Next Article in Journal
The COVID-19 Risk Perception: A Qualitative Study among the Population in an Urban Setting in Burkina Faso
Previous Article in Journal
Are Companies Committed to Preventing Gender Violence against Women? The Role of the Manager’s Implicit Resistance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/socsci12010013
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Predicting the Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurship Intentions of Business School Students: The Role of Individualistic Values

by
Takawira Munyaradzi Ndofirepi
Business Support Studies, Central University of Technology, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12(1), 13; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010013
Submission received: 1 November 2022 / Revised: 20 December 2022 / Accepted: 21 December 2022 / Published: 26 December 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study sought to determine whether Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour could be used to predict the intention of selected Zimbabwean business school students towards sustainable entrepreneurship. The study also examined whether the relationships between the predictor variables of the theory of planned behaviour and sustainable entrepreneurial intention were moderated by the respondents’ individualistic value orientations. A positivist worldview and a quantitative cross-sectional survey were used to collect data from 210 business school students who had completed postgraduate entrepreneurship courses at two public universities in the western region of Zimbabwe. The predictors of the hypothetical model explained 49 percent of the variance in respondents’ intentions to pursue sustainable entrepreneurship. Only the attitude toward the behaviour variable had a statistically significant direct impact on sustainable entrepreneurial intention. Subjective norms had an indirect effect on sustainable entrepreneurial intention, which was entirely mediated by attitude toward behaviour. Individualistic values had no statistically significant moderating effect on the relationships between the predictors of intention and the intention to engage in sustainable entrepreneurship. The study’s findings have implications for business schools’ efforts to contribute to the goal of sustainable development. The study contributes to the development of the literature by evaluating the relevance of the theory of planned behaviour to sustainable entrepreneurship.

1. Introduction

The extensive support programmes for entrepreneurship worldwide testify to its crucial role in the social and economic development of today’s society (Atiase et al. 2018; Medeiros et al. 2020). While entrepreneurial growth offers consumers a wide range of product options, the industrialisation that creates these products has been accompanied by alarming levels of environmental degradation (including pollution, land degradation, natural resource depletion, climate change, and global warming (Halkos and Polemis 2017; Gulistan et al. 2020), generating increased concern. Approximately 75 per cent of the world’s land is deteriorated, caused mainly by unsustainable human choices and endangering the survival of over three billion people (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2019). For poorer nations, environmental restoration is cost prohibitive. For instance, the annual cost of environmental degradation to Zimbabwean society in 2017 was estimated at USD 382 million, around 6 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product at the time (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 2017). It is suggested that preventive measures are one of the most cost-effective ways to avert the global catastrophe (Basu et al. 2019), hence the call for businesses to pursue a balance of environmental, economic, and social value creation (also known as sustainable entrepreneurship) in accordance with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Higher education institutions contribute to the sustainability action plan by implementing eco-friendly practices and preparing future generations by creating indispensable opportunities to study the latest advancements and developmental requirements for sustainable communities (Habib et al. 2021). In many industrialised nations, higher education institutions offering entrepreneurship training and education are reorienting their educational curricula to inspire their students and graduates to pursue sustainable business following the SDGs (Lourenço et al. 2012). In Germany, for example, state-owned universities have increasingly taken a leading position in regional and economic sustainability in recent years through university-related funding programmes for sustainable management in addition to teaching and research activities (Wagner et al. 2021). Even with this paradigm shift in place, there are worries about university departments’ ability to produce alumni who are sustainability-conscious, given their individualist “profit first” culture (Slater and Dixon-Fowler 2010; Giacalone and Thompson 2006). The prioritization of profits seems to threaten the institutional acceptance of sustainability as a key objective. This is because the implementation of sustainability actions increases the likelihood of declining revenue, a key measure of success for business entities.
Despite a growing body of literature on the role of higher education in sustainable development, research on the relationship between the values instilled in students by for-profit institutions such as business schools and their intent to initiate sustainability initiatives is limited. Even though values and behavioural intentions have a long history in social psychology, it is only recently that they have been examined together in entrepreneurial research (Fayolle et al. 2014; Kruse et al. 2019; Liñán et al. 2016; Hueso et al. 2021), such that low-income countries such as Zimbabwe are under-represented in the literature. As previously indicated, developing countries are overburdened by the concomitant costs of environmental deterioration.
Several studies have examined the different mechanisms through which values are associated with entrepreneurial intentions, including those oriented toward sustainability (Azanza et al. 2007; Gorgievski et al. 2018; Mcdonald 2014; Rantanen and Toikko 2017). However, Hueso et al. (2021) argue that additional research is necessary before a complete understanding of the relationship can be attained. The uncertainty in the literature on the collective influence of human values and predictors of the theory of planned behaviour on sustainability-related entrepreneurial intentions is thus the research gap. Previous research on the collective influence of values and predictors of intentions in the theory has primarily focused on general entrepreneurial intentions. Fayolle et al. (2014) recommend that researchers investigate intention in a variety of entrepreneurial scenarios (e.g., corporate, sustainability, social, or technology-related) in order to rejuvenate and broaden the scope of entrepreneurship intentions research. Because of this, the current study applies Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour to develop a model for determining the predictors of sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship intentions among selected Zimbabwean business school students. Individualistic values, it is postulated, moderate the influence of attitude toward behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control on sustainable entrepreneurship intentions. As a result, the overarching research question is as follows:
Do individualistic values exert a moderating effect on how attitudes toward behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control affect students’ intention to engage in sustainable entrepreneurship?
It is useful to explore the parameters mentioned in the research question and their links for different reasons. To begin with, the findings contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics behind the genesis of complex planned behaviours such as sustainable entrepreneurship. Secondly, individualistic values, which are characterised as a cultural dimension consisting of “a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to look after only themselves and their immediate circle” (Rantanen and Toikko 2017, p. 292), are an integral part of personal goal setting (Bardi and Schwartz 2003) and serve as action guides in difficult situations such as deciding whether to adopt sustainable business practices (Gorgievski et al. 2018). Business school students are appropriate targets for the study because many of them oversee or even own businesses and may eventually launch new ventures with ecological implications. Likewise, they are socialised to the individualistic business school philosophy of ‘profit-first’ and thus serve as ideal data sources for the study. Finally, knowing the relationship between students’ values and intentions for sustainable entrepreneurship potentially affects sustainable entrepreneurship and development policy.
The next section provides an overview of the existing literature on the variables under consideration. Afterwards, an explanation of the methodological approaches and procedures used in the study’s execution follows. The section on the study’s findings is then presented. Finally, a discussion of the findings is offered, along with its implications and limitations, as well as suggested study areas.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Theory of Planned Behaviour

Given that sustainable entrepreneurship is the outcome of a person’s rational evaluation of various behavioural possibilities, Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour offers a workable framework for comprehending the factors driving such entrepreneurial behaviour and is widely used in entrepreneurship intentions research (Maheshwari et al. 2022). The model suggests that volitional acts are a result of personal cognitive processes in which behaviour is determined by three important factors: attitude toward behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. The intention construct, a state of mind that indicates a commitment to carry out a specific action, mediates the effects of the three determinants. Entrepreneurship intention is defined as “a person’s self-admitted view that they intend to launch a new endeavour and have a conscious purpose to do so at some future point” (Thompson 2009, p. 676). This point in the future could be near or far in time or even never happen. Seminal works in entrepreneurship posit that intention is crucial for the development of entrepreneurial activity (Bird 1988; Krueger 2000; Krueger and Brazeal 1994). Intentions are significant because they reveal how hard individuals are willing to work to accomplish an activity (Bird 1988).
Although there are several other theories on entrepreneurial intentions, some of which are compatible and could be applied to the current study, the theory of planned behaviour is more appropriate for this study due to its comparatively wider application, superior versatility, simplicity, and consistent robustness in explaining predetermined behaviour (Tornikoski and Maalaoui 2019). Besides emphasising the mediated effects of attitude toward behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control on behavioural intentions, the theory affirms the possible effects of other exogenous factors on the original model’s key constructs and the interrelations between them. In this research, the individualistic values construct is integrated into the theory of planned behaviour. Nonetheless, the theory of planned behaviour has its limits. One common shortcoming is that it assumes all human behaviour is rational, which minimises the role of irrationality (for example, emotion) in certain choices that people make, including pursuing sustainable business practices.

2.2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

This section details the literature used to frame the study. It also presents the conceptual model emanating from the proposed relationships between variables.

2.2.1. Attitude towards Behaviour and Sustainable Entrepreneurship Intention

The term attitude towards behaviour relates to the degree to which an individual views a certain behaviour favourably or negatively, with an obvious bias in one way (Ajzen 1991). It explains the personal attraction of the goal behaviours, in this study becoming a sustainable entrepreneur. It is analogous to Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) concept of perceived desirability. Individuals establish attitudes about certain behaviours depending on their beliefs about the outcome of the behaviour. People who have a favourable attitude about behaviour are more likely to attempt it, and vice-versa. Several studies show that attitude toward a behaviour is the first and most powerful predictor of behavioural intentions in the theory of planned behaviour model (Doanh and Bernat 2019; Liñán et al. 2011a; Malebana and Swanepoel 2015; Rueda Barrios et al. 2022; Vuorio et al. 2018; Majid et al. 2017; Waris et al. 2021; Vuorio et al. 2018). Moreover, there is documented evidence that a person’s attitude toward the environment influences their behaviour towards the environment and the adoption of sustainable practices (Chekima et al. 2016; Gatersleben et al. 2014). Since the predictive capacity of the theory of planned behaviour model’s determinants varies depending on the context, one area of interest is whether the previously observed positive association between attitude and behavioural intentions persists in the case of sustainable entrepreneurial intentions. As a result, the following hypothesis is advanced:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Attitudes towards behaviour are positively related to sustainable entrepreneurship intention.

2.2.2. Subjective Norms and Sustainable Entrepreneurship Intention

Subjective norms are defined as “the views of social reference groups such as family and friends on whether the individual should engage in the behaviour” (Kautonen et al. 2015). The concept alludes to an individual’s receptiveness to the ideas of those who are socially associated with them when deciding on a course of action. In other words, it represents an individual’s perception of the chance that specific behaviours would be endorsed or condemned by others in their social circle. The empirical findings on the association between subjective norms and entrepreneurial intentions are contradictory. While some studies reveal a positive association (Feola et al. 2019; Karimi et al. 2015; Kautonen et al. 2015; Rueda Barrios et al. 2022), others have found the subjective norms variable to be the weakest predictor of entrepreneurial intentions, and in some cases to have no impact at all (García-Rodríguez et al. 2015; Marques et al. 2012; Majid et al. 2017; Waris et al. 2021). Nonetheless, there is still a need to investigate the impact of subjective norms on entrepreneurship intentions. To begin with, the fact that entrepreneurship is socially embedded (Jack and Anderson 2002) implies that entrepreneurs ordinarily conduct following what is socially accepted and expected, particularly in collectivistic cultural settings and less so in individualistic cultural situations (Vershinina et al. 2018). Moreover, Ajzen (1991) highlighted that the predictive effects of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural varied depending on the situation and should, thus, be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This study thus tackles the less investigated context in the literature of sustainable entrepreneurship intentions. Although the theory of planned behaviour suggests a direct relationship between subjective norms and entrepreneurship intentions, the research recognises a possible indirect relationship through the attitude towards entrepreneurship and perceived behavioural control variables as highlighted by several scholars (Marques et al. 2012; García-Rodríguez et al. 2015; Linan 2008; Liñán et al. 2011b; Boubker et al. 2022). The following hypotheses are thus suggested:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Subjective norms are positively related to sustainable entrepreneurship intention.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Subjective norms are indirectly related to sustainable entrepreneurship intention through attitude towards behaviour.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Subjective norms are indirectly related to sustainable entrepreneurship intention through perceived behavioural control.

2.2.3. Perceived Behavioural Control and Sustainable Entrepreneurship Intention

Liñán et al. (2011b) explain perceived behavioural control as the sense of ease or difficulty of carrying out the desired behaviour. Perceived behavioural control is based on a person’s understanding of the availability of resources and the chance to engage in a behaviour (Ajzen 1991). The concept is theoretically tied to and used interchangeably with Bandura’s (1982) ‘self-efficacy’ and Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) ‘perceived feasibility’ notions. However, Ajzen (2002) claimed that perceived behavioural control is a much wider concept than self-efficacy since it encompasses both self-efficacy and the perceived manageability of an action. Generally, a greater sense of control boosts one’s desire to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour, whereas a diminished sense has the opposite impact. Previous research has shown that perceived behavioural control is a reliable predictor of an individual’s likelihood of completing tough tasks, such as pursuing entrepreneurship (García-Rodríguez et al. 2015; Haus et al. 2013; Karimi et al. 2015; Malebana and Swanepoel 2015; Majid et al. 2017; Waris et al. 2021; Joensuu-Salo et al. 2022), even though Marques et al. (2012) found it to be a non-significant predictor. Given the complexity of pursuing sustainability-related business objectives and the requirement for participants’ self-belief, the following hypothesis is derived:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Perceived behavioural control is positively related to sustainable entrepreneurship intention.

2.2.4. The Moderation Effect of Individualistic Values

Values are defined by Schwartz (1992, p. 21) as “a positive trans-situational goal varying in importance, which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a person or other social entity.” Values are desirable ideals and inspire behaviour towards them (Schwartz 2010). Vital properties of values are that they are inextricably related to the formation of attitudes and operate as action guides. Therefore, they are necessary to understand human conduct. Several studies have shown strong links between personal values and general entrepreneurial intentions (Fayolle et al. 2014; Liñán et al. 2016; Hueso et al. 2021), entrepreneurial career intention (Gorgievski et al. 2018), and social entrepreneurial intention (Kruse et al. 2019). In particular, individualistic values have been linked to stronger entrepreneurial profiles (León et al. 2007; Samydevan et al. 2021). This close interlinkage could be explained by the fact that entrepreneurship is usually driven by personal ambition, and therefore, people who prioritise personal needs and espouse self-reliance are more likely to pursue and thrive in entrepreneurship (Zeffane 2014).
Higher entrepreneurial activity is observed in regions with highly individualistic cultures (Liñán et al. 2016). What remains unclear, however, is whether individualistic values operate independently of other factors when predicting entrepreneurial intention and activity. The current research seeks to contribute to tackling the preceding challenge by responding to Liñán and Fayolle’s (2015) clarion call for additional studies that incorporate new variables and sophisticated alternative combinations of motivational antecedents to intentions in different entrepreneurial contexts. Individualistic values, it is postulated, moderate the impact of attitude towards behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control on sustainable entrepreneurship intentions. As a result, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Individualistic values moderate the influence of attitude towards behaviour on sustainable entrepreneurship intention.
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Individualistic values moderate the influence of subjective norms on sustainable entrepreneurship intention.
Hypothesis 8 (H8).
Individualistic values moderate the influence of perceived behavioural control on sustainable entrepreneurship intention.

2.2.5. Control Variables

The formation of entrepreneurial intentions is complicated and impacted by a variety of factors, many of which are not reflected in the hypothesised model used in this study. However, demographic characteristics are shown in the statistical tests as control factors to minimise omitted variable bias and to restrict alternative interpretations. The importance of contextual or demographic variables in determining entrepreneurial intention is acknowledged by existing literature (Liñán and Chen 2009). Age, gender, marital status, race, family antecedents, educational levels, and prior work and entrepreneurship exposure have all been related to the development of entrepreneurship in the past (Chaudhary 2017; Hatak et al. 2015; Kautonen 2008; Marques et al. 2012; Pruett et al. 2009). Nonetheless, many studies ignore these variables when examining the determinants of entrepreneurial intentions because of their overall weak predictive effects; some scholars tend to ignore demographic variables. In this study, however, we use selected demographic variables (age, gender, marital status, family business background, and previous entrepreneurship exposure) as control variables. Figure 1 depicts the various hypothesised relationships.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Target Population and Data Collection

The study used a positivistic worldview and a quantitative cross-sectional survey design to collect data from Master of Business Administration and Master of Business Leadership degree students from two universities in western Zimbabwe’s business schools. A positivistic worldview assumes that only factual data obtained through scientific observation can be relied upon in research. A cross-sectional survey research design entails collecting data from a population or sample of respondents using a research instrument at a single point in time. The preceding approach was chosen because of its amenability to testing cause-and-effect relationships between variables.
By focusing on postgraduate business school students, the researcher was able to assess the predispositions of prospective sustainable entrepreneurs in line with the study’s focus. Furthermore, having gained entrepreneurship-related competencies in business school, the students were confident in their entrepreneurial abilities and were more likely to consider a career as an entrepreneur.
A survey of a convenience sample of 318 students who had been exposed to entrepreneurship-related courses at the two institutions was conducted electronically using Google forms. With the approval and co-operation of the programme co-ordinators at the participating institution, the researcher managed to access the email addresses of the students to which links to the survey and invitations to participate were sent. The data collection process took place between March and July 2020. However, student participation was voluntary. Respondents were thus recruited via email and based on their willingness to participate in the survey. A total of 210 completed questionnaires were returned to the researcher. The profile of the respondents is presented in Table 1. According to the profile, most of the respondents were female, between the ages of 31 and 40, married, had some entrepreneurial experience through family businesses, and had previously attempted to start a business.

3.2. Measures

Data on sustainable entrepreneurship intention, attitude toward sustainable entrepreneurship, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control were collected using five-point Likert-type scales adapted from Liñán and Chen (2009). The items used to measure individualistic values were adapted from Farrukh et al. (2019). However, the items “Winning is everything” and “When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused” were dropped from the original seven-item instrument because they correlated poorly with the other items used to measure the construct. The questionnaire (see Appendix A) was not pilot tested since it was based on pre-validated scales.

3.3. Data Analysis and Quality Checks

3.3.1. Common Method Variance

Because of common method bias, survey-based studies are prone to measurement errors (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The strength of associations between constructs is exaggerated in such studies. In this study, Harman’s one-factor method was used as a precaution to test for evidence of common method variance. Using exploratory factor analysis, the 23 indicator variables measuring entrepreneurial intentions, attitude toward sustainable entrepreneurship, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control were reduced to a single factor. The single-factor model explained 17.30% of the data variance. This variation was less than 50%, indicating that there was no evidence of common method variance. The findings are summarised in Table 2.

3.3.2. Control Factors

A linear regression analysis was conducted to assess whether the “gender”, “age”, “marital status”, “exposure to the family business”, and “tried to start a business before” variables significantly predicted sustainable entrepreneurship intention. The results of the linear regression model were not significant, F(7,97) = 0.65, p = 0.718, R2 = 0.04, signifying that the predictors did not explain a significant proportion of variation in sustainable entrepreneurship intention. Because both the overall model and regression coefficients for the individual demographic were not statistically significant, the individual predictors were not included in further analyses. The regression model’s findings are summarised in Table 3.

4. Findings

Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to test the study hypotheses. Smart PLS version 3.3.3 computer software was used for this purpose. PLS-SEM is a variance-based non-parametric structural equation modelling technique used to test cause-and-effect relationships between scale variables. It is a robust alternative to traditional covariance-based structural equation modelling. PLS-SEM was used as a data analysis method because, unlike covariance-based SEM, it does not make any specific assumptions about the dataset’s characteristics. As a result, the technique was deemed appropriate for the current study, which was based on non-probability sampling data, the characteristics of which could not have been normally distributed, as required for covariance-based analysis. The process of data analysis in PLS-SEM consists of two steps: (1) evaluation of the measurement (outer) model and (2) assessment of the structural (internal model) model.

4.1. Assessment of the Reflective Measurement Model

The measurement model serves to evaluate the reliability and validity of construct indicator items. The following issues are examined: internal consistency or reliability, construct validity, and discriminant validity. Firstly, internal consistency is measured using the Cronbach alpha index. Cronbach alpha indices range from 0 to 1, and a value of at least 0.7 for a particular construct indicates an acceptable level of internal consistency. All the five latent variables examined in the study had acceptable levels of reliability (internal consistency)—see Table 4. Additionally, the composite reliability values for each construct were at least 0.7, demonstrating satisfactory reliability of construct indicators. Secondly, construct validity is ascertained using the average value extracted (AVE), where a value of at least 0.5 suggests satisfactory construct validity. Based on the two criteria, all variables had adequate construct validity levels (See Table 4).
Lastly, discriminant validity was ascertained using the Fornell–Larcker and heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) criteria. In the Fornell–Larcker technique, discriminant validity exists between variables when the square root of the average variance extracted for each variable is greater than the correlations between them. The bold diagonal values in Table 5 are the square roots of the extracted average variance, while the figures below them show the correlations between the variables. In the case of the HTMT, discriminant validity exists between variables when the HTMT coefficients are less than 0.90. The information presented in Table 5 and Table 6 thus confirms the existence of discriminant validity.

4.2. Assessment of the Structural Model

This subsection provides the results of the structural model test. The links between exogenous and endogenous variables are represented by a structural model. The structural model’s robustness was evaluated using R2 (coefficient of determination), Stone–Geisser’s Q2, f-square effect size, and path coefficients. The R2 statistic shows the extent of the predictor(s) effect on the outcome variables, whereas path coefficients indicate the direction, strength, and significance of between-variable interactions. The variable of sustainable entrepreneurial intention yielded a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.49 (see Figure 2), indicating that the exogenous factors had moderate strength predictive potential (Chin 1998). R2 values of 0.102 and 0.038 for the attitude toward sustainable entrepreneurship and perceived behavioural control variables, respectively, indicate weak predictive power.
In addition to the R2, Stone–Geisser’s Q2 value was calculated using the blindfolding approach (cross-validated redundancy methodology) to assess the predictive effectiveness of the structural model. Exogenous variables with Q2 values at least 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35, respectively, have weak, moderate, and strong predictive relevance to endogenous variables (Thompson 2009). Q2 values of 0.37, 0.062, and 0.013 were reported for sustainable entrepreneurship intention, attitude toward behaviour, and perceived behavioural control, respectively.
Aside from the foregoing, the f-square effect size values were calculated. These values represent the change in R-Square when a particular predictor is excluded from a regression model. According to Cohen (1988), effect sizes are interpreted as follows: (≥0.02 is small; ≥0.15 is medium; ≥0.35 is large. Table 7 presents a summary of the f-square values for the hypothesised relationships. From Table 7, the effect size of the relationship between attitude towards behaviour and sustainable entrepreneurship intention was large. The effect size of the relationship between subjective norms and attitude towards behaviour and subjective norms and perceived behavioural control were small (0.106 and 0.040, respectively).
To establish the statistical significance of each hypothesised relationship path, a conventional bootstrapping approach with 500 resamples consisting of the same amount of cases as in the original sample is used. The results in Table 8 show that H1 is supported, meaning attitude towards behaviour had a significant positive relationship with sustainable entrepreneurship intention (beta = 0.579, p < 0.000). Whereas the indirect effects of subjective norms on sustainable entrepreneurship intention were statistically significant (beta = 0.180, p < 0.000), the direct effects were not (beta = 0.093, p < 0.135). Therefore, H2 is not supported. H3 is supported, inferring that the effect of subjective norms on sustainable entrepreneurship intention is fully mediated by attitude towards behaviour. All other hypotheses were not supported.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether individualistic values affected the linkages between sustainable entrepreneurship intention and its three predictors according to the theory of planned behaviour. Equally, it sought to establish whether the assumptions of the Ajzen’s (1991) model could be used to predict the sustainable entrepreneurship intention of selected business school students in a developing country.
Firstly, the most prominent outcome from this study is that attitude toward behaviour had a strong positive link with the intention to engage in sustainable entrepreneurship. The results are consistent with earlier research in the realms of entrepreneurship and prosocial behaviour that used the theory of planned behaviour as a reference frame (Chekima et al. 2016; Gatersleben et al. 2014) and confirmed the major role of attitudes in the creation of behavioural intention and, subsequently, behaviour. The outcome corroborates recent findings by Rueda Barrios et al. (2022) and Boubker et al. (2022), which also confirmed a positive relationship between attitude towards behaviour and sustainable entrepreneurial intentions.
Secondly, the direct association between subjective norms and sustainable entrepreneurship intention was found to be statistically non-significant in this study. However, an indirect effect of social norms on sustainable entrepreneurship intention was confirmed, which was fully mediated by attitude towards behaviour. While this relationship pattern is not in sync with the assumptions of the theory of planned behaviour, it is consistent with observations of Fenech et al. (2019), Autio et al. (2001), and Liñán et al. (2011a) that the relationship between subjective norms and behavioural intentions is at best weak and sometimes non-significant. The result supports Marques et al.’s (2012) and García-Rodríguez et al.’s (2015) hypothesis that subject norms may influence entrepreneurial ambitions as well as the other two determinants, attitude toward behaviour and perceived behavioural control.
The most unexpected observation is that the association between perceived behavioural control and sustainable entrepreneurship intentions was not statistically significant. This finding contradicts multiple research that claimed that one’s confidence in performing an activity played a substantial role in one’s intention to undertake that activity (García-Rodríguez et al. 2015; Karimi et al. 2015; Malebana and Swanepoel 2015). One possible explanation for these findings is that for the respondents, who were postgraduate business school students immersed in a profit-first environment, pursuing a commercial enterprise that went beyond the primary business goal of profits was a sentimental decision rather than one based on perceived abilities to perform. As a result, attitudes influenced their propensity to participate in sustainable practices more than perceived capabilities. This finding, however, is consistent with that of Vuorio et al. (2018), who found no link between perceived feasibility and sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions, and Ayob et al. (2013), who discovered no relationship between perceived entrepreneurial feasibility and social entrepreneurial intentions.
Individualistic values have previously been shown to influence different forms of entrepreneurial intentions in students (Downes et al. 2017; Liñán et al. 2016). This appeared not to be the case in this study. The direct association between individualistic values and intention to engage in sustainable entrepreneurship was not statistically significant. Similarly, the theorised moderating effect of individualistic values on the relationship between the three antecedents of intentions specified in the theory of planned behaviour and the intention to engage in sustainable entrepreneurship was also found not to be significant. The findings contradict the suggestions by Fayolle et al. (2014) and Delanoë-Gueguen and Liñán (2019) that personal values may moderate the relationships between predictor and independent variables in the theory of planned behaviour. The observed result, however, is consistent with Verplanken and Holland’s (2002) assertion that though personal values are more enduring constructs than attitudes, they are not always invoked when individuals make decisions and actions. Thus, the respondents’ choice to pursue sustainable entrepreneurship may be opportunistic and unrelated to their value system. As with the unpredictability in the attitude–behaviour relationship, an ambiguity in the value–behaviour connection can also be inferred.

6. Conclusions

In this section, theoretical and practical applications of the study, as well as the limitations and areas for further research, are proposed.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

The paper represents a notable step forward in gaining a deeper knowledge of sustainable entrepreneurship intentions and has practical consequences in the unique environment of Zimbabwean business schools. Prior studies have highlighted the importance of higher education institutions in enhancing sustainability performance in societies (Dagiliūtė and Liobikienė 2015; Yuan et al. 2013). The study investigated a novel conceptual model that incorporated the individualistic values variable to see if assumptions of the theory of planned behaviour can be applied to the field of sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship. The study discovered statistically insignificant direct correlations between perceived behavioural control and sustainable entrepreneurship intentions, as well as subjective norms and sustainable entrepreneurial intentions. It also disconfirmed the hypothesised moderating effect of individualistic values in the numerous interactions between main constructs in the theory of planned behaviour. However, it confirmed that attitude toward a behaviour is the most powerful predictor of intention. It also lends evidence to the notion that the influence of subjective norms on sustainable entrepreneurship intention in the theory of planned behaviour is potentially mediated by other variables. Overall, the study findings illustrate the possibility of context-specific deviations in the theory of planned behaviour’s application.

6.2. Practical Implications

The results also have practical implications. They suggest that the most important determinant of sustainable entrepreneurship intention is the attitude towards behaviour. Given this, business schools should focus their efforts primarily on shifting the attitudes of their targeted audiences to nurture entrepreneurs who are more oriented toward sustainable business methods. Such efforts could take the form of sustainability-related curriculum content and activities aimed at increasing participants’ understanding of the benefits of sustainable entrepreneurship as well as their motivation and capabilities to pursue it.
Additionally, the study discovered that subjective norms had a substantial indirect effect on individuals’ choice to pursue sustainable business practices via their attitude toward behaviour. The implication is that business schools, as critical social institutions in their students’ lives, should deliberately foster an institutional environment that stimulates sustainable entrepreneurship. This is possible if business schools incorporate the concept of sustainability into their fundamental values and students believe the institutions live according to the stated principle. Business schools can have a social influence on their students by adopting a holistic approach to sustainability that encompasses teaching, research, institutional processes, physical infrastructure, community involvement, and stakeholder relationships.

6.3. Limitations and Areas for Further Research

While the findings of this study are critical to understanding sustainable entrepreneurial intentions, the research has some limitations, most notably those on the representativeness of the outcomes. While a census of all applicable respondents was attempted, participation was voluntary, and approximately 66.8% of the target population responded. Thus, the statistical representativeness of the results could have been undermined.
Furthermore, the study relied on the perspectives of respondents drawn from postgraduate students from only two business schools in Zimbabwe. As a result, the insights gathered are bound to narrow contexts and should be used with caution. In future investigations, it may be beneficial to undertake a similar study, but which targets students from all the business schools in Zimbabwe so that more representative inferences can be drawn. Another detailed study on the effects of a more comprehensive range of human values (not individualism only) on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship is also proposed for future investigation.
The survey was cross-sectional in design, gathering opinions from students only when they had completed a postgraduate course in entrepreneurship. Future research should strengthen the credibility of the findings by using a longitudinal strategy in which there are pre-tests and post-tests of student opinions when they enrol and when they graduate from the entrepreneurship course.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

No ethical approval was requested from any institutional body. As a result, the individual researcher is personally liable for any allegations made against this research.

Informed Consent Statement

All respondents provided verbal informed consent, and their participation was entirely voluntary.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available in a reasonable time on request for the data from the researcher.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank all the respondents and research assistants who took part in the data-gathering process.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that he has no known competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Sustainable Entrepreneurship Intention Questionnaire

Instructions to respondents:
  • Please be as honest as possible in completing this questionnaire
  • Your answers will be kept confidential
  • Indicate your response by encircling or ticking the relevant option in the boxes provided
Section A: Personal Details
1. Gender
 Male1Female2
2. Age
Below 21 years 1
21–30 years2
31–40 years3
41–50 years4
More than 51 years5
3. Marital Status
NOT married1Married 2
4. Highest Qualification
High school1
Tertiary certificate2
Diploma/degree3
Other (specify)4
5. Current field of study
Applied Sciences1
Business/Commerce2
Engineering3
6. Past employment experience and entrepreneurial knowledge (Mark with an “X” in the appropriate box)
a. Have you ever been employed before?
Yes1No2
b. Are any of your family members or personal connections running a business?
Yes1No2
c. Have you ever tried to start a business before?
Yes1No2
  • Sustainable Entrepreneurship Intentions. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree
I’m ready to do anything to become an environmentally conscious entrepreneur12345
My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur who supports environmentally sustainable business practices12345
I will make every effort to start and run my own business that supports environmentally friendly business practices12345
I am determined to create a business in the future12345
I have a serious thought of starting a business that is environmentally sustainable12345
I have got a firm intention to start a business that runs along environmentally friendly lines someday12345
  • Social approval. Regarding the creation of your business in the near future, to what extent do the following people approve of this decision?
Strongly DisapproveDisapproveNeither Approve nor DisapproveApproveStrongly Approve
Your close family12345
Your friends12345
Your colleagues and mates12345
  • Attitude towards entrepreneurship. Do you agree with the following statements?
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree
A career as entrepreneur is attractive to me12345
- Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages for me12345
- If I had the opportunity and resources, I’d like to start a firm12345
- Being an entrepreneur would entail great satisfactions for me12345
- Among various options, I’d rather be an entrepreneur12345
  • Perceived behavioural control. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree
Start a firm and keep it working would be easy for me12345
- I’m prepared to start a viable firm 12345
- I can control the creation process of a new firm—I know the necessary practical details to start a firm12345
- I know how to develop an entrepreneurial project
  • Individualistic values. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree
I’d rather depend on myself than others.12345
I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others.12345
I often do “my own thing.”12345
My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me.12345
It is important that I do my job better than others12345
Winning is everything.
When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused.

References

  1. Ajzen, Icek. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ajzen, Icek. 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32: 665–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Atiase, Victor Yawo, Samia Mahmood, Yong Wang, and David Botchie. 2018. Developing entrepreneurship in Africa: Investigating critical resource challenges. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 25: 644–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Autio, Erkko, Robert H. Keeley, Magnus Klofsten, George G. C. Parker, and Michael Hay. 2001. Entrepreneurial Intent among Students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies 2: 145–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ayob, Noorseha, Ching Seng Yap, Dewi Amat Sapuan, and Md Zabid Abdul Rashid. 2013. Social entrepreneurial intention among business undergraduates: An emerging economy perspective. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business 15: 249–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Azanza, Garazi, José Antonio Campos, and Juan Antonio Moriano. 2007. Entrepreneurial Intentions and Values in the Basque Country. Universidad de Deusto, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bandura, Albert. 1982. The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 13: 195–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bardi, Anat, and Shalom H. Schwartz. 2003. Values and behaviour: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29: 1207–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Basu, Sanghita, Mousumi Roy, and Parimal Pal. 2019. Corporate greening in a large developing economy: Pollution prevention strategies. Environment, Development and Sustainability 21: 1603–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bird, Barbara. 1988. Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideass: The Case for Intention. Academy of Management Learning & Education 13: 442–53. [Google Scholar]
  11. Boubker, Omar, Khaled Naoui, Abdelaziz Ouajdouni, and Maryem Arroud. 2022. The effect of action-based entrepreneurship education on intention to become an entrepreneur. MethodsX 9: 101657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Chaudhary, Richa. 2017. Demographic factors, personality and entrepreneurial inclination: A study among Indian university students. Education + Training 59: 171–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chekima, Brahim, Syed Azizi Wafa Syed Khalid Wafa, Oswald Aisat Igau, Sohaib Chekima, and Stephen Laison Sondoh Jr. 2016. Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: Does premium price and demographics matter to green purchasing? Journal of Cleaner Production 112: 3436–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chin, Wynne W. 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research 295: 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dagiliūtė, Renata, and Genovaitė Liobikienė. 2015. University contributions to environmental sustainability: Challenges and opportunities from the Lithuanian case. Journal of Cleaner Production 108: 891–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Delanoë-Gueguen, Servane, and Francisco Liñán. 2019. A longitudinal analysis of the influence of career motivations on entrepreneurial intention and action. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 36: 527–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Doanh, Duong Cong, and Tomasz Bernat. 2019. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention among Vietnamese students: A meta-analytic path analysis based on the theory of planned behavior. Procedia Computer Science 159: 2447–60. [Google Scholar]
  19. Downes, Patrick E., Amy L. Kristof-Brown, Timothy A. Judge, and Todd C. Darnold. 2017. Motivational Mechanisms of Self-Concordance Theory: Goal-Specific Efficacy and Person–Organization Fit. Journal of Business and Psychology 32: 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Farrukh, Muhammad, Jason Wai Chow Lee, Muhammad Sajid, and Abdul Waheed. 2019. Entrepreneurial intentions: The role of individualism and collectivism in perspective of theory of planned behaviour. Education + Training 61: 984–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fayolle, Alain, Francisco Liñán, and Juan A. Moriano. 2014. Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: Values and motivations in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 10: 679–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fenech, Roberta, Priya Baguant, and Dan Ivanov. 2019. Entrepreneurial attitudes, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions of Emirati entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship 21: 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  23. Feola, Rosangela, Massimiliano Vesci, Antonio Botti, and Roberto Parente. 2019. The Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intention of Young Researchers: Combining the Theory of Planned Behavior with the Triple Helix Model. Journal of Small Business Management 57: 1424–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. García-Rodríguez, Francisco J., Esperanza Gil-Soto, Inés Ruiz-Rosa, and Papa Mamour Sene. 2015. Entrepreneurial intentions in diverse development contexts: A cross-cultural comparison between Senegal and Spain. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 11: 511–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gatersleben, Birgitta, Niamh Murtagh, and Wokje Abrahamse. 2014. Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour. Contemporary Social Science: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences 9: 374–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Giacalone, Robert A., and Kenneth R. Thompson. 2006. Business ethics and social responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning & Education 5: 266–77. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gorgievski, Marjan J., Ute Stephan, Mariola Laguna, and Juan Antonio Moriano. 2018. Predicting Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Values and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Career Assessment 26: 457–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gulistan, Ayesha, Yasir Bin Tariq, and Malik Fahim Bashir. 2020. Dynamic relationship among economic growth, energy, trade openness, tourism, and environmental degradation: Fresh global evidence. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27: 13477–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Habib, Muhammad Nauman, Uzma Khalil, Zunnoorain Khan, and Muhammad Zahid. 2021. Sustainability in higher education: What is happening in Pakistan? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 22: 681–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Halkos, George E., and Michael L. Polemis. 2017. Does financial development affect environmental degradation? Evidence from the OECD countries. Business Strategy and the Environment 26: 1162–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hatak, Isabella, Rainer Harms, and Matthias Fink. 2015. Age, job identification and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Managerial Psychology 30: 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Haus, Inga, Holger Steinmetz, Rodrigo Isidor, and Rüdiger Kabst. 2013. Gender effects on entrepreneurial intention: A meta-analytical structural equation. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 5: 130–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hueso, Juan Alberto, Inmaculada Jaén, and Francisco Liñán. 2021. From personal values to entrepreneurial intention: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 27: 205–30. [Google Scholar]
  34. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2019. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Edited by Sandra Díaz, Josef Settele, Eduardo Brondizio, Hien T. Ngo, Alexander Pfaff, Stephen Polasky, John Agard, Almut Arneth, Patricia Balvanera, Kate A. Brauman and et al. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat. [Google Scholar]
  35. Jack, Sarah L., and Alistair R. Anderson. 2002. The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing 17: 467–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Joensuu-Salo, Sanna, Anmari Viljamaa, and Elina Varamäki. 2022. Sustainable Entrepreneurs of the Future: The Interplay between Educational Context, Sustainable Entrepreneurship Competence, and Entrepreneurial Intentions. Administrative Sciences 12: 23. [Google Scholar]
  37. Karimi, Saeid, Harm J. A. Biemans, Karim Naderi Mahdei, Thomas Lans, Mohammad Chizari, and Martin Mulder. 2015. Testing the relationship between personality intentions in a developing country. International Journal of Psychology 3: 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kautonen, Teemu. 2008. Understanding the older entrepreneur: Comparing third age and prime age entrepreneurs in Finland. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management 3: 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kautonen, Teemu, Marco Van Gelderen, and Matthias Fink. 2015. Robustness of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions Robustness of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39: 655–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Krueger, Norris F., Jr. 2000. The Cognitive Infrastructure of Opportunity Emergence. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 24: 9–27. [Google Scholar]
  41. Krueger, Norris F., Jr., and Deborah V. Brazeal. 1994. Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 18: 91–104. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kruse, Philipp, Dominika Wach, Sílvia Costa, and Juan Antonio Moriano. 2019. Values Matter, Don’t They? –Combining Theory of Planned Behavior and Personal Values as Predictors of Social Entrepreneurial Intention. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Routledge 10: 55–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. León, Juan Antonio Moriano, Francisco José Palací Descals, and José Francisco Morales Domínguez. 2007. The psychosocial profile of the university entrepreneur. Psychology in Spain 11: 72–84. [Google Scholar]
  44. Linan, Francisco. 2008. Skill and value perceptions: How do they affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 4: 257–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liñán, Francisco, and Alain Fayolle. 2015. A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 11: 907–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liñán, Francisco, and Yi-Wen Chen. 2009. Development and Cross-Cultural Application of a Specific Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 2009: 593–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liñán, Francisco, David Urbano, and Maribel Guerrero. 2011a. Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 23: 187–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liñán, Francisco, Juan A. Moriano, and Inmaculada Jaén. 2016. Individualism and entrepreneurship: Does the pattern depend on the social context? International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 34: 760–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liñán, Francisco, Juan Carlos Rodríguez-Cohard, and José M. Rueda-Cantuche. 2011b. Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 7: 195–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lourenço, Fernando, Oswald Jones, and Dilani Jayawarna. 2012. Promoting sustainable development: The role of entrepreneurship education. International Small Business Journal 31: 841–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Majid, Izaidin Abdul, Aziz Latif, and Wei-Loon Koe. 2017. SMEs’ intention towards sustainable entrepreneurship. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 3: 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Maheshwari, Greeni, Khanh Linh Kha, and Anantha Raj A. Arokiasamy. 2022. Factors affecting students’ entrepreneurial intentions: A systematic review (2005–2022) for future directions in theory and practice. Management Review Quarterly, 1–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Malebana, Makgabo Justice, and Elena Swanepoel. 2015. Graduate entrepreneurial intentions in the rural provinces of South Africa. South African Business Review 19: 89–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Marques, Carla S., João J. Ferreira, Daniela N. Gomes, and Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues. 2012. How psychological, demographic and behavioural factors predict the entrepreneurial intention. Education + Training 54: 657–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mcdonald, Faye. 2014. Developing an integrated conceptual framework of pro-environmental behavior in the workplace through synthesis of the current literature. Administrative Sciences 4: 276–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Medeiros, Vitor, Carla Marques, Anderson Rei Galvão, and Vitor Braga. 2020. Innovation and entrepreneurship as drivers of economic development: Differences in European economies based on quadruple helix model. Competitiveness Review 30: 681–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pruett, Mark, Rachel Shinnar, Bryan Toney, Francisco Llopis, and Jerry Fox. 2009. Explaining entrepreneurial intentions of university students: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 15: 571–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rantanen, Teemu, and Timo Toikko. 2017. The relationship between individualism and entrepreneurial intention—A Finnish perspective. Journal of Enterprising Communities 11: 289–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rueda Barrios, Gladys E., Juan F. Reyes Rodriguez, Alejandro Villarraga Plaza, Claudia P. Vélez Zapata, and María E. Gómez Zuluaga. 2022. Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Colombia: Exploration based on the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Education for Business 97: 176–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Samydevan, Vijeyan, Mohd Rushidi bin Mohd Amin, and Shishi Kumar Piaralal. 2021. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention among school students in Malaysia: An empirical study. Journal of Education for Business 96: 359–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Schwartz, Shalom. 2010. Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our Nature. Edited by Mario Mikulincer and Phillip R. Shaver. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 221–41. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1chrzn5.17 (accessed on 9 June 2021).
  63. Schwartz, Shalom. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25. Edited by Mark Zanna. Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 1–65. [Google Scholar]
  64. Shapero, Albert, and Lisa Sokol. 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Edited by Calvin A. Kent, Donald L. Sexton and Karl H. Vesper. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, pp. 72–90. [Google Scholar]
  65. Slater, Daniel J., and Heather R. Dixon-Fowler. 2010. The future of the planet in the hands of MBAs: An examination of CEO MBA education and corporate environmental performance. Academy of Management Learning & Education 9: 429–41. [Google Scholar]
  66. Thompson, Edmund R. 2009. Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 669–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tornikoski, Erno, and Adnane Maalaoui. 2019. Critical reflections—The Theory of Planned Behaviour: An interview with Icek Ajzen with implications for entrepreneurship research. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 37: 536–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. 2017. Investing in Land Degradation Neutrality: Zimbabwe Country Profile. Available online: https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/inline-files/Zimbabwe.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
  69. Verplanken, Bas, and Rob W. Holland. 2002. Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 434–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Vershinina, Natalia, Kassa Woldesenbet Beta, and William Murithi. 2018. How does national culture enable or constrain entrepreneurship? Exploring the role of Harambee in Kenya. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 25: 687–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vuorio, Anna Maija, Kaisu Puumalainen, and Katharina Fellnhofer. 2018. Drivers of entrepreneurial intentions in sustainable entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 24: 359–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Wagner, Marcus, Stefan Schaltegger, Erik G. Hansen, and Klaus Fichter. 2021. University-linked programmes for sustainable entrepreneurship and regional development: How and with what impact? Small Business Economics 56: 1141–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Waris, Idrees, Muhammad Farooq, Irfan Hameed, and Atif Shahab. 2021. Promoting sustainable ventures among university students in Pakistan: An empirical study based on the theory of planned behavior. On the Horizon 29: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yuan, Xueliang, Jian Zuo, and Donald Huisingh. 2013. Green universities in China–what matters? Journal of Cleaner Production 61: 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zeffane, Rachid. 2014. Does collectivism necessarily negate the spirit of entrepreneurship? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 20: 278–96. [Google Scholar]
Socsci 12 00013 g001 550
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of hypothesised relationships.
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of hypothesised relationships.
Socsci 12 00013 g001
Socsci 12 00013 g002 550
Figure 2. Model test results.
Figure 2. Model test results.
Socsci 12 00013 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents.
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents.
Variable FrequencyPercent (%)
GenderMale9645.7
Female11454.3
Age distribution21–30 years6430.5
31–40 years11253.3
41–50 years3215.2
More than 50 years21
Marital statusNot married6832.4
Married14267.7
Previous exposure to entrepreneurship through family business Yes18688.6
No2411.5
Tried starting own business beforeYes18085.7
No3014.3
Table
Table 2. Eigenvalues, percentages of variance, and cumulative percentages for factors for the 23-item variable set.
Table 2. Eigenvalues, percentages of variance, and cumulative percentages for factors for the 23-item variable set.
FactorEigenvalue% of VarianceCumulative %
19.3417.3017.30
Table
Table 3. Results for linear regression with demographic variable predicting sustainable entrepreneurship intention.
Table 3. Results for linear regression with demographic variable predicting sustainable entrepreneurship intention.
VariableBSE95% CIβtp
(Intercept)19.312.24[14.86, 23.77]0.008.61<0.001
Gender: Male0.081.11[−2.13, 2.29]0.010.070.945
Age: 31–40 years1.961.31[−0.64, 4.55]0.191.500.138
Age: 41–55 years1.401.79[−2.16, 4.96]0.100.780.438
Marital Status: Not married1.131.20[−1.25, 3.51]0.100.940.349
Exposure to family business: Yes1.241.75[−2.24, 4.71]0.070.710.482
Tried to start a business before: Yes1.091.58[−2.05, 4.23]0.070.690.492
Note. Results: F(7,97) = 0.65, p = 0.718, R2 = 0.04. Unstandardised Regression Equation: Sustainable entrepreneurship intentions = 19.31 + 0.08*Gender: Male + 1.96*Age: 31–40 years + 1.40*Age: 41–55 years + 1.13*Marital Status: Not married + 1.24*Exposure to family business: Yes + 1.09*Tried to start business before: Yes.
Table
Table 4. Quality criteria.
Table 4. Quality criteria.
VariableAverage Variance ExtractedComposite ReliabilityCronbach Alpha
Attitude towards behaviour0.69240.91810.8881
Individualistic values0.57290.86790.8073
Perceived behavioural control0.56690.83870.7763
Sustainable entrepreneurship intentions0.78830.95710.9463
Subjective norms0.64650.8430.7582
Table
Table 5. Fornell–Larcker criterion.
Table 5. Fornell–Larcker criterion.
Attitude towards BehaviourIndividualistic ValuesPerceived Behavioural ControlSubjective NormsSustainable Entrepreneurship Intentions
Attitude towards behaviour0.832
Individualistic values0.1820.756
Perceived behavioural control0.2660.1660.760
Subjective norms0.3100.1410.1950.810
Sustainable entrepreneurship intentions0.6600.2690.2130.3120.840
Table
Table 6. Heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT).
Table 6. Heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT).
Attitude towards BehaviourIndividualistic ValuesPerceived Behavioural ControlSubjective NormsSustainable Entrepreneurship Intention
Attitude towards behaviour
Individualistic values0.206
Perceived behavioural controls0.2780.186
Subjective norms0.3320.2210.217
Sustainable entrepreneurship intention0.7250.2950.2130.333-
Table
Table 7. F-square effect sizes.
Table 7. F-square effect sizes.
Attitude towards BehaviourPerceived Behavioural ControlSustainable Entrepreneurship Intention
Attitude towards behaviour 0.529
Individualistic values 0.039
Perceived behavioural control 0.000
Subjective norms0.1060.0400.014
Individualistic values × Perceived behavioural control 0.014
Individualistic values × Attitude towards behaviour 0.023
Individualistic values × Subjective norms 0.014
Table
Table 8. Hypotheses test results.
Table 8. Hypotheses test results.
Relationship PathDirectIndirectTotalOutcome
Betap-ValuesBetap-ValuesBetap-Values
H1: ATB → SEI0.5790.000 0.5790.000Significant
H2: SN → SEI0.0930.135 0.270.000Significant
H3: SN → ATB → SEI 0.1800.000 Significant
H4: SN → PBC → SEI −0.0030.829 Not Significant
H5: PBC → SEI−0.0150.808 −0.0150.808Not Significant
H6: IV × ATB → SEI−0.1290.088 −0.1290.088Not Significant
H7: IV × SN → SEI0.0990.165 0.0990.165Not Significant
H8: IV × PBC → SEI0.0960.105 0.0960.105Not Significant
SN → ATB0.3100.000 0.3100.000Significant
SN → PBC0.1950.002 0.1950.002Significant
IV → SEI0.1480.005 0.1480.005Significant
ATB → attitude towards behaviour; SN → subjective norms; PBC → perceived behavioural control; IV → individualistic values; SEI → sustainable entrepreneurship intention.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ndofirepi, T.M. Predicting the Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurship Intentions of Business School Students: The Role of Individualistic Values. Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010013

AMA Style

Ndofirepi TM. Predicting the Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurship Intentions of Business School Students: The Role of Individualistic Values. Social Sciences. 2023; 12(1):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010013

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ndofirepi, Takawira Munyaradzi. 2023. "Predicting the Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurship Intentions of Business School Students: The Role of Individualistic Values" Social Sciences 12, no. 1: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010013

APA Style

Ndofirepi, T. M. (2023). Predicting the Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurship Intentions of Business School Students: The Role of Individualistic Values. Social Sciences, 12(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010013

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop