasir et al. (2022) [88], which supports the notion that attitudes, perceived behavioural control, and subjective norms play a substantial role in shaping the SDG-8 SEIs of engineering students in India. Social norms in the theory of planned behaviour exert the greatest influence on Sustainable Development Goal 8, socially responsible economic indicators. Following them were PBC and EA.

This current study’s findings align with the existing literature, indicating that the components of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB)—attitudes towards sustainable entrepreneurship, perceived behavioural control, and subjective norms—have an impact on SDG-8, social entrepreneurial intention (SEI), as suggested by Munir et al. (2019) [37] and Ngyun et al. (2021) [45]. According to Godswill Agu et al. (2022) [89], subjective norms are the main factor that predicts self-efficacy in Nigeria. However, perceived behavioural control does not have any influence on the SEIs of university students.

This research demonstrates that the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is an appropriate conceptual framework for predicting the social and environmental intentions (SEIs) associated with Sustainable Development Goal 8 (SDG-8). The findings align with the sustainable intents paper by Lopes et al. (2023) [16]. The research progresses from conventional entrepreneurial intention to sustainable intentions, aligning with findings from students in Pakistan and Malaysia [80,90], as well as Indian students [91]. The TPB developed by Ajzen (1991) [2] considers PBC to be conceptually equivalent to self-efficacy (SE), and it is defined as the belief that an individual is capable of accomplishing a specific task through the use of positive intention. This research has enhanced this application by taking risk propensity as an antecedent of PBC.

Considering the societal perception of entrepreneurs in Angola as discussed by Pinho-Gomes et al. (2020) [92], it is plausible to suggest that social norms can substantially impact SEIs. Different viewpoints on risk-taking propensity have been identified. In South Africa, Fatoki (2020) [43] found no notable influence on students, whereas Lopes et al. (2023) [16] observed significant effects on students’ intentions in Angola to establish a sustainable enterprise that promotes social welfare.

Baron (2006) [93] states that opportunity recognition is contingent on the cognitive process. Creativity and entrepreneurial fervour were identified as the primary determinants in the opportunity recognition procedure by [94]. Opportunity identification emerged as a crucial component of cognitive competence in this current study, affecting entrepreneurial attitude. Strategic thinking and planning capability are frequently linked to transformative and groundbreaking shifts within organizations and industries [95]. Enhanced cognitive competency in students increases their tendency towards entrepreneurship, improves the quality of entrepreneurship, and leads to entrepreneurial success [96].

As emphasized by El-Gohary et al. (2023) [97] the entrepreneurial environment at the university fosters students’ development of sustainable attitudes towards SEIs. The results of this research, which are derived from engineering students enrolled in entrepreneurship programmes at academic institutions, indicate that a positive attitude towards sustainable entrepreneurship results in SDG-8-driven SEIs, thus providing support [97]. This study’s theoretical and practical consequences can be summed up in the following sections.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This Sustainable-Development-Goal-8 (SDG-8)-driven study offers several significant theoretical ramifications for the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and its application to sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SDG-8 SEIs) in an Indian setting. This study suggests that the TPB may be useful in understanding sustainable entrepreneurial behaviour since it validates the finding that it can predict SDG-8 SEIs. The research adds risk propensity, social competency, and resilience as TPB dimension antecedents, therefore extending the TPB paradigm to encompass components necessary for sustainable entrepreneurship. Our understanding of the TPB’s function as a mediator between the SDG-8 SEIs and the mentioned antecedents has improved due to the research. This clarifies how the TPB elements aid in transforming entrepreneurial inclinations into actionable, long-term goals. This study elucidates the relationship between risk propensity and perceived behavioural control (PBC), which supports sustainable business endeavours that are effective. This highlights the importance of promoting risk-taking behaviours to effectively pursue entrepreneurship with an emphasis on sustainability.

5.2. Practical Implications

Future sustainable enterprises, academic institutions, and governments can benefit from the following insightful insights this research provides; the recognized antecedents—cognitive competency, risk propensity, social competency, and resilience—can be included into educational programs by policymakers to help develop a new generation of sustainable entrepreneurs. The importance of the TPB’s elements related to sustainability is emphasized in this study. Policymakers may make sustainable practices more attractive and feasible for businesses by encouraging the development of corporate environments that support these elements.

Academic institutions can develop entrepreneurship curricula that specifically target SDG-8 SEIs by utilizing the framework offered by the recommended model. Instruction in areas such as social impact assessment, sustainability evaluation, and ethical business practices may be necessary to achieve this. Empirical evidence suggests that social competency and resilience, cognitive competency, and risk propensity are all valid indicators of long-term project success. Universities can use this information to develop mentorship programs or screens for prospective sustainable firms in the future. Knowing the significance of the TPB’s dimensions and their antecedents helps aspiring entrepreneurs assess their readiness and develop a plan to strengthen their deficiencies.

This research suggests realistic strategies such as developing a healthy risk tolerance, enhancing social networks, and sharpening sustainability-related cognitive abilities in order to increase the business success of aspiring entrepreneurs. This study essentially gives various stakeholders a roadmap for creating an ecosystem that sustains large, successful, and sustainable firms.

6. Conclusions

This current study has successfully confirmed the validity of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) within the context of India. This paper provides empirical evidence supporting the notion that integrating entrepreneurial skills with the concept of planned behaviour significantly impacts Sustainable-Development-Goal-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SDG-8 SEIs). This will help drive sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SDG-8 SEIs) and enhance the success of business ventures. This study also validates cognitive competency, risk propensity and social competency and resilience as antecedents of the TPB’s dimensions.

This study supports the finding that social competence and resilience, as well as cognitive competence, are positively related to SDG-8 SEIs, as mediated by the sustainability-oriented dimensions of the TPB. Consequently, the dimensions of the TPB that are focused on sustainability play a significant role; however, the intentions behind these characteristics are driven by cognitive competence, risk propensity, and social competence and resilience. The findings of this study provide evidence that the risk propensity through PBC has a significant impact on the success of entrepreneurial endeavours through sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SDG-8 SEIs).

These findings will be very intriguing to those who make policies, as well as to those in universities such as students. A new conceptual model that aims to achieve sustainable entrepreneurship is proposed in this study, and it includes the TPB’s dimensions as well as three additional dimensions that are proposed as antecedents.

Limitations of this Study and Directions for Future Research

The findings’ applicability to the entire Indian population and possibly beyond would be strengthened by more research with a larger demographic or across different locations. The cross-sectional design used in this study takes snapshots of a single point in time. More comprehensive knowledge of the ways in which these elements impact long-term sustainable entrepreneurial activity may be obtained through longitudinal studies that follow participants over time. For variables like intention and competence, this study most likely used self-reported data. Because people may inadvertently misrepresent their opinions or abilities, this can be biased. Subsequent investigations may integrate unbiased metrics or cross-check data with new sources. This study includes certain limitations associated with the TPB’s antecedents that were employed. Three distinct antecedents—risk propensity, social competency and resilience, and cognitive competency—are the subject of this current study. It would be worthwhile to investigate any additional pertinent elements that might influence the TPB’s dimensions in the context of sustainable entrepreneurship. These restrictions show that additional study is necessary to confirm the findings’ robustness and generalizability. An even more thorough understanding of how the TPB framework interacts with personal traits to promote successful sustainable entrepreneurship may be obtained from future research addressing these shortcomings.

Author Contributions

The work presented here was conducted by S.M. under the supervision of R.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research work has been approved by the Institute research board vide reference no. SHSS/PHD/901710011.

Informed Consent Statement

The survey was an informed survey consisting of 76 questions answered on a Likert scale of 1–5. There was no clinical trial involved in the survey, and it was optional for the respondent to be part of the survey. The identities of the respondents have also been coded to meet the privacy requirements.

Data Availability Statement

The data for this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support provided by 12 higher engineering institutions for the collection of data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted without any commercial or financial assistance. The authors also declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Conceptual model relating entrepreneurial competencies with the theory of planned behaviour’s dimensions to attain SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SDG-8 SEIs).

Figure 2. PLS model relating entrepreneurial competencies with the theory of planned behaviour’s dimensions to attain SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SDG-8 SEIs).

Figure 3. Bootstrapping model relating entrepreneurial competencies with the theory of planned behaviour’s dimensions to attain SDG-8-driven sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SDG-8 SEIs).

Table 1

Reliability and validity.

	Cronbach’s Alpha	${\mathit{\rho }}_{\mathit{A}}$	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Entrepreneurial Attitude	0.787	0.795	0.903	0.824
Perceived Behavioural Control	0.704	0.719	0.855	0.747
Social Norms	0.718	0.757	0.865	0.762
Cognitive Competency	0.862	0.862	0.936	0.879
Social Competency and Resilience	0.834	0.834	0.923	0.858
Risk Propensity	0.915	0.916	0.947	0.855
SDG-8 SEIs	0.751	0.767	0.858	0.709

Table 2

Validity of discrimination according to the Fornell and Larker standards.

	Entrepreneurial Attitude	Cognitive Competency	Perceived Behavioural Control	Social Competency and Resilience	Risk Propensity	SDG-8 SEIs	Social Norms
Entrepreneurial Attitude	0.908
Cognitive Competency	0.775	0.937
Perceived Behavioural Control	0.756	0.687	0.864
Social Competency and Resilience	0.774	0.882	0.702	0.926
Risk Propensity	0.781	0.895	0.684	0.885	0.925
SDG-8 SEIs	0.838	0.840	0.832	0.824	0.835	0.842
Social Norms	0.899	0.757	0.786	0.756	0.766	0.869	0.873

Table 3

VIF values.

Inner VIF		Outer VIF
	VIF		Entrepreneurial Attitude	Cognitive Competency	Perceived Behavioural Control	Social Competency and Resilience	Risk Propensity	SDG-8 SEIs	Social Norms
Creative Skills (CS)	2.948	Entrepreneurial Attitude						2.402
Diversify, Innovate, and Enhance Productivity	1.748	Cognitive Competency	1.000
Entrepreneurial Attitude EA1	1.726	Perceived Behavioural Control						2.709
Entrepreneurial Attitude EA2	1.726	Social Competency and Resilience							1.000
Inclusive and Sustainable Growth	1.750	Risk Propensity			1.000
Job Creation and Entrepreneurship	1.308	SDG-8
Leadership Skills (LS)	2.584	Social Norms						2.062
Opportunity Identification Skills (OIC)	2.348
Strategic Thinking and Planning Ability (STandPA)	2.348
Perceived Behavioural Control PBC1	1.328
Perceived Behavioural Control PBC2	1.328
Perseverance Skills (PS)	2.049
Problem-Solving Skills (PSS)	2.224
Subjective Norm SN1	1.400
Subjective Norm SN2	1.400
Social Skills (SS)	2.049

Table 4

Outer loadings.

	Original Sample (O)	Sample Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	t Statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p Values
OIS←Cognitive Competency	0.938	0.938	0.008	120.577	0.000 ***
PA←Cognitive Competency	0.937	0.936	0.008	113.519	0.000 ***
CS←Risk Propensity	0.915	0.915	0.013	70.260	0.000 ***
LS←Risk Propensity	0.936	0.935	0.008	114.965	0.000 ***
RTS←Risk Propensity	0.923	0.923	0.010	95.712	0.000 ***
PS←Social Competency and Resilience	0.928	0.927	0.010	95.572	0.000 ***
SS←Social Competency and Resilience	0.925	0.924	0.012	80.353	0.000 ***
EA1←Entrepreneurial Attitude	0.896	0.895	0.016	55.170	0.000 ***
EA2←Entrepreneurial Attitude	0.919	0.919	0.008	115.378	0.000 ***
PBC1←Perceived Behavioural Control	0.838	0.837	0.018	47.049	0.000 ***
PBC2←Perceived Behavioural Control	0.890	0.890	0.010	84.890	0.000 ***
SN1←Social Norms	0.825	0.823	0.026	32.354	0.000 ***
SN2←Social Norms	0.918	0.919	0.005	201.330	0.000 ***
Inclusive and Sustainable Growth←SDG-8 SEIs	0.846	0.845	0.018	47.861	0.000 ***
Diversify, Innovate, and Enhance Productivity←SDG-8 SEIs	0.867	0.867	0.011	76.216	0.000 ***
Job Creation and Entrepreneurship←SDG-8 SEIs	0.735	0.734	0.026	28.496	0.000 ***

*** $p\le 0.001.$

Table 5

Direct and indirect effects.

		Original Sample (O)	Sample Mean (M)	Standard Deviation	t-Stat	p Values	F-Square	Support
	TPB Relationship
H1	Entrepreneurial Attitude→SDG-8 SEIs	0.231	0.230	0.040	5.717	0.000 ***	0.865 (L)	Yes
H2	Perceived Behavioural Control→SDG-8 SEIs	0.315	0.314	0.035	9.119	0.000 ***	0.241 (L)	Yes
H3	Social Norms→SDG-8 SEIs	0.435	0.436	0.047	9.300	0.000 ***	0.205(L)	Yes
	Antecedents of the TPB’s Dimensions							Yes
H4	Cognitive Competency→Entrepreneurial Attitude	0.775	0.774	0.025	30.909	0.000 ***	1.506 (L)	Yes
H5	Risk Propensity→Perceived Behavioural Control	0.684	0.683	0.033	20.726	0.000 ***	0.877 (L)	Yes
H6	Social Competency and Resilience→Social Norms	0.756	0.755	0.025	30.542	0.000 ***	1.331(L)	Yes
Indirect Effects
H7	Cognitive Competency→Entrepreneurial Attitude→SDG-8 SEIs	0.179	0.179	0.034	5.302	0.000 ***		Yes
H8	Risk Propensity→Perceived Behavioural Control→SDG-8 SEIs	0.215	0.215	0.030	7.253	0.000 ***		Yes
H9	Social Competency and Resilience→Social Norms→SDG-8 SEIs	0.328	0.329	0.034	9.652	0.000 ***		Yes
		$R^2$			$R^2$ Adjusted
	Entrepreneurial Attitude (EA)	0.601			0.600
	Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC)	0.467			0.466
	Social Norms (SNs)	0.571			0.570
	SDG-8 SEIs	0.848			0.847

*** $p\le 0.001.$

Appendix A

Table A1

Literature support for scales.

Scales	Sub-Scale	Survey Instrument	Authors
Attitude toward sustainable entrepreneurship		I have a preliminary sustainable business idea	Ajzen 1985 [3]Ajzen 1991; [2]Bird 1988; [48]Lopes et al., 2023; [16]Waris et al., 2021 [98]
		I want to start business to solve environmental problems
		I have creative talent to initiate sustainable business
		I want to start a sustainable business to solve social problems (gender equality, reducing unemployment)
		I want to start sustainable business to have profits
Perceived Behavioural Control (PCB)		I want to be my own boss	Abdulrab et al. (2021) [4]; Arru, (2019) [78]; Fatoki, (2020) [43]; Sargani et al. (2021) [99]; Vuorio et al. (2018) [77]
		I want to realise my dream
		I want to increase my prestige and status.
		I want to start business for my personal freedom
		I want to start business to have an enjoyable life
		I want to start business to challenge myself
		I want to start business for good economic environment
		I want to start business for my own satisfaction and growth
Social Norms (SN)		I want to start business due to entrepreneurial family culture.	Abdulrab et al. (2021) [4]; Fatoki, (2020) [43]; Godswill Agu et al. (2022) [89]; Joensuu-Salo et al. (2021) [100]; Romero-Colmenares; Reyes-Rodríguez, (2022) [101]
		I want to start business to use skills learned in the university/institute.
		I want to start business to follow the example of someone I admire.
		I want to start business to invest personal savings
		I want to start business to maintain my family
		I want to start business as I enjoy taking risk
Cognitive Competency (CC)	Opportunity Identification Skills	To think of products/services that could be offered in the market.	Chatterjee et al. (2016) [79]; Hu et al. (2018) [44]; Loué & Baronet, (2012) [7]; Niu & Wu, (2022) [39]; Tariq et al. (2018) [38];Lopes et al. (2023) [16]
		To know about the market needs for determined products/services.
		To possess ability to detect business opportunities in the market.
		To observe complaints about some products/services
		To think about new market opportunities.
		To imagine the possibility of success of products/services in the market.
	Planning Ability	To be ready for surprises in situations through planning.
		To plan in advance.
		To prepare a detailed plan of academic/professional issues.
		To possess clear professional/academic goals.
Risk Propensity (RP)	Creative Skills	To find creative solutions to academic/professional problems.	Chatterjee et al. (2016) [79]; Farrukh et al. (2018) [80]; Fatoki, (2020) [43];Niu & Wu, (2022) [39]; Lopes et al. (2023) [16]
		To think of new activities rather than routine activities.
		To invent new things.
		To do tasks that are completely new.
	Problem solving skills	To rethink financial bet in projects that can bring advantages in the future
		To manage financial risks for potential benefits.
		To expose to risky situations.
		To develop an attitude to bear risks.
	Leadership Skills	To influence other people’s opinions.
		To convince others.
		To inspire other persons to do what they want.
		To inspire others.
		To assist in making others to follow.
Social Competency & Resilience	Perseverance Skills	To assist in facing difficulties.	Fatoki, (2020) [43]; Khan et al. (2021) [102]; Niu & Wu, (2022) [39]; Lopes et al. (2023) [16]
		To employ extra effort to overcome adversaries.
		To face difficult situations as personal challenges.
		To tackle the obstacles with ease.
	Networking Skills	To communicate effectively with friends
		To relate easily with other persons.
		To contact other persons.
		To help develop extroversion.
SDG-8 Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions (SDG-8 SEI)	Inclusive and Sustainable growth	Promote inclusive growth	Fatoki, (2020) [43]; Khan et al. (2021) [102]; Lopes et al. (2023) [16]; Maresch et al. (2016) [81]; Shirokova et al. (2016) [82]; Vuorio et al. (2018) [77]; Waris et al. (2021) [98]
		Promote an enabling environment for sustainable enterprises
		Increase productivity in all sectors
	Diversify, Innovate, and Enhance Productivity	Achieve higher levels of economic productivity throughdiversification, technological upgrading and innovation.
		Integrate women into the labour market
		Participation of young people in decision-making
	Job creation and Entrepreneurship	Create incentives for entrepreneurship
		Promote life-long learning, skills matching labour market needs
		Adopting a human-centered approach to embrace new technologies

References

1. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Philos. Rhetor.; 1975; 6, pp. 244-245.

2. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.; 1991; 50, pp. 179-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T]

3. Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1985.

4. Abdulrab, M.; Al-Mamary, Y.H.S.; Alwaheeb, M.A.; Alshammari, N.G.M.; Balhareth, H.; Al-Shammari, S.A. Mediating role of strategic orientations in the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance of Saudi SMEs. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.; 2021; 18, pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14488/bjopm.2021.029]

5. Al-Mamary, Y.H.S.; Abdulrab, M.; Alwaheeb, M.A.; Alshammari, N.G.M. Factors impacting entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Saudi Arabia: Testing an integrated model of TPB and EO. Educ. Train.; 2020; 62, pp. 779-803. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/et-04-2020-0096]

6. Kashif, M.; Zarkada, A.; Ramayah, T. The impact of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control on managers’ intentions to behave ethically. Total. Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel.; 2018; 29, pp. 481-501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1209970]

7. Loué, C.; Baronet, J. Toward a new entrepreneurial skills and competencies framework: A qualitative and quantitative study. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus.; 2012; 17, 455. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijesb.2012.050164]

8. Man, T.W.; Lau, T.; Chan, K. The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises: A conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. J. Bus. Ventur.; 2002; 17, pp. 123-142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(00)00058-6]

9. Gundry, L.K.; Ofstein, L.F.; Kickul, J.R. Seeing around corners: How creativity skills in entrepreneurship education influence innovation in business. Int. J. Manag. Educ.; 2014; 12, pp. 529-538. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.03.002]

10. Miller, D. Miller (1983) Revisited: A Reflection on EO Research and Some Suggestions for the Future. Entrep. Theory Pract.; 2011; 35, pp. 873-894. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00457.x]

11. Huber, L.R.; Sloof, R.; Van Praag, M. The effect of early entrepreneurship education: Evidence from a field experiment. Eur. Econ. Rev.; 2014; 72, pp. 76-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2014.09.002]

12. Shook, C.L.; Bratianu, C. Entrepreneurial intent in a transitional economy: An application of the theory of planned behavior to Romanian students. Int. Entrep. Manag. J.; 2010; 6, pp. 231-247. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-008-0091-2]

13. Shook, C.L.; Priem, R.L.; McGee, J.E. Venture Creation and the Enterprising Individual: A Review and Synthesis. J. Manag.; 2003; 29, pp. 379-399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(03)00016-3]

14. Gaglio, C.M.; Katz, J.A. The Psychological Basis of Opportunity Identification: Entrepreneurial Alertness. Small Bus. Econ.; 2001; 16, pp. 95-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1011132102464]

15. Römer-Paakkanen, T.; Pekkala, A. Generating entrepreneurship from students’ hobbies. Promoting Entrepreneurship by Universities, Proceedings of the 2nd International FINPIN 2008 Conference, Hämeenlinna, Finland, 20–22 April 2008; Lahti University of Applied Sciences: Lahti, Finland, 2008; 340.

16. Lopes, J.M.; Suchek, N.; Gomes, S. The antecedents of sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions: An exploratory study of Angolan higher education students. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 391, 136236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136236]

17. Gujrati, D.R.; Tyagi, D.V.; Lawan, L.A. Family financial status and students’ entrepreneurial intention: The mediatory role of entrepreneurship education. J. Manag.; 2019; 6, pp. 21-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34218/JOM.6.3.2019.003]

18. Munoz, P.; Cohen, B. Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research: Taking Stock and looking ahead. Bus. Strat. Environ.; 2018; 27, pp. 300-322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2000]

19. Cohen, B.; Winn, M.I. Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur.; 2007; 22, pp. 29-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001]

20. Obrenovic, B.; Obrenovic, S.; Hudaykulov, A. The value of knowledge sharing: Impact of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing on team performance of scientists. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Bus. Adm.; 2015; 1, pp. 33-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.12.1003]

21. Obrenovic, B.; Du, J.; Godinić, D.; Tsoy, D. Personality trait of conscientiousness impact on tacit knowledge sharing: The mediating effect of eagerness and subjective norm. J. Knowl. Manag.; 2022; 26, pp. 1124-1163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jkm-01-2021-0066]

22. Kummitha, H.R.; Kummitha, R.K.R. Sustainable entrepreneurship training: A study of motivational factors. Int. J. Manag. Educ.; 2021; 19, 100449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100449]

23. Wagner, N.J.; Holochwost, S.; Danko, C.; Propper, C.B.; Coffman, J.L. Observed peer competence moderates links between children’s self-regulation skills and academic performance. Early Child. Res. Q.; 2021; 54, pp. 286-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.10.001]

24. Diepolder, C.S.; Weitzel, H.; Huwer, J. Competence Frameworks of Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 13734. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132413734]

25. Fayolle, A.; Gailly, B.; Lassas-Clerc, N. Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new meth-odology. J. Eur. Ind. Train.; 2006; 30, pp. 701-720. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590610715022]

26. Taneja, M.; Kiran, R.; Bose, S.C. Critical analysis of kolb experiential learning process. Int. J. Health Sci.; 2022; 6, pp. 8713-8723. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6ns1.6962]

27. Janowski, A.; Gonchar, O.; Yakovyshyn, R. Education vs. Entrepreneurship—Between Theory and Practice: The case of smes in Poland. E+M Èkon. Manag.; 2023; 26, pp. 111-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2023-1-007]

28. Souitaris, V.; Zerbinati, S.; Al-Laham, A. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. J. Bus. Ventur.; 2007; 22, pp. 566-591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002]

29. Hockerts, K. The Effect of Experiential Social Entrepreneurship Education on Intention Formation in Students. J. Soc. Entrep.; 2018; 9, pp. 234-256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1498377]

30. Bae, T.J.; Qian, S.; Miao, C.; Fiet, J.O. The Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Meta–Analytic Review. Entrep. Theory Pract.; 2014; 38, pp. 217-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/etap.12095]

31. Oosterbeek, H.; van Praag, M.; Ijsselstein, A. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. Eur. Econ. Rev.; 2010; 54, pp. 442-454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2009.08.002]

32. Uddin, M.; Chowdhury, R.A.; Hoque, N.; Ahmad, A.; Mamun, A.; Uddin, M.N. Developing entrepreneurial intentions among business graduates of higher educational institutions through entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial passion: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Manag. Educ.; 2022; 20, 100647. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100647]

33. Aljaouni, N.W.; Alserhan, B.; Gleason, K.; Zeqiri, J. Financial literacy programs and youth entrepreneurial attitudes: Some insights from the Jordanian community. J. Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ.; 2020; 14, pp. 787-810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jec-07-2020-0128]

34. Adu, I.N.; Boakye, K.O.; Suleman, A.-R.; Bingab, B.B.B. Exploring the factors that mediate the relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduate students in Ghana. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrep.; 2020; 14, pp. 215-228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/apjie-07-2019-0052]

35. Del Giudice, M.; Scuotto, V.; Papa, A.; Tarba, S.Y.; Bresciani, S.; Warkentin, M. A Self-Tuning Model for Smart Manufacturing SMEs: Effects on Digital Innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.; 2021; 38, pp. 68-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12560]

36. Liu, X.; Lin, C.; Zhao, G.; Zhao, D. Research on the Effects of Entrepreneurial Education and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy on College Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention. Front. Psychol.; 2019; 10, 869. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00869]

37. Munir, H.; Jianfeng, C.; Ramzan, S. Personality traits and theory of planned behavior comparison of entrepreneurial intentions between an emerging economy and a developing country. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res.; 2019; 25, pp. 554-580. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-05-2018-0336]

38. Tariq, R.A.; Vashisht, R.; Sinha, A.; Scherbak, Y. Medication Dispensing Errors and Prevention. StatPearls, Aug. 2018; Available online: http://europepmc.org/books/NBK519065 (accessed on 20 March 2024).

39. Niu, X.; Wu, X. Factors influencing vocational college students’ creativity in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: The group comparison between male and female. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 967890. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.967890]

40. Shi, Y.; Yuan, T.; Bell, R.; Wang, J. Investigating the Relationship between Creativity and Entrepreneurial Intention: The Moderating Role of Creativity in the Theory of Planned Behavior. Front. Psychol.; 2020; 11, 1209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01209]

41. Laguía, A.; Moriano, J.A.; Gorgievski, M.J. A psychosocial study of self-perceived creativity and entrepreneurial intentions in a sample of university students. Think. Ski. Creat.; 2019; 31, pp. 44-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.004]

42. Liñán, F.; Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C.; Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. Int. Entrep. Manag. J.; 2010; 7, pp. 195-218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0154-z]

43. Fatoki, O. Determinants of Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurial Intentions of University Students. South. Afr. Bus. Rev.; 2020; 24, 27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25159/1998-8125/7795] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38565682]

44. Hu, R.; Wang, L.; Zhang, W.; Bin, P. Creativity, proactive personality, and entrepreneurial intention: The role of entre-preneurial alertness. Front. Psychol.; 2018; 9, 335323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00951]

45. Nguyen, T.T.; Nguyen, L.T.P.; Phan, H.T.T.; Vu, A.T. Impact of Entrepreneurship Extracurricular Activities and Inspiration on Entrepreneurial Intention: Mediator and Moderator Effect. Sage Open; 2021; 11, 21582440211032174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032174]

46. Rosique-Blasco, M.; Madrid-Guijarro, A.; García-Pérez-De-Lema, D. The effects of personal abilities and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions. Int. Entrep. Manag. J.; 2017; 14, pp. 1025-1052. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0469-0]

47. Boyatzis, R.E. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1982.

48. Bird, B. Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention. Acad. Manag. Rev.; 1988; 13, pp. 442-453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1988.4306970]

49. Anjum, T.; Ramani Bai, V.; Nazar, C. Mediating role of attitudes to enhance the creativity disposition towards entre-preneurial intention. Int. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil.; 2020; 24, pp. 542-553.

50. Anjum, T.; Amoozegar, A.; Farrukh, M.; Heidler, P. Entrepreneurial intentions among business students: The mediating role of attitude and the moderating role of university support. Educ. Train.; 2023; 65, pp. 587-606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/et-01-2021-0020]

51. Godin, G.; Kok, G. The Theory of Planned Behavior: A Review of its Applications to Health-Related Behaviors. Am. J. Health Promot.; 1996; 11, pp. 87-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-11.2.87] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10163601]

52. Austin, J.T.; Vancouver, J.B. Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychol. Bull.; 1996; 120, pp. 338-375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338]

53. Pavlou, P.A.; Fygenson, M. Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce Adoption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior. MIS Q.; 2006; 30, 115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25148720]

54. Samo, A.H.; Hashim, N. The Impact of Entrepreneurial Alertness on Entrepreneurial Intentions. J. Int. Bus. Res. Mark.; 2016; 1, pp. 7-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18775/jibrm.1849-8558.2015.16.3001]

55. Hussain Samo, A.; Akhtar Qureshi, N.; Ahmed Channa, N. Female entrepreneurship: A solution to perceived gender discrimination, empowerment and socio-economic development. Indian J. Econ. Bus.; 2022; 21, pp. 1-21.

56. Chekima, B.; Wafa, S.A.W.S.K.; Igau, O.A.; Chekima, S.; Sondoh, S.L., Jr. Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: Does premium price and demographics matter to green purchasing?. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 112, pp. 3436-3450. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.102]

57. Gatersleben, B.; Murtagh, N.; Abrahamse, W. Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour. J. Acad. Soc. Sci.; 2014; 9, pp. 374-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2012.682086]

58. Hägg, G.; Gabrielsson, J. A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res.; 2020; 26, pp. 829-861. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-04-2018-0272]

59. Nowiński, W.; Haddoud, M.Y.; Wach, K.; Schaefer, R. Perceived public support and entrepreneurship attitudes: A little reciprocity can go a long way!. J. Vocat. Behav.; 2020; 121, 103474. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103474]

60. Lortie, J.; Castogiovanni, G. The theory of planned behavior in entrepreneurship research: What we know and future directions. Int. Entrep. Manag. J.; 2015; 11, pp. 935-957. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0358-3]

61. Ng, H.S.; Kee, D.M.H. Entrepreneurial SMEs surviving in the era of globalization: Critical success factors. Global Opportunities for Entrepreneurial Growth: Coopetition and Knowledge Dynamics within and across Firms; AMBIENTE CONTÁBIL MAGAZINE—Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte: Natal, Brasil, 2017; pp. 75-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-501-620171007]

62. Liñán, F.; Chen, Y.-W. Development and Cross–Cultural Application of a Specific Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrep. Theory Pract.; 2009; 33, pp. 593-617. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x]

63. Hussain, T.; Zia-Ur-Rehman, M.; Abbas, S. Role of entrepreneurial knowledge and personal attitude in developing entrepreneurial intentions in business graduates: A case of Pakistan. J. Glob. Entrep. Res.; 2021; 11, pp. 439-449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40497-021-00283-0]

64. dos Santos, E.A.; Xavier, G.L.; Moura, C.A.d.S.; dos Santos, L.M.R. Traços de personalidade e variáveis do comportamento planejado do indivíduo: Um estudo de seus efeitos nas intenções empreendedoras. Rev. Ambiente Contábil; 2021; 13, pp. 343-358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21680/2176-9036.2021v13n1id19637]

65. Bateman, T.S.; Crant, J.M. The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. J. Organ. Behav.; 1993; 14, pp. 103-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202]

66. Younis, I.R.; Gopalakrishnan, M.; Mathis, M.; Mehta, M.; Uppoor, R.; Zhu, H.; Farchione, T. Association of End Point Definition and Randomized Clinical Trial Duration in Clinical Trials of Schizophrenia Medications. JAMA Psychiatry; 2020; 77, pp. 1064-1071. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.1596]

67. Neneh, B.N. Entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention: The role of social support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Stud. High. Educ.; 2022; 47, pp. 587-603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1770716]

68. Akçomak, I.S.; ter Weel, B. Social capital, innovation and growth: Evidence from Europe. Eur. Econ. Rev.; 2009; 53, pp. 544-567. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.10.001]

69. Chesbrough, H.; Morten, T.; Hansen, N.N.; Sull, D.N. Networked incubators: Hothouses of the new economy. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2000; 44, pp. 64-84.

70. Nowiński, W.; Haddoud, M.Y.; Lančarič, D.; Egerová, D.; Czeglédi, C. The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries. Stud. High. Educ.; 2019; 44, pp. 361-379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1365359]

71. Hair, J. Multivariate Data Analysis. Faculty and Research Publications, Feb. 2009; Available online: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/2925 (accessed on 20 March 2024).

72. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.P.; Ray, S. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2021; 197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7]

73. Kickul, J.; Gundry, L.K.; Barbosa, S.D.; Whitcanack, L. Intuition versus Analysis? Testing Differential Models of Cognitive Style on Entrepreneurial Self–Efficacy and the New Venture Creation Process. Entrep. Theory Pract.; 2009; 33, pp. 439-453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00298.x]

74. Gerba, D.T. Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of business and engineering students in Ethiopia. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Stud.; 2012; 3, pp. 258-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20400701211265036]

75. Okpara, F.O. The value of creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship. J. Asia Entrep. Sustain.; 2007; 3, 1.

76. Barringer, R.D.; Bruce, R. Ireland, Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures; Pearson Education India: Zamin Pallavaram, India, 2008.

77. Vuorio, A.M.; Puumalainen, K.; Fellnhofer, K. Drivers of entrepreneurial intentions in sustainable entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res.; 2018; 24, pp. 359-381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-03-2016-0097]

78. Arru, B. An integrative model for understanding the sustainable entrepreneurs’ behavioural intentions: An empirical study of the Italian context. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2019; 22, pp. 3519-3576. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00356-x]

79. Chatterjee, N.; Das, N. A study on the impact of key entrepreneurial skills on business success of Indian micro-entrepreneurs: A case of Jharkhand region. Glob. Bus. Rev.; 2016; 17, pp. 226-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0972150915610729]

80. Farrukh, M.; Alzubi, Y.; Shahzad, I.A.; Waheed, A.; Kanwal, N. Entrepreneurial intentions. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrep.; 2018; 12, pp. 399-414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/apjie-01-2018-0004]

81. Maresch, D.; Harms, R.; Kailer, N.; Wimmer-Wurm, B. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change; 2016; 104, pp. 172-179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006]

82. Shirokova, G.; Osiyevskyy, O.; Bogatyreva, K. Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. Eur. Manag. J.; 2016; 34, pp. 386-399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.007]

83. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2015; 43, pp. 115-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8]

84. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory’ 25 Years Ago and Now. Educ. Res.; 1965; 4, pp. 7-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X004010007]

85. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res.; 1981; 18, pp. 39-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151312]

86. Marquaridt, D.W. Generalized Inverses, Ridge Regression, Biased Linear Estimation, and Nonlinear Estimation. Technometrics; 1970; 12, pp. 591-612. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1970.10488699]

87. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988.

88. Yasir, N.; Xie, R.; Zhang, J. The Impact of Personal Values and Attitude toward Sustainable Entrepreneurship on Entrepreneurial Intention to Enhance Sustainable Development: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 6792. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14116792]

89. Agu, A.G.; Okwara, O.O.; Okocha, E.R.; Madichie, N.O. COVID-19 pandemic and entrepreneurial intention among university students: A contextualisation of the Igbo Traditional Business School. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Stud.; 2021; 13, pp. 89-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ajems-05-2021-0227]

90. Mahmood, T.M.A.T.; Al Mamun, A.; Ibrahim, M.D. Attitude towards entrepreneurship: A study among Asnaf Millennials in Malaysia. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrep.; 2020; 14, pp. 2-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/apjie-06-2019-0044]

91. Tiwari, P.; Bhat, A.K.; Tikoria, J. An empirical analysis of the factors affecting social entrepreneurial intentions. J. Glob. Entrep. Res.; 2017; 7, 9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40497-017-0067-1]

92. Pinho-Gomes, A.-C.; Peters, S.; Thompson, K.; Hockham, C.; Ripullone, K.; Woodward, M.; Carcel, C. Where are the women? Gender inequalities in COVID-19 research authorship. BMJ Glob. Health; 2020; 5, e002922. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002922] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32527733]

93. Baron, R.A. Opportunity Recognition as Pattern Recognition: How Entrepreneurs “Connect the Dots” to Identify New Business Opportunities. Acad. Manag. Perspect.; 2006; 20, pp. 104-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873412]

94. Nafukho, F.M.; El Mansour, W. Factors determining entrepreneurial opportunity recognition and the significant role of education and training. Eur. J. Train. Dev.; 2023; ahead of print [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-04-2023-0054]

95. Chussil, M. With all this intelligence, why don’t we have better strategies?. J. Bus. Strategy; 2005; 26, pp. 26-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02756660510575023]

96. Galloway, L.; Brown, W. Entrepreneurship education at university: A driver in the creation of high growth firms?. Educ. Train.; 2002; 44, pp. 398-405. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910210449231]

97. El-Gohary, H.; Sultan, F.; Alam, S.; Abbas, M.; Muhammad, S. Shaping Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions among Business Graduates in Developing Countries through Social Media Adoption: A Moderating-Mediated Mechanism in Pakistan. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 2489. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15032489]

98. Waris, I.; Farooq, M.; Hameed, I.; Shahab, A. Promoting sustainable ventures among university students in Pakistan: An empirical study based on the theory of planned behavior. Horizon; 2021; 29, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/oth-10-2020-0035]

99. Sargani, G.R.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, D.; Chandio, A.A.; Hussain, M.; Khan, N. Endorsing Sustainable Enterprises among Promising Entrepreneurs: A Comparative Study of Factor-Driven Economy and Efficiency-Driven Economy. Front. Psychol.; 2021; 12, 735127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.735127]

100. Joensuu-Salo, S.; Viljamaa, A.; Varamäki, E. Understanding Business Takeover Intentions—The Role of Theory of Planned Behavior and Entrepreneurship Competence. Adm. Sci.; 2021; 11, 61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci11030061]

101. Romero-Colmenares, L.M.; Reyes-Rodríguez, J.F. Sustainable entrepreneurial intentions: Exploration of a model based on the theory of planned behaviour among university students in north-east Colombia. Int. J. Manag. Educ.; 2022; 20, 100627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100627]

102. Khan, A.; Khan, N.; Shafiq, M. The Economic Impact of COVID-19 from a Global Perspective. Contemp. Econ.; 2021; 15, pp. 64-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.436]