This study examines the factors that influence sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (SOEI) among university students, focusing on personal traits, cognitive perceptions, social influences, and resistance to change. The research is grounded in exploring how factors such as proactive personality, perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and risk-taking propensity contribute to students' intentions to pursue sustainability-driven entrepreneurship. Additionally, the study identifies barriers like social norms, loss aversion, and transition costs that may prevent students from engaging in sustainability-oriented ventures. Furthermore, the research investigates the role of inertia—encompassing affective, cognitive, and behavioral resistance—as a mediating factor in the relationship between these enablers and barriers and SOEI. The findings indicate that proactive personality traits and strong environmental values play a significant role in shaping sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions, while inertia and social norms serve as substantial barriers. These insights are essential for educators, policymakers, and stakeholders looking to promote sustainability-focused entrepreneurship among students.
The global focus on sustainability has made entrepreneurship a critical tool for addressing urgent environmental, social, and economic challenges. Students, as emerging entrepreneurs, represent a key group capable of driving innovation and contributing to sustainable development. Despite their potential, the transition from traditional entrepreneurial ambitions to those focused on sustainability has not been thoroughly explored or fully understood.This study aims to examine the factors that influence students' intentions to engage in sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship (SOEI). It will explore the key drivers that motivate students to pursue entrepreneurship with a sustainability focus, the obstacles that may hinder them from doing so, and the role of inertia in shaping these factors. Specifically, the research will look at how characteristics such as proactivity, perceived desirability and feasibility, and risk-taking attitudes influence students' intentions to start sustainability-driven businesses. It will also consider how social norms, loss aversion, and transition costs may act as barriers, preventing students from pursuing sustainable entrepreneurial ventures.
An important aspect of this research is understanding inertia—the tendency to continue with familiar behaviours even when more favourable options are available. The study will investigate how different forms of inertia—emotional, habitual, and cognitive—affect the relationship between the enablers and obstacles to sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions. It will assess whether these forms of inertia strengthen or weaken the impact of factors that encourage or discourage students from pursuing sustainability-driven entrepreneurship.The study has three primary objectives. First, it aims to examine the enablers of sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions among students. This includes looking at how traits like proactive personality and cognitive factors such as perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and risk-taking propensity influence students’ willingness to pursue sustainable entrepreneurial ventures. The goal is to identify what motivates students to take this path in entrepreneurship.
Second, the research will identify the barriers that inhibit the development of sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions. It will explore how challenges like social norms, loss aversion, and transition costs may prevent students from pursuing these ventures. By understanding these barriers, the study aims to highlight what needs to be addressed to encourage more students to engage in sustainability-driven entrepreneurship.Finally, the study will investigate the role of inertia as a mediating factor in the relationship between enablers, barriers, and sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions. This objective will focus on how affective, behavioral, and cognitive inertia influence the way these factors interact and shape students' entrepreneurial decisions. Gaining insights into the impact of inertia will help us better understand the psychological and behavioral processes that influence students’ choices to pursue sustainability-focused entrepreneurship.
As explained by lopes et., al (2023), there is a heightened awareness of environmental and social challenges in contemporary society. Sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (SOEI) are conceptualized as the intentions to initiate ventures that not only seek economic gain but also focus on social and environmental impacts. Researchers have observed a shift in entrepreneurial intentions, where students are increasingly inclined towards businesses that address sustainability goals, such as social equity and environmental conservation. However, integrating sustainability into entrepreneurial intentions remains a complex challenge, as it requires aligning personal goals with broader social and environmental values (lopes et al., 2003). Due to its ability to illuminate the origins and development of entrepreneurship conduct, ambitions to become an entrepreneur has garnered research attention (Romero-Galisteo et al., 2022). Entrepreneurial intentions emphasize to drive social and economic progress (Virasa et al., 2022). Additionally, it is recognized for its contribution to the variety of entrepreneurship and their corresponding results (Linan and Fayolle, 2015). Furthermore, the processing of entrepreneurship is also acknowledged by the combination of contextual and individual factors (Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2021). For practitioners, policymakers, and instructors, understanding entrepreneurial intentions has significant implications in the formulation of strategies aimed at promoting the engagement in entrepreneurship (Shirokova et al., 2022). Truong et., al (2022) latest study clarifies the SOEI construct by emphasizing the social and psychological aspects of the intention-behavior mechanism. While sustainable entrepreneurship is recognized for environmental and societal impacts of business activities and is a new area for research and practice, sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions have its roots in entrepreneurial intentions, which is people's desire to launch a new business. While, sustainable entrepreneurship is acknowledged for its focus on the environmental and societal consequences of organizations, representing a novel domain for both scholarly investigation and practical application. The idea to begin a new business, or entrepreneurial intent, is what gave rise to SOEI (Srivastava et al., 2023). SOEI are shaped by the aspiration to create ventures that prioritize sustainability, such as initiatives addressing climate change, promoting social equity, and fostering business opportunities (Zhu et al., 2022). Moreover, the recent work of Truong et al. (2022) offers a clearer understanding of the SOEI construct by emphasizing the social and psychological dimensions of the intention-behavior relationship.According to Lopes et al., (2023), students' SOEI in Angola was positively impacted by the TPB dimensions. Additionally, the proactive personality, perceived creativity, and risk-taking inclination all had a significant impact on planned theory of behaviour (TPB) dimensions, which in turn stimulated the SOEI in Angola.
The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), as developed by Ajzen (1991), is often used to understand entrepreneurial intentions in general, and it provides a solid framework for examining SOEI. According to TPB, entrepreneurial intentions are influenced by three key dimensions: attitudes toward the behavior (e.g., how desirable and feasible starting a sustainability-oriented business is), subjective norms (e.g., the influence of social pressures and cultural expectations), and perceived behavioral control (e.g., an individual's confidence in their ability to start a business). However, SOEI extends beyond the traditional TPB framework by incorporating environmental and social considerations into the decision-making process. In this context, sustainability-oriented entrepreneurs are not only motivated by financial success but also by the desire to create positive environmental and social impacts.
As cited by Li et al.,2016, inertia is conceptualized as an individual’s tendency to maintain the current state of affairs, even when better alternatives are available. It is framed as a second-order construct, consisting of three distinct components: affective inertia, behavioral inertia, and cognitive inertia. Affective inertia refers to an individual’s continued use of a system due to emotional attachment or comfort, as well as the stress or discomfort associated with change. Behavioral inertia describes the persistence in using a system simply because it has become part of an individual’s routine, often without active consideration. Cognitive inertia, on the other hand, involves the conscious decision to maintain the existing system, even when the individual is aware that it may not be the most effective or efficient option. In the context of sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship, affective inertia may manifest as an emotional resistance to adopting new, sustainable business practices, particularly when these require substantial changes from traditional profit-driven business models. Entrepreneurs or students may feel emotionally attached to their current way of conducting business and may experience stress or discomfort at the prospect of switching to more sustainable alternatives, despite understanding the long-term benefits. In the broader context of status quo bias and entrepreneurial intentions, inertia moderates the relationship between loss aversion, transition costs, and social norms—key factors in decision-making. Inertia strengthens the effect of these factors, meaning that individuals with higher inertia are more likely to resist adopting sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship due to their emotional attachment (affective inertia), habitual behaviours (behavioural inertia), or outdated thinking (cognitive inertia)
This research explores the factors that influence sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (SOEI) among students. By using both qualitative and quantitative approaches, it aims to understand the relationships between enablers, barriers, mediating factors, and demographic characteristics that shape students' entrepreneurial aspirations focused on sustainability. One of the primary objectives of this research is to address the gap in understanding the shift from traditional entrepreneurial intentions to those driven by sustainability. As sustainability becomes an increasingly important consideration in entrepreneur ship, particularly among young people, it is essential to study the factors that influence this shift. Insights from such research can help inform policies and initiatives that support the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ventures. The study identifies key enablers of SOEI, such as proactive personality, perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and risk-taking propensity. It also highlights barriers, including social norms, loss aversion, and transition costs, which may discourage students from pursuing sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the research examines the role of inertia—affective, cognitive, and behavioral—as a mediating factor that influences the relationship between enablers, barriers, and SOEI. In addition to these factors, the study looks at how demographic characteristics like age, gender, and education shape sustainability-driven entrepreneurial intentions. Following the finalization of the questionnaire, a large-scale data collection process was undertaken. A total of 1,600 e-questionnaires were distributed through multiple online platforms, including Facebook, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Google+, and Gmail. These platforms were chosen for their extensive reach and ability to facilitate efficient dissemination of the survey among the target student population. The collected responses were then systematically analysed to test the proposed hypotheses and examine the various factors influencing students' intentions to pursue sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship. The research involves a sample of 543 students from Delhi-NCR and other Tier 1 cities across India. The students were selected using purposive and convenience sampling methods, and data were collected via an online questionnaire distributed through platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, and LinkedIn.
To ensure the reliability and validity of the measurement instruments, the study used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). This process confirmed the convergent validity of the constructs, as well as their discriminant validity, using the Fornell-Larcker criterion. The relationships between enablers, barriers, mediators, and SOEI were tested using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with Partial Least Squares (PLS), and bootstrapping was used to assess the significance of path coefficients, t-statistics, and p-values.
The above factors are measured in the study with help of few statements. The internal consistency reliability of the constructs is measured with the help of Cronbach alpha. The result of the Cronbach alpha is shown below:
Table 1: Reliability analysis – Enablers
Number of Statements |
Cronbach Alpha |
|
Risk Taking Propensity |
5 |
0.873 |
Proactive Personality |
5 |
0.891 |
Perceiving Desirability |
4 |
0.862 |
Perceiving Feasibility |
5 |
0.782 |
The results of the Cronbach's alpha analysis for the enablers influencing Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurial Intentions (SOEI) indicate that the reliability of the measurement scales used for each enabler is strong. The Cronbach's alpha values for all enabler constructs, including Proactive Personality (PP), Perceived Desirability (PD), Perceived Feasibility (PF), and Risk-Taking Propensity (RTA), were found to be greater than 0.7, suggesting that the data is internally consistent and the scales are reliable.
Fig 1: Confirmatory factor analysis – Enablers
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are presented in Table. This table provides the estimated values for composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), maximum shared variance (MSV), and Cronbach’s alpha, which are essential indicators for evaluating the reliability and validity of the measurement model.
Table 1.1. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Enablers
Composite Reliability |
Average Variance Extracted |
Maximum Shared Variance |
Cronbach Alpha |
|
Risk Taking Propensity |
0.874 |
0.529 |
0.261 |
.873 |
Proactive Personality |
0.894 |
0.576 |
0.435 |
.891 |
Perceiving Desirability |
0.863 |
0.583 |
0.419 |
.862 |
Perceiving_Feasibility |
0.790 |
0.523 |
0.337 |
.782 |
Risk Taking Propensity |
Proactive Personality |
Perceiving Desirability |
Perceiving Feasibility |
|
Risk Taking Propensity |
0.715 |
|
||
Proactive Personality |
0.504 |
0.736 |
|
|
Perceiving Desirability |
0.556 |
0.576 |
0.722 |
|
Perceiving Feasibility |
0.605 |
0.567 |
0.613 |
0.720 |
Table1.2: Discriminant validity – Enablers
The results of the Fornell-Larcker criterion indicate that the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE), displayed along the main diagonal of the correlation matrix, exceeds the correlation coefficients between each construct and all other constructs (Henseler et al., 2015; Voorhees et al., 2016). This finding confirms that the measurement scale for enablers meets the requirements for both convergent and discriminant validity, thereby establishing its overall validity. Ensuring these forms of validity further strengthens the reliability of the conclusions drawn from the analysis. Additionally, the goodness-of-fit indices of the measurement model, as recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), have been estimated and are presented in Table
CMIN / DF |
CFI |
TLI rho |
RMSEA |
1.535 |
0.913 |
0.886 |
0.061 |
Table1.3: Statistical fitness – Enablers
Validity of the measurement scale – Barriers
Fig2: Confirmatory factor analysis – Barriers
Table 2: Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Barriers
Composite Reliability |
Average Variance Extracted |
Maximum Shared Variance |
Cronbach Alpha |
|
Social Norms |
0.892 |
0.509 |
0.411 |
.881 |
Loss Aversion |
0.823 |
0.515 |
0.470 |
.812 |
Transition Cost |
0.865 |
0.519 |
0.473 |
.864 |
Social Norms |
Loss Aversion |
Transition Cost |
|
Social Norms |
0.714 |
||
Loss Aversion |
0.523 |
0.718 |
|
Transition Cost |
0.486 |
0.688 |
0.719 |
Table 2.1: Discriminant validity – Barriers
CMIN / DF |
CFI |
TLI rho |
RMSEA |
1.593 |
0.9 |
0.878 |
0.064 |
Table2.2: Statistical fitness – Barriers
The findings suggest that the measurement model meets the recommended thresholds for various goodness-of-fit indices. Specifically, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF) falls below the acceptable limit of 5, the comparative fit index (CFI) is 0.9, which aligns with the required standard, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is below 0.08. These results indicate that the model exhibits a satisfactory fit, confirming its suitability in representing the data.
Validity of the measurement scale –Mediating Variables
After ensuring the presence of internal consistency and reliability, the next step is to examine the construct validity of the measurement scales used to assess the Mediators influencing Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurial Intentions (SOEI) in this study. The key Mediators considered in the study are Affective Inertia (AI), Behavioral Inertia (BI), and Cognitive Inertia (CI), These mediating variables are reflective in nature and were measured using specific statements designed to capture the individual aspects of each Mediating Variables. To assess the construct validity of these scales, we used first-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The construct validity is divided into two main categories: convergent validity and discriminant validity.
Fig 3: Confirmatory factor analysis – Mediating Variables
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are presented in Table. This table provides the estimated values for composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), maximum shared variance (MSV), and Cronbach’s alpha, which are essential indicators for evaluating the reliability and validity of the measurement model.
Table3: Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Mediating Variables
Composite Reliability |
Average Variance Extracted |
Maximum Shared Variance |
Cronbach Alpha |
|||||
Affective Inertia |
0.860 |
0.516 |
0.501 |
0.859 |
||||
Behavioral Inertia |
0.789 |
0.517 |
0.455 |
0.788 |
||||
Cognitive Inertia |
0.862 |
0.561 |
0.501 |
0.851 |
||||
Affective Inertia |
Behavioral Inertia |
Cognitive Inertia |
|
|||||
Affective Inertia |
0.724 |
|
||||||
Behavioural Inertia |
0.497 |
0.718 |
|
|||||
Cognitive Inertia |
0.707 |
0.497 |
0.748 |
|
||||
Table 3.1: Discriminant validity – Mediating Variable
CMIN / DF |
CFI |
TLI rho |
RMSEA |
1.557 |
0.913 |
0.907 |
0.063 |
Table3.2: Statistical fitness – Mediating Variables
Hypothesis Development:
The subsequent section elucidates the available literature on theories and models related to SOEI and their relationships with the former.
The TPB model, developed by Ajzen (1985, 1991), is a popular model of entrepreneurial intention to investigate practically all voluntary behaviours, including professional job choice in various areas and sectors. Focusing on the mechanism of sociopsychology of intention development, Ajzen (2011)'s intention model is the most widely cited and influential one. With the focus of the study being at the degree of socio-cognition, it is therefore a suitable intention model to study entrepreneurial intention (Kolvereid, 1996, Ajzen, 2001; Liñan and Chen, 1996; Bargsted et al., 2017; Shook, et al., 2003; Wach et al., 2017). A complex decision-making process, like choosing a career, can be better understood with the aid of the TPB framework (Armitage and Conner, 2001).
The impact of enablers and barriers on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship intentions (SOEI)
In the research, a structural model is developed to indicate the relationship between enablers, barriers, and sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (SOEI). In the structural model, enablers and barriers are considered as zero-order constructs. However, these constructs are measured using different statements that estimate the scores of their respective dimensions.
The enablers are measured using estimated scores of four zero-order constructs: proactive personality (PAP), perceived desirability (PD), perceived feasibility (PF), and risk-taking propensity (RTA). The barriers are measured using estimated scores of three zero-order constructs: social norms (SN), loss aversion (LA), and transition costs (TC). The average scores of all zero-order constructs are calculated and used to define the enablers and barriers constructs.
In this structural model, SOEI is included as the dependent (endogenous) construct, while enablers and barriers are assumed as independent (exogenous) constructs. The model is examined using SMART PLS software. The following hypothesis is tested using the SEM-PLS approach.
Hypothesis: “The Enablers and Barriers have a positive impact on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (SOEI)”
Fig4: Impact of Enablers and Barriers on (SOEI)
Table 4.1: Results of PLS SEM for the relationship between Enablers and Barriers on (SOEI)
Endogenous Construct |
Hypothesis |
Exogenous Construct |
Path Coefficients (Bootstrapping PLS) |
T Stats (P value)
|
Hypothesis Result |
R Square |
sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (SOEI) |
H1 |
Proactive Personality (PAP) |
0.025 |
2.173 (0.003) |
Supported |
72% |
SOEI |
H2 |
Perceived Desirability (PD) |
0.014 |
2.111 (0.035) |
Supported |
|
SOEI |
H3 |
Perceived Feasibility (PF) |
0.041 |
3.098 (0.002) |
Supported |
|
SOEI |
H4 |
Risk-Taking Propensity (PTA) |
0.027 |
1.98 (0.118) |
Not Supported |
|
SOEI |
H5 |
Social Norms (SN) |
0.042 |
2.046 (0.041) |
Supported |
|
SOEI |
H6 |
Loss Aversion (LA) |
0.025 |
2.026 (0.043) |
Supported |
|
SOEI |
H7 |
Transition Costs (TC) |
0.113 |
2.547 (0.011) |
Supported |
In table 4.1 the results of the structural model analysis in PLS-SEM report the path coefficients, t-statistics, p-values, and R-square values is mentioned. The path coefficients indicate that proactive personality (0.025, p-value = 0.003), perceived desirability (0.014, p-value = 0.035), perceived feasibility (0.041, p-value = 0.002), risk-taking propensity (0.027, p-value = 0.118), social norms (0.042, p-value = 0.041), loss aversion (0.025, p-value = 0.043), and transition costs (0.113, p-value = 0.011) have a significant impact on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (SOEI). All relationships in the model are statistically significant at a 5% significance level except risk-taking propensity.
The hypothesis that enablers and barriers influence SOEI is accepted, confirming that both enablers (proactive personality, perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and risk-taking propensity) and barriers (social norms, loss aversion, and transition costs) play a role in shaping entrepreneurial intentions toward sustainability.
The R-square value of the model is found to be 72%, indicating that 72% of the variation in SOEI can be explained by the enablers and barriers included in the model. As suggested by Hair et al. (2019), the R-square value represents the model's explanatory power, also known as in-sample predictive power. An R-square value closer to 1 indicates stronger explanatory ability, while values of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 are considered substantial, moderate, and weak, respectively (Henseler et al., 2009; Hair et al., 2011). The acceptability of the R-square value depends on the research context, and in some cases, even a value of 0.10 is considered satisfactory. The statistical fitness of the model is shown below in table 5
Table5: Statistical fitness measures
Standardized Root Mean Square residual (SRMR) |
Chi Square |
Normed Fit Index (NFI) |
0.069 |
192.643 |
0.830 |
Hypothesis: The impact of Inertia on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship intentions (SOEI)
H8: Affective inertia (AI) negatively mediates the relationship between enablers/barriers and SOEI.
H9: Cognitive inertia (CI) negatively mediates the relationship between enablers/barriers and SOEI.
H10: Behavioural inertia (BI) negatively mediates the relationship between enablers/barriers and SOEI.
Figure6: Impact of Inertia on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship intentions (SOEI)
Table 6.1: Results of PLS SEM for the relationship between mediating variables on (SOEI)
Hypothesis |
Exogenous Construct |
Path Coefficients (Bootstrapping PLS) |
T Stats (P value) |
Results |
H8 |
Proactive Personality (PAP) -> Affective Inertia -> SOEI |
0.022 |
6.24 (0.000) |
Supported |
Perceived Desirability (PD) -> Affective Inertia -> SOEI |
0.019 |
5.31 (0.001) |
Supported |
|
Perceived Feasibility (PF) -> Affective Inertia -> SOEI |
0.036 |
6.97 (0.000) |
Supported |
|
Social Norms (SN) -> Affective Inertia -> SOEI |
0.039 |
7.12 (0.000) |
Supported |
|
Risk-Taking Propensity (RTA) -> Affective Inertia -> SOEI |
0.033 |
6.45 (0.000) |
Supported |
|
Loss Aversion (LA) -> Affective Inertia -> SOEI |
0.028 |
5.92 (0.000) |
Supported |
|
Transition Costs (TC) -> Affective Inertia -> SOEI |
0.03 |
6.10 (0.000) |
Accepted |
|
H9 |
Proactive Personality (PAP) -> Behavioral Inertia -> SOEI |
0.005 |
0.89 (0.376) |
Not Supported |
Perceived Desirability (PD) -> Behavioral Inertia -> SOEI |
0.007 |
1.12 (0.267) |
Not Supported |
|
Perceived Feasibility (PF) -> Behavioral Inertia -> SOEI |
0.006 |
1.02 (0.311) |
Not Supported |
|
Social Norms (SN) -> Behavioral Inertia -> SOEI |
0.008 |
0.94 (0.355) |
Not Supported |
|
Risk-Taking Propensity (RTA) -> Behavioral Inertia -> SOEI |
0.009 |
0.99 (0.328) |
Not Supported |
|
Loss Aversion (LA) -> Behavioral Inertia -> SOEI |
0.01 |
1.08 (0.292) |
Not Supported |
|
Transition Costs (TC) -> Behavioral Inertia -> SOEI |
0.007 |
0.97 (0.340) |
Not Supported |
|
H10 |
Proactive Personality (PAP) -> Cognitive Inertia -> SOEI |
0.023 |
5.89 (0.000) |
Supported |
Perceived Desirability (PD) -> Cognitive Inertia -> SOEI |
0.021 |
6.02 (0.000) |
Supported |
|
Perceived Feasibility (PF) -> Cognitive Inertia -> SOEI |
0.032 |
5.94 (0.000) |
Supported |
|
Social Norms (SN) -> Cognitive Inertia -> SOEI |
0.028 |
5.65 (0.000) |
Supported |
|
Risk-Taking Propensity (RTA) -> Cognitive Inertia -> SOEI |
0.031 |
6.30 (0.000) |
Supported |
|
Loss Aversion (LA) -> Cognitive Inertia -> SOEI |
0.026 |
5.85 (0.000) |
Supported |
|
Transition Costs (TC) -> Cognitive Inertia -> SOEI |
0.029 |
6.12 (0.000) |
Supported |
The impact of Demographic characteristics (DCs) on SOEI In this study, a structural model is developed to examine the impact of demographic characteristics (DCs) on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (SOEI). In the structural model, demographic characteristics are considered as zero-order constructs, measured using different statements that estimate the scores of their respective dimensions.
The demographic characteristics are measured using estimated scores of three zero-order constructs: age, gender, and education. The average scores of these constructs are calculated and used to define the demographic characteristics variable.
In this structural model, SOEI is included as the dependent (endogenous) construct, while demographic characteristics (age, gender, and education) are assumed as independent (exogenous) constructs. The model is analyzed using SMART PLS software, and the following hypothesis is tested using the SEM-PLS approach. Hypothesis: “The demographic characteristics have a positive impact on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (SOEI)”
Fig7: Impact of Demographic Characteristics on (SOEI)
Table7.1: Results of PLS SEM for the relationship between Demographic Characteristics on (SOEI)
Path |
Hypothesis |
Path Coefficients (Bootstrapping PLS) |
T Stats (P value)
|
Hypothesis Result |
Age-> SOIE |
H11 |
0.027 |
2.20 (0.113) |
Not Supported |
Gender -> SOIE |
H12 |
0.018 |
1.60 (0.003) |
Supported |
Education-> SOIE |
H13 |
0.012 |
2.15 (0.031) |
Supported |
The hypothesis examines whether demographic factors positively impact Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneu rial Intentions (SOEI).
The table7.1 exhibits the findings, based on path coefficients (β), T-statistics, and p-values, provide insights into the role of education, age, and gender in shaping sustainability-driven entrepreneurial behaviour.
In the table 7.1 education exhibited a positive association with SOEI (β = 0.012), and its impact was statistically significant (T = 2.15, p = 0.034). These results suggest that individuals with higher educational attainment are more inclined toward sustainability-driven entrepreneurship. Education likely fosters greater awareness of environmental challenges and equips individuals with the skills necessary for sustainable business practices.
In contrast, Age had a weak and statistically insignificant effect on SOEI (β = 0.027, T = 1.98, p = 0.118), indicating that older individuals are not significantly more likely to engage in sustainability-driven entrepreneurship. Although age might be expected to influence entrepreneurial behavior, the p-value of 0.118 suggests that the relationship is not statistically significant. While some research suggests that older individuals may have accumulated knowledge, professional experience, and a heightened sensitivity to long-term sustainability concerns, this study did not find strong evidence for age influencing sustainability-driven entrepreneurship in this context.
Similarly, Gender also showed a weak and statistically insignificant relationship with SOEI (β = 0.018, T = 1.60, p = 0.113). This suggests that men and women demonstrate similar tendencies toward sustainability-focused entrepreneurship. While some previous studies have indicated gender-related variations in entrepreneurial behavior, the findings of this study show that gender differences do not significantly influence engagement in sustainability-driven entrepreneurship, as indicated by the p-value of 0.113.
The hypothesis that demographics positively influence SOEI is partially supported. While education and gender exhibit significant positive effects, age does not contribute meaningfully to sustainability-driven entrepreneurship. This underscores the importance of cognitive and experiential factors over age-based distinctions in shaping entrepreneurial intentions.
This study investigates the antecedents and mediating factors that shape sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (SOEI) among students. The findings provide a deeper understanding of the various enablers, barriers, and the role of inertia in influencing students' entrepreneurial behaviors toward sustainability. Several key insights have emerged, contributing to the understanding of how students develop intentions to pursue sustainability-driven entrepreneurial ventures.
The analysis reveals that traits such as proactive personality, perceived desirability (PD), perceived feasibility (PF), social norms (SN), loss aversion (LA), and transition costs (TC) significantly influence the formation of SOEI. Among these, perceived feasibility (PF) and transition costs (TC) stand out as particularly strong drivers, suggesting that students' confidence in their ability to engage in sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship and their perceptions of the challenges involved are crucial in shaping their entrepreneurial intentions. However, risk-taking propensity (RTA) did not exhibit a significant direct effect on SOEI, implying that factors related to perceived feasibility and external barriers may play a more prominent role.
The study also explored the mediating effect of inertia, emphasizing how different types of inertia—affective, behavioral, and cognitive—impact the relationship between enablers, barriers, and SOEI. Affective inertia, in particular, was found to play a significant role in mediating the relationship between both enablers and barriers and SOEI. This highlights the strong influence of emotional attachment and comfort with existing behaviors, making it more challenging for students to embrace sustainability-driven entrepreneurial ventures. In contrast, behavioral and cognitive inertia did not show significant mediation effects, suggesting that habitual and cognitive resistance to change may not be as influential in shaping SOEI as emotional inertia.
Demographic factors such as age, gender, and education were also found to play an important role in shaping SOEI. While age did not have a significant effect, both gender and education emerged as influential factors, with higher levels of education positively affecting sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions. This underscores the role of education in promoting sustainability-driven entrepreneurial behavior, while gender differences point to potential areas for further research.
Managerial Implications
The results of this study provide valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and organizations looking to foster sustainability-driven entrepreneurship among students. Several key managerial implications can be drawn: Promoting Proactive Personality and Risk-Taking: Since proactive personality is a significant enabler of SOEI, educational programs and initiatives that encourage students to develop a proactive mindset—such as workshops on leadership, innovation, and entrepreneurship—can play a key role in cultivating sustainability-driven ventures. While risk-taking propensity did not directly influence SOEI in this study, it remains an important trait in entrepreneurship. Thus, fostering a supportive environment that encourages calculated risk-taking through case studies, simulations, and real-world entrepreneurial experiences could help build students’ confidence to pursue sustainability-driven initiatives. Increasing Perceived Feasibility and Desirability: The strong impact of perceived feasibility (PF) on SOEI suggests that students are more likely to pursue sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship if they feel it is achievable and within their capabilities. Educational institutions should focus on providing students with practical skills, resources, and mentorship that enhance their confidence in launching and managing sustainability-driven businesses. Additionally, highlighting the societal benefits and personal fulfilment of sustainable entrepreneurship can enhance perceived desirability (PD), motivating students to see value in pursuing these ventures. Addressing Barriers through Education and Policy: Transition costs, loss aversion, and social norms were identified as significant barriers to SOEI. Policymakers and educational institutions should focus on reducing transition costs by providing resources such as incubators, sustainable business models, and funding opportunities. Additionally, addressing social norms and loss aversion can be achieved through awareness campaigns, success stories, and mentorship programs that emphasize the long-term rewards of sustainable entrepreneurship, helping to overcome the perceived risks of change.
Mitigating Inertia as a Psychological Barrier: The study highlights the important role of affective inertia, suggesting that emotional attachment to existing behaviors can act as a major barrier to pursuing sustainability- driven entrepreneurship.