• No results found

Entrepreneurial intention: Factors influencing would-be entrepreneurs to start a sustainable venture

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Entrepreneurial intention: Factors influencing would-be entrepreneurs to start a sustainable venture"

Copied!
51
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Entrepreneurial intention: Factors influencing would-be

entrepreneurs to start a sustainable venture

Written by Anna E. Hoogstraten (S2722496; B170807304)

Submission date: December 3th, 2018

Degree information:

DDM – Advanced International Business Management and Marketing University of Groningen,

Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands

Email: A.E.Hoogstraten@student.rug.nl &

Newcastle University Business School, 5 Barrack Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne

NE1 4SE, The United Kingdom Email: L.Hoogstraten2@newcastle.ac.uk

Supervised by: Dr. J. Kimmitt

Newcastle University Business School, 5 Barrack Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne

(2)

2

Entrepreneurial intention: Factors influencing would-be

entrepreneurs to start a sustainable venture

Abstract1

Research aim – Sustainable ventures have become more important because

of the increase in environmental and social problems, since these ventures are focused on solutions to environmental market failures, such as developing ways to reduce the waste of inefficient producing firms. This research is thus focused on the question “To what extent do would-be entrepreneurs have the intention to start a sustainable venture, and which factors influence this intention?”. A focus is placed on the internal factors prior knowledge, sustainability orientation, altruism and extrinsic reward focus, and the external factors nature of entrepreneurship education and the sustainable entrepreneur’s family.

Research design – Would-be entrepreneurs are viewed as students or alumni

who are following or have followed entrepreneurial courses. A quantitative online survey is used to test the hypotheses. The survey was distributed under would-be entrepreneurs from the University of Groningen and the Newcastle University Business School. The dataset consists of 79 would-be entrepreneurs.

Findings – The results show that the internal factor altruism and the external

factor of nature of entrepreneurship education have a significant positive relationship with the sustainable entrepreneurial intention of a would-be entrepreneur. This significant positive relationship was also established for the internal factor sustainability orientation in the robustness check.

Contributions – This research shows the importance of giving practical

entrepreneurship courses at universities, since these create a higher intention to start a sustainable venture. Furthermore, it shows the importance of high levels of sustainability orientation and altruism in the individual.

Keywords – Sustainable entrepreneurship, Sustainable entrepreneurial

intention, Prior knowledge, Sustainability orientation, Altruism, Extrinsic rewards, Entrepreneurship education, Sustainable entrepreneurial family.

(3)

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ... 4 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 6 Entrepreneurship ... 6 Sustainability ... 6 Sustainable entrepreneurship ... 7

Sustainable entrepreneurship process ... 9

Entrepreneurial sustainable developmental paths ... 9

Summary ... 11

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT ... 11

Drivers of sustainable entrepreneurial intention ... 12

Prior knowledge ... 13

Sustainability orientation ... 14

Altruism ... 14

Extrinsic reward focus ... 15

Nature of entrepreneurship education ... 16

Sustainable entrepreneur’s family ... 17

METHDOLOGY ... 18

Research paradigm ... 18

Methodology ... 18

Setting and sample ... 19

Constructs and measures ... 20

Independent variables ... 20

Dependent variable ... 22

Control variables. ... 23

Common method variance, social desirability bias and non-response bias ... 26

Data analysis ... 26

RESULTS ... 27

Internal consistency of the measures ... 27

(4)

4

INTRODUCTION

Traditional commercial entrepreneurship is focused on creating economic value (Hanahov & Baldacchino, 2018). However, in the last two decades, global climate disruption, massive extinctions of biodiversity and ever-increasing population have led to a rise in the importance of sustainable entrepreneurship (Ploum, Blok, Lans & Omta, 2018). One important example is the increasing global carbon dioxide emissions. To avoid the planet warming up more than two degrees Celsius, emissions should stay under one trillion ton. After this point, the increase will lead to dangerous and catastrophic consequences for life on earth (Wittneben, Oreke, Banerjee & Levy, 2012). On the 10th of November 2018, it was estimated that this trillionth ton would be emitted on November 29th, 2035 (trillionthtonne.org, 2018). However, this date is coming closer each second.

Sustainable entrepreneurs are expected to create socially and environmentally friendly products and services that will initiate a shift towards more socially and environmentally sustainable markets worldwide (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010). Sustainable entrepreneurs focus on combining the Triple Bottom Line factors, thus focusing on creating social, environmental and economic value (Dean & McMullen, 2007). They can help resolve the worldwide environmental and social problems mentioned above by setting up their business to exploit environmentally and socially relevant market failures (Dean & McMullen, 2007). For example, by setting up a business that creates ways to reduce the waste of inefficient producing firms (Cohen & Winn, 2007), by creating a solution to limit the carbon dioxide emissions, or by setting up a sustainable business that creates sustainable products or operates completely sustainable.

(5)

5 researched the sustainable entrepreneurial intention of students, but is only focused on work values. Kuckertz and Wagner (2010) focused specifically on the influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions and the role of business experience for students. However, they focused on entrepreneurial intention and not on sustainable entrepreneurial intention.

This overview of previous studies shows that research into factors influencing sustainable entrepreneurs has been done, but they have not specifically focused on which factors influence the intention of these sustainable entrepreneurs. Furthermore, earlier research did not look at future entrepreneurs, also called would-be entrepreneurs. Would-be entrepreneurs are categorized as students who are following or have finished entrepreneurship courses and have become familiar with the entrepreneurial process in their courses (Dimov, 2007; Ploum et al., 2018). Research has shown that having a university degree is positively associated with entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial activities (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010; Ploum et al., 2018). Furthermore, it has been shown that graduated individuals form a large share of all active entrepreneurs (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010). Therefore, looking at students and alumni is important for entrepreneurship research. This research will thus focus on the question “To what extent do would-be entrepreneurs have the intention to start a sustainable venture, and which factors influence this intention?”. Both internal factors, such as prior knowledge, sustainability orientation, altruism and extrinsic reward focus, and external factors, such as nature of entrepreneurship education and the sustainable entrepreneur’s family, will be analysed. The research will be done by using a quantitative survey distributed under would-be entrepreneurs from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and the Newcastle University Business School in the United Kingdom.

(6)

6 The structure of this research is as follows. The next part will give an overview of relevant existing literature, mainly focussing on sustainable entrepreneurship, its development process, and different developmental paths. Afterwards, the hypotheses for the research will be developed. The following part focuses on the methodology and describes how the research was done. Then the results of the analyses will be given and in the discussion part the findings, implications and limitations will be discussed.

LITERATURE REVIEW Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship can be defined as “the discovery and exploitation of profitable opportunities” (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; p217). This form of entrepreneurship is seen as commercial entrepreneurship (Hanahov & Baldacchino, 2018), and is mainly focused on economic value creation (Vuorio, Puumalainen & Fellnhofer, 2018). For a venture to be established, certain entrepreneurial opportunities should be present. These opportunities arise from situations in which new services, organizing methods, goods or raw materials can be introduced into the market and can be sold with profit. The emphasis for these opportunities lies on “new”, new means-ends relationships should be created instead of optimizing existing means-ends frameworks (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Three different categories of opportunities have been described by Drucker (1985). These are: “the creation of new information, as occurs with the invention of new technologies”; “the exploitation of market inefficiencies that result from information asymmetry, as occurs across time and geography”; and “the reaction to shifts in the relative costs and benefits of alternative uses for resources, as occurs with political, regulatory, or demographic changes” (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; p220). Once the commercial entrepreneur perceives one of these opportunities, they can establish a venture to make profit out of it. As can be seen, the focus of commercial entrepreneurship lies on making profit out of perceived opportunities.

Sustainability

(7)

7 “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010; p3438). This term of sustainability is usually seen as consisting of three dimensions, the social, economic and environmental dimension (Kates, Parris & Leiserowitz, 2005). Sustainable development thus contains the interdependent and mutually reinforcing components economic development, social development and environmental protection (United Nations, 1997). A distinction is made between economic and social development, because “material gains are not sufficient measures of preservers of human well-being” (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010; p3438). The division into three dimensions is related to the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) concept, which says that care for the environment and being good to people (for example by hiring minorities) should be added to the conventional bottom line of creating profit (Elkington, 1994).

The ever-increasing population has led to an increase in resource usage. Each year, 40% of the resources used cannot be put back (Lorek & Fuchs, 2011). This will lead to a shortage in resources for future generations. Furthermore, the increase in power usage, traveling, and deforestation have greatly contributed to the increase in global carbon dioxide emissions. As stated in the introduction, the total worldwide emissions should stay under one trillion ton. If we continue living the way we are now, this trillionth ton will be emitted on November 29th, 2035 (Trillionthtonne.org, 2018). The natural and human-caused disasters that have happened, for example the recent water shortage in Cape Town (Sandhu, 2018), have shown the effects that the disasters can have on the ecosystem and the human population. It has increased the awareness of the plight of people and companies to develop new, cleaner technologies to cope with for example our energy demands (Steffen, Steffen & Steffen, 2007). Important examples are businesses who are reducing their emissions by using green power or businesses who are reducing their waste. These examples show that the relative attention for sustainability has increased in the last couple of years.

Sustainable entrepreneurship

(8)

8 form of entrepreneurship where economic, social and environmental entrepreneurship are combined (Katsikis & Kyrgidou, 2007). Sustainable entrepreneurship is defined as “the process of discovering, evaluating, and exploiting economic opportunities that are present in market failures which detract from sustainability, including those that are environmentally relevant” (Dean & McMullen, 2007; p58). As Hanohov and Baldacchino (2018) argue, these opportunities are mainly the result of changes in communal and natural environments. Cohen and Winn (2007) have defined four different types of market failures that can be seen as an opportunity for developing a sustainable venture. The first market failure identified is inefficient producing firms. This market failure is seen as an opportunity, because sustainable entrepreneurs can find ways to potentially reduce waste which will make the market more efficient and sustainable. The second market failure is the existence of externalities because environmental costs or benefits are not accurately reflected in product or service prices. Here, sustainable entrepreneurs can create opportunities related to new energy sources or new emissions trading markets that can lead to a reduction of negative externalities and an expansion of entrepreneurial opportunities. The third market failure identified is flawed pricing mechanisms because of exhaustible natural resources which are undervalued and under-priced. This market failure can create an opportunity, because sustainable entrepreneurs can find ways to bear the full costs of products and services. Lastly, imperfectly distributed information due to information asymmetry, for example about energy use, is identified as a market failure. This failure can be used by sustainable entrepreneurs to discover opportunities that reduce information asymmetry about environmental degradation.

Sustainable entrepreneurship focuses on a combination of the TBL factors, thus focussing on creating social, environmental and economic value (Dean & McMullen, 2007) while keeping the well-being of future generations in mind (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010). Even though a sustainable entrepreneur focuses on triple value creation, a balance needs to be found between the different types of value that they create (Vuorio, Puumalainen & Fellnhofer, 2018). An aim primarily focused on creating economic gain is not necessarily in line with aiming at the creation of social and environmental value (Vuorio, Puumalainen & Fellnhofer, 2018). Additionally, focusing only on environmental or social gain is not sustainable without a focus on economic gain (Hall, Daneke & Lenox, 2010). However, sustainable entrepreneurs usually see the creation of economic value as a means to an end (Dean & McMullen, 2007).

(9)

9 influence social and environmental issues even though this might lead to a loss in their personal economic gain (Vuorio, Puumalainen & Fellnhofer, 2018).

Sustainable entrepreneurship process

The sustainable entrepreneurship process according to Belz and Binder (2015), begins with the founder’s motivation to tackle an ecological or social problem. The sustainable entrepreneurship process contains six phases. The first phase contains the recognition of social or ecological problems. The second phase is focused on recognizing a social or ecological opportunity. Phases one and two can be seen as the promotion of the sustainability mission by the founder (Fischer, Mauer & Brettel, 2018). In these two phases, the initial intention to set up a sustainable venture also develops. In the third phase, a double bottom line solution is developed, where in the fourth phase a triple bottom line solution is created (Belz & Binder, 2015). These two phases together can be seen as the integration of profitability to become a sustainable venture (Fischer, Mauer & Brettel, 2018). In the fifth and sixth phases, the entrepreneur finds funds to create their sustainable venture and creates or enters a sustainable market (Belz & Binder, 2015). These last two phases can be seen as the phases that make a sustainable venture profitable (Fischer, Mauer & Brettel, 2018). During these phases, the entrepreneur can be influenced by different factors. This is shown in the paper by Muñoz and Dimov (2015) about entrepreneurial sustainable developmental paths.

Entrepreneurial sustainable developmental paths

When a venture emerges, it follows a certain developmental path (McMullen & Dimov, 2013). According to Muñoz and Dimov (2015), the sustainable development path starts with the emergence of ideas by the entrepreneur. According to Muñoz and Dimov (2015), the developmental path starts with an initial generation of venture ideas, followed by the formulation of the venture ideas into actionable terms (for example immediate goals and actions) and ends with the formation of exchange relations. The formation of exchange relationships can be seen as the real start of a venture, since a venture is an active set of exchange relationships that is continuously influenced by certain actions, social interactions and learning (Dimov, 2007).

(10)

10

TABLE 1: DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTAL PATHS PRESENT IN THE SUSTAINABLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROCESS (MUÑOZ & DIMOV, 2015)

Step Solution Conditions

Idea generation Idea A Core: social context

Peripheral: prior knowledge, desired value creation and sustainability orientation

Idea B Core: desired value creation and absence of perceived business support

Peripheral: prior knowledge, entrepreneurial intention and sustainability orientation

Action formulation Actions A Core: value creation and business support Peripheral: sustainability orientation

Interchangeable peripheral: presence and absence of prior knowledge, entrepreneurial intention and social support

Actions B Core: lack of social support

Peripheral: prior knowledge, sustainability orientation and entrepreneurial intention

Exchange relationships

Exchange A Core: sustainability orientation and business context Interchangeable peripheral: prior knowledge, entrepreneurial intention, desired value creation and perceived social support

Exchange B Core: lack of supportive social context and entrepreneurial intention

Peripheral: prior knowledge and sustainability orientation

(11)

11

Summary

This literature review has shown that the relative importance of operating sustainable has risen in the last two decades. The focus of entrepreneurship has shifted towards a greater focus on the environmental and social value it creates, no longer only considering the economic value being created. This has led to the rise of literature on sustainable entrepreneurship. Even though research has been done on sustainable entrepreneurship and the factors influencing individuals to become sustainable entrepreneurs, the question of what influences a would-be entrepreneur’s intention to start a sustainable venture has hardly been researched. The study by Muñoz and Dimov (2015) about entrepreneurial sustainable developmental paths does show which factors influence a sustainable entrepreneur in certain stages of the developmental process, but their study is not specifically focused on which factors influence the intention of a sustainable entrepreneur. Furthermore, they used existing sustainable entrepreneurs for their research, and thus did not look at how these factors would influence would-be entrepreneurs. Vuorio, Puumalainen and Fellnhofer (2018), on the other hand, research which work values influence a student’s intention to become a sustainable entrepreneur. They look at the indirect influence of the factors altruism, extrinsic reward, intrinsic reward, security and general self-efficacy on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intention. Thus, indirectly they do focus on which factors influence the sustainable entrepreneurial intention. However, they look at students and not specifically at students who followed entrepreneurship courses at university. This shows the gap in the literature that will be the focus of this research.

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

As the introduction and the literature review showed, previous literature has mainly focused on sustainable entrepreneurs. However, it is important to find out to what extent be entrepreneurs are willing to incorporate TBL factors into their business, since these would-be entrepreneurs are the future generation of entrepreneurs which could come up with sustainable ventures that could solve some of the environmental and social problems society is facing today. Thus, the main research question is “To what extent do would-be entrepreneurs have the intention to start a sustainable venture, and which factors influence this intention?”.

(12)

12 sustainable venture. Entrepreneurial intention is one of the factors that is present during this idea phase. It is described as the “intention to create a new venture or create new value in existing venture” (Muñoz & Dimov, 2015; p642). This intention includes the recognition of environmental or social problems, the recognition of an opportunity and the initial intention to set up a sustainable venture. This is in line with the first two phases of Belz and Binder’s (2015) sustainable entrepreneurship process. Intentions are an important predictor of actual behaviour (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010), therefore, this study will focus on sustainable entrepreneurial intention.

Drivers of sustainable entrepreneurial intention

Entrepreneurial motivations or drivers are important for understanding the entrepreneurship creation process (Fisher, Mauer & Brettel, 2018), which starts with the idea to create a venture. The study by Muñoz and Dimov (2015) showed that there are certain factors that drive sustainable entrepreneurial behaviour during the idea phase, namely social context, prior knowledge, desired value creation, sustainability orientation, and the absence of perceived business support. Since this study is focused on would-be entrepreneurs, they usually have no experience with a business context or with value creation. Therefore, the absence of perceived business support and desired value creation are not considered as factors influencing the would-be entrepreneur’s sustainable entrepreneurial intention. Only prior knowledge and sustainability orientation will be analysed in the model, social context will be considered as a control variable.

(13)

13 Puumalainen and Fellnhofer (2018) look at general self-efficacy, but they do not establish an indirect relationship with sustainable entrepreneurial intention, therefore self-efficacy is not taken into account as a factor in this study.

Both studies show that there are different internal factors and values influencing an individual’s preferences for starting a certain type of venture. However, there are also certain external factors from the environment of an entrepreneur that can have an influence on the sustainable entrepreneurial intention, such as entrepreneurship education (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015) and the entrepreneur’s family (Ploum et al., 2018). Figure 1 shows the internal and external factors that will be discussed.

FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Prior knowledge. Prior knowledge can be seen as the information the individual already possesses (Shane, 20000). Individuals can vary in the amount of knowledge they possess, since it is the result of idiosyncratic personal, work and educational experiences (Muñoz & Dimov, 2015). Prior knowledge has an influence on how an individual perceives a specific entrepreneurial opportunity (Shane, 2000). If an individual possesses a lot of prior knowledge about economic environments, then they are more likely to perceive opportunities that are

Internal Factors

External Factors Sustainability Orientation

Prior Knowledge

Altruism

Extrinsic Reward Focus

(14)

14 related to economic value creation (Shane, 2000). This means that entrepreneurs who have more knowledge of economic environments are more likely to become a commercial entrepreneur than a sustainable entrepreneur.

Sustainability-related prior knowledge can be defined as “the entrepreneur’s extant knowledge of ecological and social environments and the perceived threats to such environments” (Muñoz & Dimov, 2015; p641). As argued by Patzelt and Shepherd (2010), individuals who are more focused on attending ecological and social environments are more likely to recognize opportunities that arise from social or environmental market failures. Thus, when an individual has more knowledge about environmental or social issues, they are more likely to perceive opportunities for sustainable ventures related to these issues or problems (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010). Prior knowledge about sustainability is necessary for an individual to become a successful sustainable entrepreneur (Ploum et al., 2018). This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1. Would-be entrepreneurs with a high level of sustainability-related prior knowledge have a high intention to start a sustainable venture.

Sustainability orientation. An individual’s interests are an important aspect to understand the emergence of ventures, therefore, it is important to look at the individual’s sustainability orientation (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010). Sustainability orientation is defined as the “underlying attitudes and convictions towards environmental protection and social responsibility” (Muñoz & Dimov, 2015; p641). As argued by Kuckertz and Wagner (2010), individuals with a high sustainability orientation will be more likely to perceive the entrepreneurial opportunities that result from sustainability problems. Furthermore, sustainability-oriented individuals will also have a stronger determination to act upon the sustainable opportunities they perceive, because these opportunities are usually not only associated with entrepreneurial rents, but also with social and environmental rents as well (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010). Therefore, the following hypothesis can be formed:

Hypothesis 2. Would-be entrepreneurs with a high sustainability orientation have a high intention to start a sustainable venture.

(15)

15 values contribute to an individual being motivated by the opportunity of helping others as well as caring for the environment (Vuorio, Puumalainen & Fellnhofer, 2018). Furthermore, altruism has an influence on how an individual recognizes an opportunity to start a sustainable venture (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011). It can be said that people with a high level of altruism, have a higher motivation to start a venture which is focused on developing environmental, social and economic gains for others. As the study by Vuorio, Puumalainen & Fellnhofer (2018) shows, having high levels of altruism is related to a more favourable attitude towards sustainability. Thus, it can be said that a high level of altruism can be linked to a high intention to start a sustainable venture. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3. Would-be entrepreneurs with a high level of altruism have a high intention to start a sustainable venture.

Extrinsic reward focus. An extrinsic reward is a reward that is related to personal gains (Vuorio, Puumalainen & Fellnhofer, 2018). A person with a high desire for extrinsic rewards, thus pursues work where they can achieve personal gains such as power, status, prestige or monetary gains (Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman & Lance, 2010). These personal objectives that the entrepreneur focuses on have an influence on how they recognize opportunities (Patzelt & Shepherd, 2011). Research shows that commercial entrepreneurs are usually driven by profit-seeking motives (Parrish, 2010). When an entrepreneur is mainly focused on monetary gains, such as this commercial entrepreneur, they are more likely to perceive opportunities that are related to economic value creation.

(16)

16 rewards, for example financial gains due to access to new markets or reputation gains, will have a high intention to start a sustainable venture. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4. Would-be entrepreneurs with a high desire for extrinsic rewards have a high intention to start a sustainable venture.

Nature of entrepreneurship education. In the previous three decades, the amount of entrepreneurship courses has grown dramatically (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015). Entrepreneurship education “consists of all didactical efforts – principally with ideational content – which sensitize the addressed target group to eventually found a business (rather than working in the corporate world). Entrepreneurship education aims at providing special knowledge and skills for decision making processes into the field of entrepreneurial acting” (Sassmannshausen & Gladbach, 2013; p62). One of the main reasons for the growth in entrepreneurship courses is because entrepreneurship education is linked to an enhancement in entrepreneurial intentions (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015; Souitaris, Zerbinati & Al-Laham, 2007; Gerba, 2012). However, it has been highlighted that the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention is dependent on the nature of the entrepreneurship education (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015; Sassmannshausen & Gladbach, 2013). There are two main kinds of learning methods that are used in entrepreneurship education, namely studying ‘about’ entrepreneurship and studying ‘for’ entrepreneurship (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015; Sassmannshausen & Gladbach, 2013). Studying ‘about’ entrepreneurship is focused on theory and research (Sassmannshausen & Gladbach, 2013). It is the traditional teaching method that is used to give students a sense of what they ‘ought’ to do when they take entrepreneurial action (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015). Studying ‘for’ entrepreneurship, however, is seen as explicitly focusing on practice (Sassmannshausen & Gladbach, 2013). This is the activity-based learning method that provides the student with practice and actions that they ‘can’ do when taking entrepreneurial action, which leads to creativity and inspiration in recognizing opportunities and coping with uncertainties and risks (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015).

(17)

17 intention is higher for practical courses, because students who follow a theoretical entrepreneurship course are shown a set of factors which contribute to entrepreneurial success and believe that any deviation from these factors will lead to failure. Thus, they have a lower entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, they are usually made familiar with the high amount of risks and failures that are a characteristic for entrepreneurial ventures (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015). The practical entrepreneurship course, however, reinforces the student’s own beliefs and propels a student to identify possible actions that can be taken to pursue an entrepreneurial opportunity. Thus, increasing their entrepreneurial intention (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015). In conclusion, entrepreneurship education has proven to have an influence entrepreneurial intention. However, there is a difference for practical and theoretical entrepreneurship courses. Following the logic behind entrepreneurial intention, it can be said that this difference will also exist for sustainable entrepreneurial intention, thus giving the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5. Would-be entrepreneurs who followed practical entrepreneurship courses have a higher intention to start a sustainable venture than would-be entrepreneurs who followed theoretical entrepreneurship courses.

(18)

18 Hypothesis 6. Would-be entrepreneurs with sustainable entrepreneurs as

parents have a higher intention to start a sustainable venture than would-be entrepreneurs without sustainable entrepreneurs as parents.

METHDOLOGY Research paradigm

A research paradigm shows the agreements and common beliefs between scientists about how they should understand and address problems (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). These research paradigms are characterized by their ontology, which is focused on the question “what is reality?”, epistemology, which is focused on the question “how do you know something?”, and methodology, which is focused on the question “how do you go about finding it out?” (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). There are three main research paradigms to which a research can belong. The positivist approach, where it is believed that there is a single reality which can be known and measured. Usually quantitative methods are used when a research follows a positivists approach. The constructivist approach, where there is no single truth and reality thus needs to be interpreted. Qualitative methods are used to generate multiple realities which need to be interpreted. Lastly, the pragmatist approach, where reality is constantly interpreted, debated and renegotiated. Here, the best method to use is picked based on if it solves the problem (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). This research follows a positivist approach. Thus, it is believed that there is a single reality related to the factors influencing the sustainable entrepreneurial intentions of would-be entrepreneurs.

Methodology

(19)

19 The survey followed the following structure. First, a broad description about the research was given to the participant. This description was followed by some general questions related to age, gender, year of study, university, and the control variable faculty. These general questions were followed by several matrices containing statements related to the variables sustainability orientation, prior knowledge, altruism and extrinsic reward. These matrices were followed by questions related to the entrepreneurial family, entrepreneurship education, business experience, entrepreneurial intention and sustainable entrepreneurial intention. The survey ended with a short description about who the participant could contact if they had any questions. The survey can be found in Appendix I, the questions will be further discussed in the constructs and measurements part. During the survey, anonymity of the participants was ensured by not asking the would-be entrepreneurs’ names. No monetary rewards were given to participants who participated in the study.

The survey was tested before it was distributed under the would-be entrepreneurs by a small test panel of students, no significant problems were found. After the approval, the survey link was distributed to course teachers of entrepreneurship related courses in the fall of 2018. The course teachers distributed the survey under their students and after a week an e-mail was send to the teachers to remind their students to fill-in the survey.

Setting and sample

(20)

20 This gave access to more than 1000 would-be entrepreneurs. Furthermore, to gain more responses, the link to the survey was distributed in several Facebook groups.

A total of 174 students filled out the survey, of which only 107 were completed. Of these completed surveys, 79 followed entrepreneurship related courses. Thus, leaving a dataset containing a total of 79 responses.

Constructs and measures

Independent variables. Prior knowledge is measured according to the measurement that is used in Muñoz and Dimov (2015). It is measured by asking in which way the would-be entrepreneurs understand current economic, environmental and social problems of society. However, instead of a 5-item Likert scale, a 7-item Likert scale is used. The statements that were given were “I can understand the economic problems we are facing as a society”, “I can understand the social problems we are facing as a society”, “I can understand the environmental problems we are facing as a society”, “I can understand the problems new generations will be facing in the future”, and “It is easy for me to understand current world’s issues and how these issues relate to each other”. These statements, however, cannot be seen as separable aspects of prior knowledge, but they have to be seen as intertwined components (Muñoz & Dimov, 2015). These items were ranked on a scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The overall prior knowledge of an individual is calculated by adding the points for the five statements together and dividing it by five. A higher number shows a higher overall level of prior knowledge.

(21)

21 calculated by adding the points for the six statements together and dividing it by six. A higher number shows a higher overall level of sustainability orientation.

Altruism is measured by using a 5-item Likert scale for six sub-statements used by Vuorio, Puumalainen and Fellnhofer (2018). These statements are “A job that provides an opportunity for preserving nature”, “A job where you can respect the environment”, “A job where I can be close to the nature”, “A job that gives you an opportunity to be directly helpful to others”, “A job that is worthwhile to society”, and “A job which makes the world a better place”. These items were ranked on a scale ranging from ‘not at all important’ to ‘extremely important’. The overall level of altruism is calculated by adding the points for the six statements together and dividing it by six. A higher number shows a higher overall level of altruism.

Extrinsic reward focus is measured according to the measurement method used in the study by Vuorio, Puumalainen and Fellnhofer (2018). It is measured on a 5-item Likert scale and contains six sub-statements. These statements are “A job that provides you with a chance to earn a good deal of money”, “A job well paid for”, “A job where the chances for advancement and promotion are good”, “A job that has high status and prestige”, “A job that most people look up to and respect”, and “A job that provides a generous total compensation”. These statements are measured on a scale ranging from ‘not at all important’ to ‘extremely important’. The overall level of extrinsic reward is calculated by adding the points for the six statements together and dividing it by six. A higher number shows a higher overall level of extrinsic reward.

(22)

22 scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Afterwards, the theoretical statement is reversed, and the average of both statements is created to show if the course is more practical or theoretical. A higher number shows that the course is more practical, and a lower number shows that it is more theoretical.

Sustainable entrepreneur’s family is measured by asking the students if they grew up in a family that had their own business which incorporated sustainability into their business. A dummy variable is created that contains a value of 1 if the would-be entrepreneur has a sustainable entrepreneurial family and a value of 0 if they do not have a sustainable entrepreneurial family.

Dependent variable. The dependent variable sustainable entrepreneurial intention is measured according to the measurement used in Muñoz and Dimov (2015). Their measurement uses a 5-item Likert scale and captures the entrepreneur’s core motivation to contribute to solving ecological and societal problems by realizing a successful business. This measurement contains five sub-statements. These statements are “I am able to find solutions to current challenges and problems”, “I am regularly coming up with new business ideas on how to create a better world”, “I like taking ideas and make something important of them”, “I am constantly seeking business ideas with the potential of making contributions beyond making money”, and “I do what it takes to create value for others”. These statements were ranked on a scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The overall level of sustainable entrepreneurial intention is calculated by taking the average of the five statements. A higher number shows a higher overall sustainable entrepreneurial intention.

(23)

23 used for testing the model, since a direct statement is used, which might lead to a higher social desirability bias.

Control variables. Business experience is taken as a control variable, because it has been proven that inexperienced individuals (e.g. students) have higher levels of sustainability orientation than comparatively experienced individuals (e.g. established entrepreneurs), which in turn impacts the entrepreneurial intention of a would-be entrepreneur to start a sustainable venture (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010). This business experience is measured by asking how many years a person has had their own venture.

Additionally, gender is considered as control variable, since previous literature has shown that the relationship between the perception of the environment and entrepreneurial intention is stronger for women (Díaz-García & Jiménez-Moreno, 2010). Furthermore, females are more often associated with higher altruistic values, while males more often emphasize extrinsic reward (Vuorio, Puumalainen & Fellnhofer, 2018). To measure gender, a dummy variable is created for which a value of 1 shows that the would-be entrepreneur is male and a value of 0 shows that the would-be entrepreneur is female.

Next, faculty is taken into account as a control variable, since Kuckertz and Wagner (2010) have shown that sustainability orientation influences entrepreneurial intention differently for people from different faculties. Faculty is measured by asking the would-be entrepreneurs from which faculty they are from. Next, dummy variables are created for Arts, Classics, Commerce, Economics, Education, Engineering, Graduate Studies, Humanities, Information Technology, Law, Management Studies, Music, Philosophy, and Political Science. Natural Sciences is taken as the hold-out faculty.

Furthermore, course curricular is considered as a control variable. Would-be entrepreneurs can follow entrepreneurship courses which are part of their normal study program (intra-curricular) or courses that are not part of their normal study program (extra-curricular). Would-be entrepreneurs who followed an intra-curricular course did not have a choice in choosing the course, while would-be entrepreneurs who followed an extra-curricular course chose the course themselves. They will have a higher intention to start a venture (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015). This is measured by using a dummy variable for which a value of 1 shows that the course they followed was extra-curricular and a value of 0 shows that the course was intra-curricular.

(24)

24 Dimov, 2015). If social norms which can support the creation of environmentally and socially responsible economic activity are present, the emergence of new sustainable ventures is promoted in a country (Meek, Pacheco & York, 2010). These social norms can variate in different countries. When the Netherlands (NL) and the United Kingdom (UK) are compared based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede Insights, 2018), a significant difference is seen in the level of masculinity (UK: 66, NL: 14) and a smaller difference in the level of uncertainty avoidance (UK: 35, NL: 53), individualism (UK: 89, NL: 80) and long term orientation (UK: 51, NL: 67). The levels of power distance (UK: 35, NL: 38) and indulgence (UK: 69, NL: 68), on the other hand, are quite the same. The differences, however, indicate that the social context for would-be entrepreneurs from the UoG and the NUBS is different. This control variable is measured by developing a dummy variable which takes a value of 1 if the would-be entrepreneur is from the UoG and a value of 0 if they are from the NUBS.

Table 2 shows a short overview of how all variables are measured.

TABLE 2: MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES

Variable Proxy Measurement

Dependent variable

SUSTINTENT Sustainable entrepreneurial intention

Entrepreneur’s potential intention to start a sustainable venture. Measured by taking the average of five statements which are measured on a 5-item Likert scale. Adopts a value between 1 and 5, with 1 being a low intention to and 5 being a high intention. Independent variables

KNOWLEDGE Prior knowledge Entrepreneur’s prior knowledge of current economic, environmental and social problems of society. Measured by taking the average of five statements which are measured on a 7-item Likert scale. Adopts a value between 1 and 7, with 1 being a low prior knowledge and 7 being a high prior knowledge.

SUSTORIENT Sustainability orientation

(25)

25 ÀLTRUISM Altruism Entrepreneur’s level of altruism. Measured by taking

the average of six statements which are measured on a 5-item Likert scale. Adopts a value between 1 and 5, with 1 being a low level of altruism and 5 being a high level of altruism.

EXTRINREW Extrinsic reward focus

Level of desire for extrinsic rewards. Measured by taking the average of six statements which are measured on a 5-item Likert scale. Adopts a value between 1 and 5, with 1 being a low level of desire ford extrinsic reward and 5 being a high level of desire for extrinsic reward.

ENTREEDU Nature of entrepreneurship education

The degree practical education of an entrepreneurship related course. Measured by reversing the second statement and taking the average of the two statements which are measured on a 5-item Likert scale. Adopts a value between 1 and 5, with 1 being a more theoretical course and 5 being a more practical course.

SUSTFAM Sustainable entrepreneur’s family

Shows if an entrepreneur has an entrepreneurial family with a sustainable venture. Measured by creating a dummy variable which contains 1 if the entrepreneur has a sustainable entrepreneurial family and a value of 0 if they do not.

Control variables

BUSSEXP Business experience

Shows how many years the entrepreneur has had their own venture. Adopts a continuous numerical value.

GENDER Gender Measured with a dummy variable containing 1 if the entrepreneur is male and 0 if the entrepreneur is female.

FACULTY Faculty Dummy variables for Arts, Classics, Commerce, Economics, Education, Engineering, Graduate Studies, Humanities, Information Technology, Law, Management Studies, Music, Philosophy and Political Science. Hold-out faculty is Natural Science.

COURSECUR Course Curricular

Shows if the entrepreneurship course is extra-curricular or intra-extra-curricular. Adopts a value of 1 if the course is extra-curricular and 0 if the course is intra-curricular.

(26)

26

Common method variance, social desirability bias and non-response bias

It is important that the survey contains no or a low amount of common method variance or social responsibility bias. Common method variance is a variance that exists due to the measurement method instead of the constructs which are measured. It was reduced by reversing some scale items and by using different scale types (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Lee, 2003). Social desirability bias can be seen as the tendency to answer questions in a way that is viewed as favourable by others. To reduce the social desirability bias, the purpose of the questions was not explicitly described and indirect statements were given in the survey (Fisher, 1993).

It is possible that the received replies to the online survey contain a disproportionate number of responses by individuals who are particularly interested in sustainability (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010). This is called the non-response bias. To check that this is not the case, the variation within the responses is analysed. Non-respondents are usually more similar to late respondents than to early respondents. To analyse if there is a significant difference between the participants, the dataset was split into three different groups based on the date they filled in the survey (Homburg & Bucerius, 2006). A comparison of the variance of sustainable entrepreneurial intention for the different groups showed no significant differences. Thus, no indication of a non-response bias was found in the data.

Statistical model

To estimate a statistical model, Pooled Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) is used. This gives the following model:

SUSTINTENT

= 𝛽0 + 𝛽1KNOWLEDGE + 𝛽2SUSTORIENT + 𝛽3ALTRUISM + 𝛽4EXTRINREW +

𝛽5ENTREEDU + 𝛽6SUSTFAM + 𝛽7BUSSEXP + 𝛽8GENDER + 𝛽9FACULTY +𝛽10COURSECUR +𝛽11SOCCONTEXT + ε

Where 𝛽𝑖 are the coefficients and 𝜀 is the error term. The definitions and measurements of these variables can be found in Table 2.

Data analysis

(27)

27 an entrepreneurship course were deleted from the dataset, since these participants do not comply with the requirements of being a would-be entrepreneur. After deleting the non-usable answers, descriptive statistics will be given of the data, multicollinearity will be tested by looking at the univariate correlations between the variables, Hierarchical Multiple Regression analysis will be conducted to test the multivariate correlations, and the accompanying VIF values will be checked to dismiss the existence of multicollinearity. Additionally, a couple of robustness checks will be conducted to check the robustness of the answers.

RESULTS Internal consistency of the measures

To test if the internal consistencies of the measurements are reliable, the Cronbach’s alpha is calculated for the variables sustainable entrepreneurial intention, prior knowledge, sustainability orientation, altruism and extrinsic reward focus (George & Mallery, 2003). If this Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is close to one, the internal consistency of the measurement is high (George & Mallery, 2003). The reliability analysis for the measurements of sustainable entrepreneurial intention (α=.770), prior knowledge (α=.798) and sustainability orientation (α=.777) showed a good internal consistency. The reliabilities of the internal consistencies of altruism (α=.843) and extrinsic reward focus (α=.852), on the other hand, were excellent. These Cronbach’s alphas show that the internal consistencies of the measurements that are used in this research are reliable.

Descriptive statistics

Contrasting entrepreneurial intention with sustainable entrepreneurial intention. To contrast the sustainable entrepreneurial intention with the entrepreneurial intention, first the descriptive statistics of the alternative measurement of sustainable entrepreneurial intention and the measurement of entrepreneurial intention are given in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Std.

Deviation

ENTREINTENT 79 1.00 5.00 3.06 3.00 1.191

SUSTINTENT 79 1.00 5.00 2.78 3.00 1.129

(28)

28 intention. This demonstrates that when a would-be entrepreneur is directly asked if they would like to become (sustainable) entrepreneurs, they are more likely to see themselves as entrepreneurs than as sustainable entrepreneurs.

Descriptive statistics of the model. The descriptive statistics of all variables which were mentioned in Table 2 are given in Table 4 below. The descriptive statistics of the age of the participants is also given.

TABLE 4: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Std.

Deviation Age 79 19 47 23.76 22.00 5.357 SUSTINTENT 79 2.00 5.00 3.43 3.40 .701 KNOWLEDGE 79 2.20 7.00 5.42 5.60 .887 SUSTORIENT 79 2.67 7.00 5.63 5.67 .826 ALTRUISM 79 1.33 4.83 3.34 3.33 .762 EXTRINREW 79 2.00 5.00 3.58 3.67 .669 ENTREEDU 79 1.50 4.50 2.49 2.50 .747 SUSTFAM 79 0 1 .16 0 .373 BUSSEXP 79 0 13 .56 0 1.796 GENDER 79 0 1 .62 1 .488 DumFacArts 79 0 1 .05 0 .221 DumFacClassics 79 0 0 .00 0 .000 DumFacCommerce 79 0 1 .09 0 .286 DumFacEconomics 79 0 1 .47 0 .502 DumFacEducation 79 0 0 .00 0 .000 DumFacEngineering 79 0 1 .04 0 .192 DumFacGraduateStudies 79 0 1 .03 0 .158 DumFacHumanities 79 0 1 .09 0 .286 DumFacInformationTechnology 79 0 1 .01 0 .113 DumFacLaw 79 0 0 .00 0 .000 DumFacManagementStudies 79 0 1 .34 0 .477 DumFacMusic 79 0 1 .03 0 .158 DumFacPhilosophy 79 0 0 .00 0 .000 DumFacPoliticalSciences 79 0 0 .00 0 .000 COURSECUR 79 0 1 .16 0 .373 SOCCONTEXT 79 0 1 .77 1 .422

(29)

29 entrepreneurs on average have a semi-high intention to start a sustainable venture in the next five years. The mean of KNOWLEDGE, 5.42, shows that would-be entrepreneurs on average have a semi-high to high prior knowledge of current economic, environmental and social problems of society. The descriptive of SUSTORIENT shows that the average sustainable orientation of a be entrepreneur lies around 5.63, which means that on average would-be entrepreneurs have a high sustainable orientation. The mean of ALTRUISM is 3.34, which means that on average the would-be entrepreneurs view altruistic work values as moderately important. The descriptive of EXTRINREW shows that on average the desire for extrinsic rewards lies around 3.58, which means that extrinsic rewards on average are viewed as very important. The mean of ENTREEDU is 2.49, which means that the average entrepreneurship related course that the would-be entrepreneurs followed was neither very practical nor theoretical. It was a combination of both. The average of SUSTFAM (0.16), shows that many would-be entrepreneurs did not have family that had experience with having a sustainable venture. Only thirteen of the participants had parents who had experience with having a sustainable venture. The average of BUSSEXP shows that would-be entrepreneurs have an average business experience of 0.16 years. The high standard deviation shows there is a high variation in business experience within the group. Most would-be entrepreneurs did not have any experience with having their own business yet, but a few did of which one had their own business for 13 years. GENDER shows that more than half of the would-be entrepreneurs who participated in the study were male (62%). The descriptive of the dummy variables of FACULTY show that there were no would-be entrepreneurs that followed courses at the faculties Classics, Education, Law, Philosophy and Political Sciences who participated in the study. These dummy variables will therefore not be taken into account in further analyses. The mean of COURSECUR (0.16) shows that many of the would-be entrepreneurs followed entrepreneurship courses which were part of their normal study program. The mean of the dummy variable SOCCONTEXT (.77) shows, that 77 percent of the would-be entrepreneurs were from the University of Groningen.

(30)

30

Univariate analysis

Before the model and its accompanying hypotheses will be tested, a check for multicollinearity will be conducted. This is done by establishing the correlations between the dependent, independent and control variables. This correlation is shown in Table 5.

(31)

31 As seen in Table 5, the mutual univariate correlations of all variables used in the study are between -.700 and .700. However, the univariate correlation between ALTRUISM and SUSTORIENT is quite high (b=.623; p<0.01). This shows that there is multicollinearity present between the variables altruism and sustainability orientation. However, since this model is needed to test the hypotheses developed before, both variables are kept in the analyses. A robustness check, which leaves one of these variables out, will be conducted to see if the multicollinearity has an influence on the relationships of other variables. Why this multicollinearity is present is further discussed in the discussion. For the other variables no multicollinearity is present that can affect the independency of the variables. The dummy variables for FACULTY which are not shown in Table 5 have also been tested. They did not show any sign of multicollinearity.

The univariate analysis shows that KNOWLEDGE (b=.176; p>0.05), SUSTORIENT (b=.359; p<0.01), ALTRUISM (b=.514; p<0.01), EXTRINREW (b=.149; p>0.05), ENTREEDU (b=.189; p>0.05) and SUSTFAM (b=.002; p>0.05) all have a positive relation with SUSTINTENT. However, only two of these variables, SUSTORIENT and ALTRUISM, have a significant positive relationship. Thus, based on the univariate analysis, only Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 can be supported.

Multivariate analysis

(32)

32

TABLE 6: REGRESSION RESULTS

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 Constant 3.813*** 2.873*** 2.237*** 2.224*** 3.265*** 3.305*** 3.813*** .442 BUSSEXPW .141** .140** .122** .090 .144** .128* .141** .080 GENDER -.080 -.110 .052 .092 -.144 -.021 -.079 .096 DumFacArts -.383 -.263 -.130 .062 -.401 -.579 -.384 -.054 DumFacCommerce .186 .092 .132 .059 .218 .080 .189 -.071 DumFacEconomics -.214 -.185 -.244 -.191 -.196 -.243 -.213 -.202 DumFacEngineering -.397 -.380 -.530 -.529 -.397 -.325 -.399 -.473 DumFacGraduateStudies .725 .783* .664 .403 .659 .926* .723 .594 DumFacHumanities -.333 -.431 -.259 -.370 -.398 -.341 -.333 -.461 DumFacInformationTechnology .186 .056 .179 .223 .173 .354 .186 .299 DumFacManagementStudies -.026 .031 -0.34 -.038 -.018 -.070 -.024 -.047 DumFacMusic -.760 -.756 -.629 -.453 -.626 -.796 -.761 -.358 COURSECUR -.064 -.055 -.034 -.048 -.077 -.129 -.061 -.115 SOCONTEXT -.305 -.364 -.250 -.154 -.256 -.251 -.306 -.086 KNOWLEDGE - .181** - - - .096 SUSTORIENT - - .260** - - - - .083 ALTRUISM - - - .412*** - - - .362*** EXTRINREW - - - - .151 - - .138 ENTREEDU - - - .195* - .190* SUSTFAM - - - .009 .013 Adjusted R2 .097 .137 .172 .248 .103 .122 .083 .285 F 1.646* 1.886** 2.160** 2.841*** 1.637* 1.773* 1.505 2.639*** Highest VIF 2.016 2.025 2.022 2.018 2.025 2.030 2.026 2.074

*** = significant at the 0.01 level. ** = significant at the 0.05 level. * = significant at the 0.10 level.

The significant F-statistics show that all variables together have an influence on the sustainable entrepreneurial intention. The first model shows the explanatory power of the control variables on SUSTINTENT, showing that 9.7% (adjusted R2 of model 1) of the sustainable entrepreneurial intention is explained by the control variables. Models 2 to 7 show how the explanatory power of the model increases when individual independent variables are added. However, as can be seen in Table 6, none of these models with individual independent variables creates a higher explanatory power than model 8, which includes all independent variables. This last model shows that adding all independent variables into the model creates an explanatory power of 28.5% (adjusted R2 of model 8). This is a significant increase of 18.8

(33)

33 relationship is also found in Model 8 (b=.362; p<0.01). This means that Hypothesis 3 is supported. An increase of one unit for altruism will lead to an increase in sustainable entrepreneurial intention of 36.2% of this unit. The fact that KNOWLEDGE and SUSTORIENT have a significant relationship with SUSTINTENT in the single independent variable models (Model 2 and Model 3) and no longer in the complete model (Model 8) might be due to the multicollinearity that was present in Table 5. The robustness check will show if it makes a difference if ALTRUISM is left out of the model, since this is the factor that correlates highly with the other factors. Model 5 demonstrates that EXTRINREW is positively related to SUSTINTENT (b=.151). This is also found in Model 8 (b=.138). However, this positive relationship is not significant (p>0.10), thus Hypothesis 4 cannot be supported.

Model 6 shows that there is a significant positive relationship between ENTREEDU and SUSTINTENT (b=.195; p<0.10). This is also found in Model 8 (b=.190; p<0.10). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 can be supported. If the nature of entrepreneurship education changes with one unit, the sustainable entrepreneurial intention will change with 19.0% of this unit. Model 7 shows that SUSTFAM is positively related to SUSTINTENT (b=0.09), however this relationship is not significant (p>0.10). This is also the case in Model 8 (b=.013; p>0.10). Hence, Hypothesis 6 cannot be supported. Model 1 shows that there is a significant positive relationship between the control variable BUSSEXPW (b=.141; p<0.05) and SUSTINTENT. This means that if the business experience of a would-be entrepreneur increases with one unit, the sustainable entrepreneurial intention will increase with 14.1% of this unit. All VIF values in the models are below 10, which is the cut-off value suggested by Neter et al. (1996), which shows that there is no multicollinearity in the models.

Robustness check

(34)

34 SUSTORIENT has an influence on the relationships of the other independent variables with the sustainable entrepreneurial intention.

TABLE 7: ROBUSTNESS CHECK

Check #1 Check #2 Constant .335 .714 BUSSEXPW - .115* GENDER .127 .006 DumFacArts -.004 -.230 DumFacCommerce -.060 .029 DumFacEconomics -.159 -.231 DumFacEngineering -.488 -.461 DumFacGraduateStudies .650 .782 DumFacHumanities -.482* -.396 DumFacInformationTechnology .672 .216 DumFacManagementStudies -.059 -.028 DumFacMusic -.368 -.506 COURSECUR -.111 -.096 SOCCONTEXT -.086 -.187 KNOWLEDGE .094 .106 SUSTORIENT .077 .256** ALTRUISM .394*** - EXTRINREW .129 .168 ENTREEDU .211* .148 SUSTFAM -.028 .011 Adjusted R2 .279 .204 F 2.674*** 2.112** Highest VIF 2.082 2.068

*** = significant at the 0.01 level. ** = significant at the 0.05 level. * = significant at the 0.10 level

(35)

35

DISCUSSION Findings

As described in the hypothesis development section, internal factors, such as prior knowledge, sustainability orientation, altruism and extrinsic reward focus, and external factors, such as nature of entrepreneurship education and sustainable entrepreneurial family, were expected to have an influence on the sustainable entrepreneurial intention of a would-be entrepreneur. The results of the analyses conducted can be found in Table 8 below.

The results show that, when looking at the internal factors, only the hypothesis related to altruism can be supported. The results show that this factor has the highest significant positive relationship with sustainable entrepreneurial intention of all factors which were taken into account in this research. Thus, the motivation of an individual to improve the welfare of the environment is one of the most important factors that influences a would-be entrepreneur to start a sustainable venture in the future. This is in line with the study conducted by Vuorio, Puumalainen and Fellnhofer (2018). The other internal factors which were considered were not found to have a significant relationship with the sustainable entrepreneurial intention when looking at the model incorporating all factors. However, when the influence of the factors was analysed separately, a significant positive relationship between the factors prior knowledge and sustainability orientation and the variable sustainable entrepreneurial intention was found. The fact that these individual analyses of the factors showed a significant positive relationship, but the model incorporating all factors did not, shows that there might be some multicollinearity effect. The univariate analysis showed that altruism and sustainability orientation are positively related. This might be because if a person has a high level of altruism, they are more likely to be focused on sustainability (Corral-Verdugo, Bonnes, Tapia-Fonllem, Fraijo-Sing, Frías-Armenta & Carrus, 2009). This might explain why the coefficient of sustainability orientation

TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS RESULTS

Hypotheses β Result

H1: Prior knowledge → Sustainable entrepreneurial intention .096 Not supported

H2: Sustainability orientation → Sustainable entrepreneurial intention .083 Partly supported

H3: Altruism → Sustainable entrepreneurial intention .362*** Supported

H4: Extrinsic reward → Sustainable entrepreneurial intention .138 Not supported

H5: Nature of entrepr. education → Sustainable entrepreneurial intention .190* Supported

H6: Sustainable entrepreneur’s family → Sustainable entrepreneurial intention .013 Not supported

(36)

36 is no longer significant and decreases a lot in the model that incorporated all factors. When adding altruism and sustainability orientation into the same model, the coefficient of sustainability orientation will be absorbed into the coefficient of altruism. This is proved in robustness check were the variable altruism is left out. When altruism is left out, the influence of sustainability orientation on sustainable entrepreneurial intention increases significantly. The univariate analysis does not show any sign of multicollinearity between prior knowledge and altruism however, thus the significant decrease in the influence of prior knowledge on sustainable entrepreneurial intention in the model incorporating all factors cannot be explained by the multicollinearity. This is also proven in the robustness check were altruism is left out. When altruism is left out, the influence of prior knowledge does not increase significantly. The desire for extrinsic reward perceived by the would-be entrepreneur did have a positive influence on the level of sustainable entrepreneurial intention, however, this positive relationship was not found significant. Thus, no evidence was found that having a high desire for extrinsic rewards creates a high intention to start a sustainable venture.

Of the external factors, only one was proven to have a significant positive relationship with sustainable entrepreneurial intention. The nature of entrepreneurship education was found to have a significant positive relationship with sustainable entrepreneurial intention. Would-be entrepreneurs who followed entrepreneurship courses that were more practical have a higher intention to start a sustainable venture than would-be entrepreneurs who followed entrepreneurship courses that were more theoretical. Following the practical entrepreneurship course creates a reinforcement of the would-be entrepreneur’s own beliefs and propels them to identify opportunities that they can use to start their own venture. The last external factor, the sustainable entrepreneur’s family, was found to have a small positive influence on the intention to start a sustainable venture, however, this influence was not found significant. Thus, no evidence was found that having parents who have experience with having their own sustainable venture creates a higher intention for the would-be entrepreneur to start a sustainable venture themselves in the future. This might be due to the rather low number of would-be entrepreneurs in the sample that indicated that they had parents with experience with having a sustainable venture.

Theoretical implications

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

It would appear that having a clearer understanding of how students, particularly under- prepared students, deal with the academic challenges of university studies and how they

Although this research included a small sample, school management should take cognisance of problematic reward factors such as teacher compensation, performance management

Indien 20 jaar lang niet wordt gerecruteerd en uitstroom als gevolg van verloop en pensionering blijft optreden, ontstaat inzicht in de ruimte voor beleid die in

Further, it finds that international experience increases EMNEs’ likelihood to conduct knowledge-seeking FDI, and that there is a moderating effect of technological

Using a collaborative innovation project as the unit of analysis, we studied the interactions of entrepreneurial experimentation of the actors, which is indicative of the strength

Keywords: individual entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial intention, self-efficacy, perceived educational support, perceived relational support, perceived structural

The necessary preconditions concerning the strategy, structure, technology and culture of Division Y should be established by the recommended interventions. However,

Regarding to suggestions for future studies should, focus more on to understand how the source of information can be combined in terms of social networks and prior knowledge