Green Entrepreneurship among Students—Social and Behavioral Motivation

Abstract

The research is proposing to analyze the relationship between education for green entrepreneurship among students and their interests in implementing business ideas in the field of green entrepreneurship. The research has had the projection of an explanation regarding specific factors of students when approaching a subject like green entrepreneurship. It has started from the paradigm in which the rise of interest for green entrepreneurship is influenced by the knowledge regarding the opportunities of creating green business and by the level of developing entrepreneurial competencies. In this framework, a set of research hypotheses has been created as follows: students’ preoccupation for ecological entrepreneurship is influenced by their age (H1); students’ preoccupation for green entrepreneurship is influenced by identifying and recognizing ideas for green business (H2); students’ satisfaction regarding the quality of entrepreneurial education directly influences the preoccupation regarding the creation of a green business (H3). The research is a quantitative type and has been created on a sample representative (N = 123 students, valid N = 120) from the Valahia University of Targoviste, Romania of which the students are part. The research variables were constructed with the module style extracted from scientifically validated research tools. The measurements of variables have been conducted with the help of a Likert-type scale and interpretation with ANOVA. The results of the research were the following—according to the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test, there were compared and analyzed variables such as green knowledge and education for green entrepreneurship, to be able to quantify the students’ preoccupation values with green entrepreneurship. The p-value is ˃1, which means that the researched subjects manifest increased interest in green entrepreneurship. This fact demonstrates that the average of the values which were attributed according to the Likert-type scale has offered values between 4 and 5 (5 being the maximum level), a fact that confirms the students’ increased preoccupation with green entrepreneurship. The assigned values obtained are: 18–22 age (m = 4.1532), 22–25 age (m = 4.4375), 26–28 age (m = 4.4375), 29–39 age (m = 4.2396), and the over 39 age (m = 4.2750). We also concluded that the concern for green entrepreneurship among students correlates positively with entrepreneurship education and green knowledge.

1. Introduction

Today’s society is confronting a multitude of social, political, economic, and environmental issues which affect the life of today’s generations, but also the future ones. We often identify discourses and debates about sustainability and social intervention, the education for green education and responsible social intervention, and the need for responsible research and innovation.

Within the context of the need for sustainability, the actual policies can be described according to the model which is based on the development of an ecological sector that is specific to all the sectors of activity, on the integration and use of the technologies which save resources [1]. The political preoccupations about how today’s generations can contribute to the health of the planet have become more and more present especially after 1989, with the publication of the British Government’s report, Blueprint for Green Economy [2], which stressed the need to define the concept of “sustainable development” [3] and the implications that this concept might have upon the economic development policies. Sustainable development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Nowadays, environmental issues with which humanity confronts, especially those concerning pollution and global warming, are compelling all the states to adopt and implement green policies which diminish greenhouse gasses, protect the environment, and lead to education from the perspective of sustainable development. Within the context of the ecological civilization [4], the models of economic development are suffering major transformations, given the need for ecological action within all the sectors of social life. The green economy is a widely debated subject, especially by the actors from the economic and ecological fields [5]. It was appreciated that within the context of climatic change’s impact on the environment, the green economy is a shift in thinking about development and growth that can enhance people’s lives and the environment while also promoting environmental and economic sustainability [6]. The ONU 2030 Agenda 2030 for sustainable development identifies as a demarche to continue the development objectives of the millennium and provides a new set of 17 objectives of sustainable development (ODD) directed on targets of economic, social environment, and governance matters [7,8].

Within this frame, the educational services sector must support the education for sustainable development, which means the acquisition, by the trainees, of the knowledge and abilities that are necessary to promote sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles. University education plays an important role in strengthening scientific knowledge, training, and developing responsible attitudes and behaviors towards the future. The education centered on developing competencies for green entrepreneurship represents a premise for sustainable development.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between education for green entrepreneurship and the students’ preoccupation to develop green businesses.

The research offers explanations of the factors that influence younglings’ preoccupation when it comes to green businesses. For this concept to be accurate, a set of many dimensions has been analyzed, such as measuring the perception of young people over the preoccupation with creating green businesses, measuring the level of importance perceived by students over the green knowledge field (opportunities for launching green entrepreneurship activities, green ideas, and creativity [9] regarding green entrepreneurship). The results of the research have shown that there is a high level of correlation between the preoccupation with green entrepreneurship and the level of knowledge of the perspectives that were realized in green businesses and entrepreneurship from an education point of view. Entrepreneurial education and green knowledge correlate positively with students’ preoccupation with creating green businesses. As for the level of perception of entrepreneurial preoccupation, the higher the importance, the more the preoccupation level of students in identifying green business ideas rises. To create an explicative framework, we analyzed a series of theories (psychological, sociological, educational) which explain the youths’ attitudes and behaviors toward green entrepreneurship. These theories served the process of analyzing and interpreting the results of the research and supported the explanation regarding the factors which influence the students’ concern for green entrepreneurship.

2. Explicative Theory

Green entrepreneurship is explained through the context of the response need of the business environment toward a green economy and sustainable development. The green entrepreneurial domain has known spectacular growth, especially during 2016–2019 [10], and continues to develop as a consequence of the sustainable development policies that were implemented at the global level. The green entrepreneurial policies have a fundamental contribution to sustainable development [11].

The literature of the specialty operates with various definitions of the concept of “Green entrepreneurship” [12,13]. Green entrepreneurship represents the process of creating products and services which are fully needed to create sustainable development [14]; the total amount of activities that have the purpose to resolve environmental challenges and problems [15]. Therefore, green entrepreneurship can be defined as a business activity that generates profit that can be applied to environmental protection actions. In the context of education for sustainability development, the need for green competencies is formed among passionate people and it encourages entrepreneurs to access this challenging market. The literature of the specialty offers various definitions for green entrepreneurship. As it follows below, it will be analyzed by considering a specific set of interpretative paradigms: psychological, sociological, and educational. These theories served the process of analyzing and interpreting the results of the research and supported the explanation regarding the factors which influence the entrepreneurial competencies among students.

2.1. The Psychological Paradigm

The psychological paradigm over green entrepreneurship is concentrating on explaining the human behavior and the social consciousness of individuals [16] in various contexts: ecological, economic, and business administration. The psychological paradigm will define the relations between social thinking, public social consciousness, and social representations of green entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, the psychological paradigm will also bring attention to the social behaviors of individuals that are strongly influenced by social thinking and the individual report on future events, in the context of sustainable development. In a green society, the reconstruction of social thinking can be explained by people reflecting on problems that affect life on the planet and creating value judgment thoughts based on their values and perspectives. Regarding social thinking, it is appreciated that it is explained in the context of considering the formed dimension of “public social consciousness”.

Social knowledge is based on cognitions with a strong social character [17,18]. Social thinking is strongly influenced by the moral, economic, and cultural history of a social group of people [19]. The explanation of the process regarding “how do people think in specific common situations in society?” can be considered by the fact that the environment in which an individual lives and develops sends them information over their interpretation. Social thinking has a cultural determent factor. More precisely, the culture of a society influences not only the understanding of facts and social processes but also the way individuals adapt their attitudes and behaviors in different social contexts. Reporting to different problems regarding the Earth’s ecological situation integrates the expression of an individual’s reflective capacity [20] and is characterized by assimilation and operates with information and knowledge, identifying problems, especially environment-wise, operating with possible solutions, examples of special and unique solutions, understanding of facts and ecological processes, adapting to shifting contexts of the environment. The social context “influences thinking, marks it, but it also determines the social practices has a motivational role, can determine conformism, stereotypical thinking, can create cognitive base structures which can be manipulated from an external place” [16].

Motivation has a strong social character and, in the context of green entrepreneurship, because of specific external conditions of the individual which facilitate the development of entrepreneurship, a high number of individuals will start having common interests and actions in this direction. Also, the reasons, intentions, and personal and group ideals cannot be understood outside of social, cultural, and historical contexts [21]. The entrepreneurship type of thinking and actions are focusing on collecting data and information, understanding them, and making clear decisions [22].

The key elements of the managers’ behavior structure (cognitive, psychological, and emotional) influence their decision process. Both positive and negative emotions may influence the managers’ decision process regarding their directions of action and financial management [23]. Behavioral development is strongly influenced by the development of the affective and cognitive components [24]. Analyzing the psychological paradigm, we may draw the following conclusion: behaviors are strongly influenced by cognitions, emotions, and motivations, by personal and social values. Education plays a major role in their modeling. The preoccupation with green affairs bears a powerful emotional print, given the interest in increasing the quality of personal and social life. The accurate awareness of the problems concerning the health of the planet positively influences the attitude towards the environment and represents an essential precursor for green entrepreneurship. Acknowledging the importance of social action using green entrepreneurship is closely influenced by age. That is why the Start-Apps are especially destined for youngsters who have not yet turned 26.

2.2. The Sociological Paradigm

The sociological paradigm is considered a central element in accomplishing green social entrepreneurship. Social representation of green entrepreneurship will be explained under the context of social representation theories [25], according to which “the element is described in an active moving context and is designed by a person or a group of people which always communicates with the respective context, adjusting its behavior”. According to Jean Claude Abric [26], social representation means “a functional vision of the world which allows the individual or the group of people to understand the reality through his own set of the reference system, instead of just adapting to the environment”. Green entrepreneurship can be analyzed in the context of social representation theories considering the proposed criteria by Pascal Moliner [27], the polymorphism of the object, the existence of the social group, and the motivation of in-depth analysis. In this framework, the characteristics of green entrepreneurship are defined in the context of sustainable development, the green entrepreneurship has different forms and aspects in a society where there is a significantly high number of people who want to place themselves in this type of entrepreneurship; the ideas, beliefs, and opinions of these people are placed in the perspective of existing problems and their actions have the purpose to create a better and healthier environment for future generations.

2.3. The Education Paradigm

The Education Paradigm for sustainability attracts attention to the need of forming and developing entrepreneurship competencies, identified as key elements of the 21st century [28]. The development of entrepreneurship competencies among people and the need for education in sustainability can be the start of the green entrepreneurship [29]. Therefore, it is to be reminded that in 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development or the Brundtland Committee [30] “proposes that the most known and accepted definition of sustainable development like satisfying the needs of future generations, without compromising the possibility of future generations to satisfy their own needs”. The education for durable development (EDD) [31] “allows for every human being to gather the knowledge competencies, behaviors, and values that are necessary to create a sustainable future”.

In the context of the same research, it is to be understood that in a declaration of Irina Bokova, UNESCO General Director, “Education for durable development has a very well-balanced effect on the wellbeing of individuals and the future of our planet”. Now, more than ever, education has the responsibility to adapt its speed to all challenges and aspirations of the 21st century and to promote the correct type of values and skills that will lead to a sustainable and inclusive rise and common wellbeing.

Green entrepreneurship has at its core the green education, which is believed to represent the forming process and development place of competencies for durable development (necessary knowledge, skills, and behaviors that are crucial for sustainable living and to change purchase behavior to contribute to a more ecological future) [30]. Recent speeches regarding the need for education for sustainability bring attention to the discussion about green competencies [7,32] described through green knowledge, skills, and behaviors. In the category of green knowledge, according to European strategy in the green education field, specific disciplines can be highlighted such as engineering, production, construction (wind turbines and durable installation materials), natural sciences, mathematics, statistics (ecological principles, biomass conversion, oceanography), agriculture, silviculture, business administration, and law. Also, services like social sciences can be added, as well as the technology of information such as journalism, health, and wellbeing.

In the category of transversal competencies, it is important to be reminded of life abilities and skills (the evaluation of the impact on the unique environment, adopting new ways to promote the biodiversity and wellbeing of animals, reaching for new methods of reducing the negative level and effects of consumerism). According to other authors, green entrepreneurship represents the added value to the culture of a company [33].

Green entrepreneurship among students has represented a research subject for various scientists, most of whom were interested in researching the intention of students and their contact and perspective on green entrepreneurship and the relations between the variables that influence it [34]. This new but existing field of green entrepreneurship among students is determined by a series of factors [35] such as individual and external elements. As for the individual factors, it is to be mentioned that the most important are the entrepreneurial personality and the spirit itself within the logical thinking, rationality, creativity, power of will, the spirit of a winner, tenacity, perseverance, logic or argumentation, persuasion, honesty, team spirit, pragmatism, sociability, etc. In the category of external factors which sustain the development of green entrepreneurship, it is to be mentioned that elements like entrepreneurial, ecological, and economic education are important. There is a series of variables that can positively or negatively influence the evolution of green entrepreneurship. When it comes to positive factors through which green entrepreneurship can be stimulated, some good examples are external factors (correctly applied environmental and fiscal development opportunities policies) and internal factors (positive personal motivation “I want to save the planet”, well-formed and represented entrepreneurial competences, ecological and economic education, etc.). In the category of factors that can negatively influence the development of green business, essential elements are business policies (the bureaucracy of processes, errors in understanding of facts regarding the problems that will occur in the future of planet Earth, errors in managing a green business, the absence of sustainable perspectives regarding the future of the green business, etc.) and factors regarding the administration method of the business (low entrepreneurial competences, unsustainable business, errors in administrating resources and in implementing the management and marketing processes, etc.). Entrepreneurial competence in the context of European educational policies is a crucial component. Researching the literature of the specialty over the definition of entrepreneurial competence identified as an entrepreneurial key component, according to Robles, L. & Rodriguez, Z [36], has the following characteristics: taking risks, autonomy, search and analysis of information quality of work communication, self-confidence, develop social networks, generation of support networks, dynamism change management, initiative innovation integrity, leadership, self-control, results in orientation, social mobility, negotiation troubleshooting, responsibility, and teamwork (Figure 1).

The educational policies claim the implementation of educational processes based on forming and developing key competencies among learners. The structure of entrepreneurial competencies can be analyzed in Figure 1. The competency for green entrepreneurship among students can be described as the student’s capacity to create a green business using information and knowledge gained previously (economic, ecological, and administrative) and of forming and developing attitudes and skills specific to green entrepreneurship [37]. All of these are strongly influenced by a system of values (internal and social) and by social, economic, political, and cultural contexts which facilitate the active usage of competencies in green entrepreneurship [9,38].

Within the context of the explicative paradigms, the main factors which influence entrepreneurship are the entrepreneur’s competencies and abilities, the access to financing sources, taxes and other administrative barriers, the existence of networks and connections, the culture and the entrepreneurial capital, the entrepreneurial education, and public policies.

We are facing the following questions: In what measure are today’s students’ own entrepreneurial competencies and are they interested in the future development of green entrepreneurship? In what measure do the three dimensions—entrepreneurial education, green knowledge, and preoccupation with green entrepreneurship—correlate within the context of green entrepreneurship? What is the impact that green entrepreneurial education and green knowledge have on the students’ preoccupation to accomplish green entrepreneurship? The social character of the motivation regarding the students’ involvement in green entrepreneurship is given by the policies concerning the sustainable development perspectives and by the responsibility with which they correctly get involved in protecting the environment. The concept of “well-being”, both on individual and social plans, within the sustainable development context represents free-standing motivational vectors that intervene in adopting green behaviors, in making decisions regarding the perspective of individual involvement in protecting the planet. The social, economic, political, and cultural contexts are influencing the intentions, goals, and ideals [37].

3. Materials and Methods

The research is proposing to analyze the relationship between education for green entrepreneurship among students and their interests in implementing business ideas in the field of green entrepreneurship. The research has had the projection of an explanation regarding specific factors of students when approaching a subject like green entrepreneurship. It has started from the paradigm in which the rise of interest for green entrepreneurship is influenced by the knowledge regarding the opportunities of creating green business and by the level of developing entrepreneurial competencies. In this framework, a set of research hypotheses has been created as follows: students’ preoccupation for ecological entrepreneurship is influenced by their age (H1); students’ preoccupation for green entrepreneurship is influenced by identifying and recognizing ideas for green business (H2); students’ satisfaction regarding the quality of entrepreneurial education directly influences the preoccupation regarding the creation of a green business (H3).

3.1. Research Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Students’ preoccupation with ecological entrepreneurship is influenced by their age.

The world in which we live offers us examples of successful businesses which were founded by persons of different ages. It was concluded that the average age for launching a business is sometime between 30 and 40 years old [39,40]. William Martin (2020) [39] mentions the fact that in a study made by the Kaufmann Foundation in 2019, the most frequent ages of the entrepreneurs were, in descending order, thus: 20–34 (27.2%); 55–64 (25.1%); 45–54 (24.8%); and 35–44 (22.9%). Compared to the previous studies, they acknowledged a change in the age group that was preoccupied with entrepreneurship. Therefore, as the age grows, the interest in business decreases. The type of business is also influenced by the entrepreneur’s age. Previous studies have shown that there is a negative relation between aging and the involvement in entrepreneurship [41].

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Students’ preoccupation with green entrepreneurship is influenced by identifying and recognizing ideas for green business.

The studies underline the fact that green entrepreneurship is influenced by the entrepreneur’s creativity, while the entrepreneur’s ability to attract new investors defines the level of success [41]. Green entrepreneurs are perceived as persons who think in the spirit of saving the sociological landscape from ecological menaces [42,43]. Green knowledge represents the process of understanding ecological concepts and the ability to solve ecological problems by integrating ecological knowledge and abilities [8]. The stronger the ecological knowledge, the more a person is more determined to get involved in activities in the green entrepreneurship domain [35]. With social support, a green entrepreneur’s culture can influence the intention of the green entrepreneurship [44].

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Students’ satisfaction regarding the quality of entrepreneurial education directly influences their preoccupation with the creation of a green business.

A series of research was made to identify the factors that support the development of entrepreneurship among students and how they can influence future decisions regarding the entrepreneurship [45,46]. Most of the classifications include personal factors. The interdisciplinary approach of the educational programs may have modeling effects on the education for green entrepreneurship [47].

Entrepreneurial education has a positive impact on the students’ entrepreneurial development [48] and therefore upon the development of green entrepreneurship competencies. Previous research has shown us that entrepreneurship can and may be learnt [49].

The logical work frame of the research can be viewed in the following figure (Figure 2).

By all research hypotheses, the operationalization of concepts has constructed the possibility of creating a descriptive scheme of research variables. The analyzed dimensions in the context of green entrepreneurship and of social motivation of students in developing a green business were the following: the preoccupation regarding the discovery of opportunities for entering the green entrepreneurship market, green knowledge, and entrepreneurial education. For every dimension that was analyzed, the research variables were mentioned. These were adapted from scientifically validated research tools as follows: for the “green cognition” dimension model [9] and for the “Entrepreneurship Education” dimension, the variables were adapted after the model of Walter and Block [50]. The framework of variables is displayed in Table 1.

3.2. Type of Research

The research is of a quantitative type. The method used is the structured questionnaire survey. This survey has been administrated and shared in a digital format by using the Google Forms application. All respondents were informed regarding the research purpose and all GDPR collected data were for statistical purposes only. Their acceptance in filling out the survey represented at the same time their acceptance to be part of the research, which was led with the highest level of ethics and without having any type of result alteration. The statistical data interpretation has been conducted by using SPSS software (License IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription, var. 28.0.1.1. (15), IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).

3.3. The Sample

The sample is representative and was defined by the main variable: the status of being a student. Other variables that describe the context of representation of the sample are: forming experiences of entrepreneurial competencies, learning experiences regarding durable development, practical activities within the University business simulators, and implication in ecological activities.

The main argument concerning the sample’s representativeness is described within the context of the research’s central theme: the students’ preoccupation with green entrepreneurship. This strongly correlates with the researched variables: green knowledge and education for green entrepreneurship. To obtain general results, we respected the minimum number of respondents (out of the 123 questionnaires, 120 were validated; for 3 questionnaires we were not able to identify the variables connected to age).

In the third part of the survey, information about the respondents was requested (age, level of education, major studied, etc.). From all 123 replies that were collected, 120 (100%) were validated. The sample unit is represented by student groups which are of age between 18–21, 22–25, 26–28, 29–39, and over 39. On the other hand, the research sets up the objective to analyze the results based on the age variable, over-preoccupation, and perception of knowledge regarding green education in each age segment. It is to be considered that the age element can influence the interest in developing green entrepreneurial activities.

The purpose of an entrepreneurial society is to support students in identifying their entrepreneurial spirit, forming and developing specific competencies in the entrepreneurial field, and implementing a set of projects that are funded from state financial funds, private, or European funding [7]. The sample is structured. The sample consists of students who are part of the entrepreneurial student society. Selected students are enrolled in various undergraduate programs (economic, educational, social, and engineering sciences as well as classic sciences such as chemistry and physics). To identify the sample, the help of tutor teachers from the mentioned specializations was requested. They participated in the identification and selection of students who took part in the research. The students were assured of the protection of their anonymity (given the GDPR laws). The questionnaire has three parts.

In the first part, the purpose of the research has been described and that is to analyze the relationship between education for green entrepreneurship among students and their concern in starting a business within this field of work. Also, the measurement scale was presented and the meaning of the given values (Likert-type scale, with five steps where the number “1” represented the minimum possible value and “5” the maximum). The questions from the survey were adapted to the scientifically validated research tools [51].

For a better understanding, an operational definition of green entrepreneurship was given, the estimated time for answering the questions, and the students were reassured regarding their anonymity. In the second part of the survey, a set of questions was sorted that followed the specific research variables (their interest in gaining information regarding green entrepreneurship and their curiosity regarding the evolution of world problems from an environmental point of view, recognizing the opportunities of implementing and creating a green business, the role of educational experiences in stimulating the interest of knowledge in green businesses, etc.).

3.4. Measurement Instruments

The analysis of the research results was conducted with the help of a Likert scale, with five value steps, where 1 is the minimum and 5 is the maximum. In projecting the items, a series of criteria has been taken into consideration that had to order the formulation and selection processes of operations. The mean and median were calculated as the correlation between the variables. The data interpretation was done by using the ANOVA factorial type of analysis (Variance Analysis) to compare the groups between themselves based on the age criteria and specialization field. The dependent measured variable was the preoccupation for realizing a green business and the independent variable was entrepreneurial education and green cognition. ANOVA was used for testing the hypotheses regarding the differences between the student groups which took part in the research. The analysis followed the variability of the intergroup and the group variability or error. All respondents who took part in the research offered answers for all analyzed dimensions (Table 2).

4. Results

4.1. The Preoccupation with Green Entrepreneurship

The One-Way ANOVA method was applied to verify if there were any differences depending on the age gap when it comes to the preoccupation with green entrepreneurship for students. The age variable reported the differences between the age groups of 18–21, 22–25, 26–28, 30–39, and over 39. Because there are five research groups, the hypothesis is that the means of the groups are different when compared. In the Tests table of Normality nr. 1, the results of the Shapiro-Wilk test are insignificant from a statistical point of view. Therefore, the preoccupation for green entrepreneurship is normally distributed to all age gaps. By having this condition fulfilled, the ANOVA application can be applied.

The means of the variable regarding preoccupation with green entrepreneurship were analyzed for all age segments. (Table 3). In the first column, the group matrix can be observed, while in the second column the average means are displayed accordingly with their respective match. There were not any significant differences identified. The last two columns display the maximum and minimum limits of the analysis in this work-frame. It can be considered that for the 26–28 age level group, the minimum value point is V_min = 3,5 from V_max = 5, which represents a high level of trust and real preoccupation of the age segment for green entrepreneurship.

The values attributed to the concern for green entrepreneurship, for all the analyzed age groups, are presented in Table 4. We calculated the mean, the standard of deviation, the interval coefficients for the mean and the mean of the minimum and maximum interval.

When it comes to multiple comparison analysis (Table 5), the description of the table is the following: In the first column, the matrix within the groups’ number is presented, while in the second column the differences of means to every matching pair are displayed. The next column represents the standard error of every average mean and, in the next one, the signification steps are presented. The last two columns display the minimum and maximum limits of the bounds. The T_Tukey test was calculated, which represents the rapport between the differences in means and standard error (Table 6).

(1) ${\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{Tukey}}=\frac{\mathrm{Mean}\_\mathrm{Difference}}{\mathrm{Std}.\_\mathrm{Error}}$

It is to be considered that the higher preoccupation for green entrepreneurship is reflected within the 26–28 age level group. The value of “0” is not part of the lower nor upper bounds when the mean difference is significant.

4.2. Green Cognition

For measuring the dimension of the “green knowledge”, a series of six questions were adapted after Jiang et al. (2020), and their answers were measured with a Likert-type scale, following the same structure as the one before. The questions that were formulated in the survey are mentioned in the above table. The distribution of variables regarding age, specialization, and environment is presented in the table above (Table 1 Green Cognition). Extracting the information from SPSS has been represented by transforming the computing variables and creating a mean for the questions that were directly responsible for the “green knowledge” variable. Descriptive statistical analysis was created to determine the normality and balance of the answers. For the green knowledge dimension, the differences between groups were analyzed regarding the opportunities for realizing green entrepreneurship by students according to the Jiang et al. 200 test. The following set of elements was operated: the sum of square deviations from the mean—between groups (SS_B), within groups (SSw), and overall (SS_B + SS_W); liberty grades (df) intergroup, intragroup, and totals [52]. The calculation Df_Between, and the calculation Df_Within were calculated by using the following formula:

• df_Between

  (2)${\mathrm{df}}_{\mathrm{Between}}=\mathrm{number} \mathrm{of} \mathrm{groups}-1=5-1=4$

• df_Within

  (3)$$\begin{gathered} {\mathrm{df}}_{\mathrm{Within}}=\mathrm{total} \mathrm{number} \mathrm{of} \mathrm{subjects} \\ \hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em} -\mathrm{total} \mathrm{number} \mathrm{of} \mathrm{groups} \\ \hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em} =120-5=115\left(2\right) \end{gathered}$$

• df_Total

  (4)${\mathrm{df}}_{\mathrm{Total}}={\mathrm{df}}_{\mathrm{Between}}+{\mathrm{df}}_{\mathrm{Within}}$

• Mean Square intergroup (MS_B)

  (5)${\mathrm{MS}}_{\mathrm{B}}=\frac{{\mathrm{SS}}_{\mathrm{B}}}{{\mathrm{df}}_{\mathrm{B}}}$

• Mean Square intragroup (MS_W)

  (6)${\mathrm{MS}}_{\mathrm{W}}=\frac{{\mathrm{SS}}_{\mathrm{W}}}{{\mathrm{df}}_{\mathrm{W}}}$

• The results of the F omnibus test and the signification step

  (7)$\mathrm{F}=\frac{{\mathrm{MS}}_{\mathrm{B}}}{{\mathrm{MS}}_{\mathrm{W}}}$

It concludes that between groups there is no significant difference in the knowledge of perspectives in creating a green business regarding the perception level among students, in this case, F = 0.682 (Table 7 and Table 8).

4.3. Entrepreneurial Education

In the educational variable within green entrepreneurship, the descriptive analysis of data is given in Table 9. A comparison of the scores has been conducted for each variable that characterizes the educational component for green entrepreneurship from the perception students have regarding this field. The number of subjects, age, the mean of replies, the standard deviations and standard error, and the lower and upper bounds for the five groups, as well as for the entire sample, were integrated. It is to be observed that the means are slightly different. By analyzing the standard deviations of the five groups, a difference between the groups is created (Table 9).

The Tukey test (Table 10) was calculated and it was observed that there are differences between the student group aged 26–28 and the rest of the groups. In this case, it can be interpreted that, for this age group, students have a clear view of the green entrepreneurial component, and they can be implicated in green business.

5. Discussion

The analysis and interpretation of results has been conducted by starting from each hypothesis at a time. In regards to the first hypothesis of the research, “Students’ concern for green entrepreneurship is influenced by their age (H1)”, the results of the research were interpreted by comparing each age group’s responses. Correlating this dimension with the age variable is important because it offers explanations in the context of young generations’ preoccupation with durable development. It can be assumed that the means are very close, which determines a conclusion of the fact that regardless of the age gap, a preoccupation for green entrepreneurship exists. It is to be observed that the means are very close to the five student groups that were selected as follows: 18–22 age (m = 4.1532), 22–25 age (m = 4.4375), 26–28 age (4.4375), 29–39 age (m = 4.2396), and the over 39 age (m = 4.2750). It can be observed that a higher value of the mean can be found in the 26–28 age segment, which can be understood as a higher interest for these respondents to be part of the business environment.

It has been concluded that the preoccupation is higher for the age group of 26–28 than for the others (m = 4.22). For this age segment, the rise of interest in green businesses is justified in the context of defining the educational status and the identification of new professional and social roles. The age of 26 also matches the end of the educational path for a large part of the students. In this context, it can appreciate the fact that the preoccupation for green entrepreneurship among students can be influenced not only by self-evaluation in rapport with the professional and social status but also by the knowledge of opportunities of creating green businesses.

Age is not the only indicator by which entrepreneurship may be measured. Research has demonstrated that there is an individual preoccupation for entrepreneurship especially during youth ages. Entrepreneurial success is also analyzed within the context of entrepreneurship abilities and launching opportunities in green businesses [47,53]. The entrepreneurial educational experiments are influencing the students’ preoccupation with green entrepreneurship. It was demonstrated that entrepreneurial intention is far more influenced by the social context [45]. Other authors claim that adolescence is the most important stage for developing entrepreneurship skills [54].

According to European statistics regarding the entrepreneur’s profile [55], he is a young person at around 35 years of age when he started his first startup, who has key competencies developed from University Education (84.8%), and who is a male person (82.8%). In research conducted in Romania in 2020, regarding the entrepreneurial initiative, it was discovered that it is part of the 31–45-year-old segment for 60% of all respondents. Regarding the research, the preoccupation for green entrepreneurship for the 26–28-year-old segment, in the context of funding for opportunities for students of startups, there are various actions that are meant for encouraging entrepreneurship among students (supporting the creation of business with nonrefundable European funds, the functionality of business incubators within universities, the desire of becoming financially autonomous, the professional achievement, financial independence, enthusiasm, ambition, youth courage, etc.). In the 26–28-year-old segment, the students who finish their university studies are found and they are most interested in their development. The policy of encouragement of creating a green business among students represents the main reason why many are interested to be part of green entrepreneurship. Also, this is perceived as a sustainable possibility in the conditions of global development conditions and sustainable policies of entrepreneurship.

Psychologists identify that for this age segment, people believe that they are efficient, that they are independent, and autonomous [56,57]. At the same time, the high level of preoccupation also reflects the interest people have regarding environmental issues, realizing existing problems, and recognizing the need for social intervention. Social motivation can be explained in this context, and it considers the variable of social preoccupation [53]. Significant differences appear between the group of 22–25 year olds and the rest of the groups (m = 4.0125). This difference can be explained in the context of preoccupation with university studies, to determine the boundaries of work qualifications and the discovery of knowledge horizons by identifying possible employers [58]. The different means do not explain a downgrade of preoccupation for green entrepreneurship, but it can be observed that it does signal an interest in another type of action, destined to help in self-development [59].

Students’ preoccupation with green entrepreneurship is influenced by identifying and recognizing ideas for green business (H2); our research has shown the fact that preoccupation with green entrepreneurship is influenced by green knowledge and by education regarding green entrepreneurship. This fact is also supported by other studies [53]. Students’ preoccupation with entrepreneurship is demonstrated by the results of various research. According to research made by Rembiasz, M [60] on a sample of 166 students regarding their preoccupation with entrepreneurship, a percentage of 39.1% presented a highly active entrepreneurial mentality. Another research on the factors that influence the preoccupation for green entrepreneurship mentions the fact that universities are preoccupied with integration in the process of learning ideas about sustainability (in the activity of research, teaching, and evaluation) [61].

Students’ satisfaction regarding the quality of entrepreneurial education directly influences their preoccupation with the realization of a green business (H3). Education for green entrepreneurship might have an inclusive character in the context of lifelong education. Accomplishing entrepreneurship that aims at age groups may be accomplished according to a circular model. To each educational stage, there may correspond an integrated, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary curriculum. In this manner, developing competencies for green entrepreneurship may be a real success. Education for green entrepreneurship cannot be implemented only using a single educational discipline. The development of entrepreneurial competencies must consider motivations and needs. There are a series of critics that emphasize the fact that entrepreneurial programs “do not take into account the motivation and the needs of the different age groups” [47,53]. Age influences, indeed, the type of business, which means that green entrepreneurship may also be researched from the age theories perspective [39].

In the context of durable development, it is needed that young entrepreneurs orientate their intentions over some types of businesses that integrate green components. A sustainable society depends very much on the effort of the current generation to answer tomorrow’s society’s requests. The birth of a civic feeling for sustainability is an action that integrated educational components like formal, nonformal, and informal, the desire for knowledge, social motivation, social implication, and civic spirit with social values. The principles of durability are the principle of ecological durability, the principle of economic durability, and the principle of social durability. Green businesses are those types of activities that are capable of protecting the environment, conserving natural resources, and being able to self-sustain financially in the long term. It is appreciated that, at a university level, education for durable development is weakly represented [62].

The research projected an explanation regarding the factors that influence students’ preoccupation with green entrepreneurship. It has started from the hypothesis that according to the rise of interest in green entrepreneurship, it is strongly influenced by the knowledge of opportunities for creating green businesses, and the level of forming and development of entrepreneurial competencies. (Table 11).

6. Conclusions

The green entrepreneurship opportunities are explained in the context of global strategies for durable development, social and civic consciousness, education for sustainability, and reaching for entrepreneurial competencies. In balance with the second hypothesis, “students’ preoccupation for green entrepreneurship is influenced by identifying and recognizing ideas for green business”, a positive correlation can be identified between the level of preoccupation for green entrepreneurship and self-evaluation of personal capabilities for creating a green business. The third hypothesis, “students’ satisfaction regarding the quality of entrepreneurial education directly influences the preoccupation regarding the realization of a green business”, correlates positively with the preoccupation regarding green entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial education contributes to forming and developing entrepreneurial competencies. In the context of durable development, green businesses are conditioned on one hand by the social, political, and educational context, while on the other hand by the self-trust in one’s capacity to develop a green business. Within the research, it was concluded that the higher the trust level of students in their entrepreneurial capacity, the higher the preoccupation for green entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial competency is a key element and university education for sustainability directly influences the students’ preoccupation with creating green businesses. Forming and developing entrepreneurial competencies for green businesses can develop both in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary domains. In the context of durable development, the integrated approach of the university curriculum directly influenced the preoccupation of students with green entrepreneurship. The preoccupation for green businesses among students is highly influenced by the culture in the durable development field, the personal and social values, by knowing the funding opportunities and the paths of durable development possibilities [63]. The university curriculum analysis shows that most disciplines that are specific to the durable development field can be found in the frame of specializations that are preoccupied with forming specialists in the environmental engineering field. The education for green entrepreneurship can be projected as a transdisciplinary major, common for all university specializations with applicability in various fields. Therefore, the students’ preoccupation with identifying business opportunities in the context of sustainability grows. This research had several main limitations. One of them was the lack of including demographic factors such as the respondents’ gender, which was not the object of this research. This variable may be a part of a future research which could lead to relevant results which can be explained in correlation with the present research results. In future studies, it would be interesting to analyze how the variable of preoccupation with green entrepreneurship is distributed among the students according to their gender: masculine or feminine. Also, we have not investigated the preoccupation for green entrepreneurship depending on the students’ residence environment (urban or rural), nor the previous experiences in the students’ entrepreneurship area, because these might have affected the results of the research. We consider that a person who has previous experiences in green entrepreneurship may handle taking a decision better when it comes to developing new entrepreneurship. The research strategy considered the analysis of the relationship between education for green entrepreneurship and the students’ preoccupation to accomplish green entrepreneurship. Despite these limitations, the results of the research allow us to draw conclusions that extend the present knowledge in the field of green entrepreneurship research among the students.

The importance of this research is given by the identification of the variables which may influence the students’ preoccupation with green entrepreneurship. These may constitute landmarks in adopting a strategy for the development of entrepreneurship competencies among students.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.A.A. and M.A.A., methodology, G.A.A. and M.A.A. validation and format analysis, G.A.A. investigation, original draft preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The study did not report any data.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all students of the Valahia University of Targoviste for answering the survey and the teacher who helped with formatting and creating the target group.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Structure of Entrepreneurial Competence—Source: Authors.

Figure 2. Lock frame research (Source: Authors).

Table 1

The structure of the research variables.

Variables	Items	References
Green cognition	I can recognize new venture opportunities in environmental protection industries. I frequently identify ideas that can be converted into new products or services in environmental protection industries. I generally lack green ideas that may materialize into profitable enterprises (reverse). I frequently identify opportunities to start up new businesses in the environmental protection industries. I enjoy thinking about new ways of doing green businesses. I thought of many ideas for new green activities in the past month.	Jiang et al., 2020 [9]
Entrepreneurship education	My school education helped me develop my sense of initiative—a sort of entrepreneurial attitude. My school education helped me to better understand the role of entrepreneurs in society. My school education made me interested in becoming an entrepreneur. My school education gave me skills and know-how that enable me to run a business.	Walter and Block, 2016 [50]
Preoccupation/desire to discover	I am preoccupied to find out as much information/data about businesses in the field of durable development because I want to start a green business The environmental problems are concerning me highly because they are all about how I will live in the future I know that green entrepreneurship is financially sustained through different programs which is why I see it as a personal development opportunity Green businesses are the future which is why I want to be part of them	Source: Authors

Table 2

Cases Processing Summary.

	Valid		Missing		Total
	N	Percent	N	Percent	N	Percent
Preoccupation	120	100.0%	0	0.0%	120	100.0%
Green Knowledge	120	100.0%	0	0.0%	120	100.0%
Entrepreneurial education	120	100.0%	0	0.0%	120	100.0%

Source: Data processing with SPSS, ANOVA License IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription, var. 28.0.1.1. (15).

Table 3

Tests of Normality.

	Age	Kolmogorov-Smirnov a			Shapiro-Wilk
		Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Preoccupation/Concern for sustainable development	18–21	0.156	31	0.054	0.826	31	<0.001
	22–25	0.184	20	0.076	0.876	20	0.015
	26–28	0.310	12	0.002	0.782	12	0.006
	29–39	0.214	24	0.006	0.882	24	0.009
	39+	0.205	30	0.002	0.805	30	<0.001

^a Lilliefors Significance Correction. Source: Authors, Data processing with SPSS, ANOVA License IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription, var. 28.0.1.1. (15).

Table 4

Descriptive table of preoccupation/Concern for sustainable development.

	N	Mean	St. Deviation	St Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minim	Maxim
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
18–21	12	4.1532	0.8359	0.1501	38.466	44.598	1	5
22–25	16	4.0125	0.8866	0.1982	35.976	44.274	2.25	5
26–28	29	4.4375	0.6407	0.185	40.304	48.446	3.50	5
29–39	26	4.2396	0.7241	0.1478	39.338	45.454	2.50	5
+39	40	4.275	0.8391	0.1532	39.617	45.883	1.75	5
Total	120	4.22356	0.785274	0.166866	38.7402	45.731	2.25	5

Source: Authors, Data processing with SPSS, ANOVA License IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription, var. 28.0.1.1. (15).

Table 5

Multiple comparisons. Source: Authors, Data processing with SPSS.

Tukey HSD
(I) Age	(J) Age	Mean Difference (I–J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
18–21	22–25	0.14073	0.23137	0.974	−0.5008	0.7823
	26–28	−0.28427	0.27427	0.838	−1.0448	0.4762
	29–39	−0.08636	0.21934	0.995	−0.6945	0.5218
	39+	−0.12177	0.20661	0.976	−0.6946	0.4511
22–25	18–21	−0.14073	0.23137	0.974	−0.7823	0.5008
	26–28	−0.42500	0.29457	0.602	−1.2418	0.3918
	29–39	−0.22708	0.24425	0.885	−0.9043	0.4501
	39+	−0.26250	0.23288	0.792	−0.9082	0.3832
26–28	18–21	0.28427	0.27427	0.838	−0.4762	1.0448
	22–25	0.42500	0.29457	0.602	−0.3918	1.2418
	29–39	0.19792	0.28522	0.957	−0.5929	0.9887
	39+	0.16250	0.27555	0.976	−0.6015	0.9265
29–39	18–21	0.08636	0.21934	0.995	−0.5218	0.6945
	22–25	0.22708	0.24425	0.885	−0.4501	0.9043
	26–28	−0.19792	0.28522	0.957	−0.9887	0.5929
	39+	−0.03542	0.22093	1.000	−0.6480	0.5772
39+	18–21	0.12177	0.20661	0.976	−0.4511	0.6946
	22–25	0.26250	0.23288	0.792	−0.3832	0.9082
	26–28	−0.16250	0.27555	0.976	−0.9265	0.6015
	29–39	0.03542	0.22093	1.000	−0.5772	0.6480

ANOVA License IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription, var. 28.0.1.1. (15).

Table 6

Green Entrepreneurship Preoccupation.

Tukey HSD
Age	N	Subset for Alpha = 0.05
		1
22–25	20	4.0125
18–21	31	4.1532
29–39	24	4.2396
39+	30	4.2750
26–28	12	4.4375
Sig.		0.439

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. Source: Authors, Data processing with SPSS, ANOVA License IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription, var. 28.0.1.1. (15).

Table 7

The intragroup and intergroup variation.

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	2.543	4	0.636	0.682	0.606
Within Groups	104.466	112	0.933
Total	107.009	116

Source: Authors, Data processing with SPSS, ANOVA License IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription, var. 28.0.1.1. (15).

Table 8

Green Knowledge test Tukey.

Green Knowledge
Tukey HSD
Age	N	Subset for Alpha = 0.05
		1
22–25	20	3.0833
18–21	31	3.2581
26–28	12	3.2778
29–39	24	3.3681
39+	30	3.5222
Sig.		0.587

Source: Authors, Data processing with SPSS, ANOVA License IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription, var. 28.0.1.1. (15).

Table 9

Multiple comparisons.

Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Education
Tukey HSD
(I) Age	(J) Age	Mean Difference (I–J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
18–21	22–25	0.40161	0.32778	0.737	−0.5072	1.3105
	26–28	−0.43728	0.38856	0.793	−1.5146	0.6401
	29–39	0.24328	0.31074	0.935	−0.6183	1.1049
	39+	−0.10394	0.29270	0.997	−0.9155	0.7076
22–25	18–21	−0.40161	0.32778	0.737	−1.3105	0.5072
	26–28	−0.83889	0.41732	0.268	−1.9960	0.3182
	29–39	−0.15833	0.34602	0.991	−1.1178	0.8011
	39+	−0.50556	0.32992	0.544	−1.4203	0.4092
26–28	18–21	0.43728	0.38856	0.793	−0.6401	1.5146
	22–25	0.83889	0.41732	0.268	−0.3182	1.9960
	29–39	0.68056	0.40407	0.448	−0.4398	1.8009
	39+	0.33333	0.39037	0.913	−0.7490	1.4157
29–39	18–21	−0.24328	0.31074	0.935	−1.1049	0.6183
	22–25	0.15833	0.34602	0.991	−0.8011	1.1178
	26–28	−0.68056	0.40407	0.448	−1.8009	0.4398
	39+	−0.34722	0.31299	0.801	−1.2151	0.5206
39+	18–21	0.10394	0.29270	0.997	−0.7076	0.9155
	22–25	0.50556	0.32992	0.544	−0.4092	1.4203
	26–28	−0.33333	00.39037	0.913	−1.4157	0.7490
	29–39	0.34722	0.31299	0.801	−0.5206	1.2151

Source: Authors, Data processing with SPSS, ANOVA License IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription, var. 28.0.1.1. (15).

Table 10

Tukey test Entrepreneurial education.

Tukey HSD
	N	Subset for Alpha = 0.05
		1
22–25	20	3.3833
29–39	24	3.5417
18–21	31	3.7849
39+	30	3.8889
26–28	12	4.2222
Sig.		0.132

Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 20.782. Source: Authors, Data processing with SPSS, ANOVA License IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription, var. 28.0.1.1. (15).

Table 11

Tests of models’ effects.

Source	Type III
	Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square	df	Sig.
Green Knowledge	45.773	1	<0.001
Education	18.935	1	<0.001

Dependent Variable: Preoccupation. Model: (Threshold), Green Knowledge, Education.

References

1. Ospanova, A.; Popovychenko, I.; Chuprina, E. Green Economy–Vector of Sustainable Development. Problemy Ekorozwoju; 2022; 17, pp. 171-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35784/pe.2022.1.16]

2. Pearce, D.; Markandya, A.; Barbier, E. Blueprint 1: For a Green Economy; Routledge: London, UK, 1989; pp. 25-42.

3. Adamowicz, M. Green Deal, Green Growth and Green Economy as a Means of Support for Attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 5901. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14105901]

4. Zhang, Z. Evolution paths of green economy modes and their trend of hypercycle economy. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ.; 2022; 20, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjpre.2022.03.001]

5. Guo, J.; Zhou, Y.; Ali, S.; Shahzad, U.; Cui, L. Exploring the Role of Green Innovation and Investment in Energy for Environmental Quality: An Empirical Appraisal from Provincial Data of China. J. Environ. Manag.; 2021; 292, 112779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112779] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34022650]

6. Zhang, L.; Xu, M.; Chen, H.; Li, Y.; Chen, S. Globalization, Green Economy and Environmental Challenges: State of the Art Review for Practical Implications. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2022; 15, 870271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.870271]

7. United European. “Do You Know All 17 SDGs?” 1 June 2012. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 16 May 2022).

8. United Nation. 2022. [Interactiv]. Available online: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed on 7 June 2022).

9. Jiang, H.; Wang, S.; Wang, L.; Li, G. Golden Apples or Green Apples? The Effect of Entrepreneurial Creativity on Green Entrepreneurship: A Dual Pathway Model. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 6285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12156285]

10. Zeng, J.; Ren, J. How does green entrepreneurship affect environmental improvement? Empirical findings from 293 enterprises. Int. Entrep. Manag. J.; 2022; 18, pp. 409-434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00780-4]

11. Wei, X.; Ren, H.; Ullah, S.; Bozkurt, C. Does environmental entrepreneurship play a role in sustainable green development? Evidence from emerging Asian economies. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja; 2022; pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2067887]

12. Melay, I.; Kraus, S. Green Entrepreneurship: Definitions of related concepts. J. Strateg. Manag.; 2012; 12, pp. 1-12.

13. Schlaegel, C.; Koening, M. Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta-analytic test and integration of competing models. Entrep. Theory Pract.; 2014; 38, pp. 291-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/etap.12087]

14. Cohen, B.; Winn, M. Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. J. Bussines Ventur.; 2007; 20, pp. 22-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001]

15. Silajdžić, I.; Kurtagić, S.M.; Vučijak, B. Green entrepreneurship in transition economies: A case study of Bosnia and Herzegovina. J. Clean. Prod.; 2015; 88, pp. 376-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.004]

16. Neculau, A. Reprezentările sociale. Manual de Psihologie Socială; Polirom: Iași, Romania, 2003; pp. 283-302.

17. Neculau, A. Gândirea socială. Manual de Psihologie Socială; Polirom: Iasi, Romania, 2003; pp. 273-280.

18. Hass, V.; Jodelet, D. Pensee et memoire sociale. Psychologie Sociale; Breal: Paris, France, 2007; pp. 111-160.

19. Berger, P.L.; Luckmann, T.; Butucelea, A. Construirea Socială a Realității; Univers: București, Romania, 1999; pp. 24-35.

20. Vlăsceanu, L. Sociologie și Modernitate. Tranziții spre Modernitatea Reflexivă; Polirom: Iasi, Romania, 2007; pp. 176-184.

21. Chelcea, S.; Ilut, P. Enciclopedie de Psihosociologie; Economică: București, Romania, 2003; 83.

22. Krueger, N.; Hansen, D.; Michl, T.; Welsh, D. Thinking “sustainably”: The role of intentions, cognitions, and emotions in understanding new domains of entrepreneurship. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth; Lumpkin, T.; Katz, J. Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2011; Volume 13, pp. 275-309.

23. Sedliacikova, M.; Moresova, M.; Alac, P.; Drabek, J. How Do Behavioral Aspects Affect the Financial Decisions of Managers and the Competitiveness of Enterprises?. J. Compet.; 2021; 13, pp. 99-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7441/joc.2021.02.06]

24. Závadský, J.; Malá, D.; Benčiková, D.; Sedliačiková, M.; Šatanová, A.; Foroudi, P. Behavioral approach to quality: An empirical study in Slovak SMEs. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2020; 7, 1794678. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1794678]

25. Joedelet, D. Reprezentările sociale, un domeniu în expansiune. Psihologia Câmpului Social. Reprezentările Sociale; Polirom: Iasi, Romania, 1997; pp. 97-126.

26. Abric, J.C. Reprezentărle sociale: Aspecte teoretice. Psihologia Câmpului Social. Reprezentările Sociale; Polirom: Iasi, Romania, 1995; pp. 127-154.

27. Moliner, P. Cinci întrebări în legătură cu reprezentările sociale. Psihologia Câmpului Social. Reprezentările Sociale; Știință și Tehnică: Iași, Romania, 1995; pp. 177-188.

28. Makhloufi, L.; Laghouang, A.; Meirun, T.; Belaid, F. Impact of green entrepreneurship orientation on environmental performance: The natural resources based view an environmental policy perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2022; 31, pp. 425-444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2902]

29. Mets, T.; Holbrook, J.; Laanelaid, S. Entrepreneurship Education Challenges for Green Transformation. Aminist. Sci.; 2021; 11, 15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci11010015]

30. European Union. Green Education Initiatives. 16 June 2022. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/06/16/council-adopts-recommendation-to-stimulate-learning-for-the-green-transition/?utm_source=dsms-auto&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Council+adopts+recommendation+to+stimulate+learning+for+the (accessed on 17 June 2022).

31. Educație Pentru Obiectivele Dezvoltării Durabile. 3 September 2018. Available online: https://www.edu.ro/educa%C8%9Bie-pentru-dezvoltare-durabil%C4%83 (accessed on 16 May 2022).

32. European Union. New Taxonomy of Skils for the Green Transition. 25 March 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/empl/items/741088/en (accessed on 16 May 2022).

33. Ndubisi, N.; Nair, S. Green entrepreneurship (ge) and green value added (gva): A conceptual framework. J. Entrep.; 2009; 13, pp. 21-34.

34. Alvarez-Risco, A.; Mlodzianowska, S.; Marc, R.; Del-Aguila-Arcentales, S. Factors affecting green entrepreneurship intentions in business university students in COVID-19 pandemic times: Case of Ecuador. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 6447. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13116447]

35. Cai, X.; Hussain, S.; Zhang, Y. Factors That Can Promotethe Green Entrepreneurial Intention of College Students: A Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 12, 776886. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.776886]

36. Roblesa, L.; Zárraga-Rodrígueza, M. Key Competencies for Entrepreneurship. Procedia Econ. Financ.; 2015; 23, pp. 828-832. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00389-5]

37. Iluț, P. Motivația. Enciclopedie de Psihosociologie; Economică: București, Romania, 2003; 230.

38. Rusok, N.H.M.; Kumar, N.; Ahmed, A.R. The effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial competencies. Int. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. Res.; 2017; 15, pp. 433-455.

39. Martin, W. Entrepreneurship at Any Age. Entrepreneurship—Contemporary Issues; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/73987 (accessed on 16 May 2022).

40. Kautonen, T.; Down, S.; Minniti, M. Ageing and entrepreneurial preferences. Small Bus. Econ.; 2014; 42, pp. 579-594. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9489-5]

41. Levesque, M.; Minniti, M. The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. J. Bus. Ventur.; 2006; 2, pp. 177-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.04.003]

42. Zhaojun, Y.; Jun, S.; Yali, Z.; Ying, W. Green, Green, It’s Green: A Triad Model of Technology. Culture, and Innovation for Corporate Sustainability. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1369.

43. Yousuf, N.; Awang, H.; Iranmaneseh, M. Determinants and outcome of environmental practices in Malaysian construction projects. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 156, pp. 345-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.064]

44. Verma, S.; Gustafsson, A. Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 118, pp. 253-261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.057]

45. Meoli, A.; Fini, R.; Sobrero, M.; Wiklund, J. How entrepreneurial intentions influence entrepreneurial career choices: The moderating influence of social context. J. Bus. Venturing; 2020; 35, 105982. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.105982]

46. Ranasinghe, S.; Koggalage, R. Factors Affecting the Entrepreneurial Decision. J. Multidiscip. Eng. Sci. Technol.; 2020; 7, pp. 11902-11905.

47. Othman, N.; Juhdi, N. Does Entrepreneurship Education Affect Pre-start-up Behavior in Malaysia? A Multi-Group Analysis Approach. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 376. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.738729]

48. Aldiando, L.; Anggadwita, G.; Umbara, A. Entrepreneurship education program as value creation: Empirical findings of universities in Bandung, Indonesia. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag.; 2018; 9, pp. 296-309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-03-2018-0024]

49. Sarasavathy, S.; Venkataraman, S. Entrepreneurship and method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrep. Theory Pract.; 2011; 35, pp. 113-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00425.x]

50. Walter, S. Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: An institutional perspective. J. Bus. Ventur.; 2016; 31, pp. 216-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.10.003]

51. Green Entrepreneurship Training 2022. [Interactiv]. Available online: https://www.green-entrepreneurship.online/openfile/8070?PHPSESSID=p3asnihe3o0kc7isgankikb9k1 (accessed on 10 June 2022).

52. Labar, A. SPSS Pentru Stiintele Educatiei; Polirom: Iasi, Romania, 2008; pp. 171-183.

53. Bohlmann, C.; Rauch, A.; Zacher, H. A lifespan perspective on entrepreneurship: Perceived opportunities and skills explain the negative association between age and entrepreneurial activit. Front. Psychol.; 2017; 8, 2015. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02015] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29250004]

54. Obschonka, M. Adolescent pathways to entrepreneurship. Child Dev. Perspect.; 2016; 3, pp. 196-201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12185]

55. Steigertahl, L.; Mauer, R. EU Start Ap Monitor. ESCP Europe Jean-Baptiste Say Institute for Entrepreneurship. Available online: Startupmonitor.eu (accessed on 16 May 2022).

56. Wang, H.; Chang, C.; Yao, S.; Liang, C. The contribution of self-efficacy to the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention. High. Educ.; 2016; 72, pp. 209-224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9946-y]

57. Arnett, J. Adolescents attachment representations and development task in emerging adulthood. Dev. Psychol.; 2004; 40, pp. 430-444.

58. Scharf, M.; Mayseless, O.; Scharf, M.; Mayseless, O.; Kivenson-Baron, I. Adolescents attachment representations and developmental tasks in emerging adulthood. Dev. Psychol.; 2004; 40, pp. 430-444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.430]

59. Krueger, N.; Brazeal, D. Entrepreneurial Potential and Potential Entrepreneurs. Entrep. Theory Pract.; 1994; 18, pp. 91-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104225879401800307]

60. Rembiasz, M. Student Entrepreneurship–Research on Development. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Manufacturing Science and Education–MSE 2017, Trends in New Industrial Revolution; Sibiu, Romania, 7–9 June 2017; Available online: https://conferences.ulbsibiu.ro/mse/2017/index.htm (accessed on 12 May 2022).

61. Fichter, K.; Tiemann, I. Factors influencing university support for sustainable entrepreneurship: Insights from explorative case studies. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 175, pp. 512-524. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.031]

62. Ivanovici, F.; Baber, H. Sustainability at Universities as a Determinant of Entrepreneurship for Sustainability. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14010454]

63. Alwakid, W.; Aparicio, S.; Urbano, D. Cultural Antecedents of Green Entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia: An Institutional Approach. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 3673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12093673]