Predicting Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions among Romanian Students: A Mediated and Moderated Application of the Entrepreneurial Event Model

Abstract

This research aims to delimit the potential influencing factors of sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SEI) based on the entrepreneurial event model. The proposed model was tested and validated on primary data in the instance of Romanian students. The structural equation model and PROCESS macro-based quantitative empirical findings confirmed multiple hypotheses and proved the direct predictor role of perceived sustainable entrepreneurial desire (PSED) and feasibility (PSEF) upon sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SEI), as well as environmental values (EV) as influencing elements of both PSED and PSEF concerning sustainable entrepreneurship. Moreover, PSEF appeared as a mediating factor in the relationship between EV and SEI while entrepreneurial role models (ERM) as a moderator of this relationship. The results of the study reinforce the importance of the entrepreneurial event model in investigating the determinants of sustainable entrepreneurial intentions and provide new investigative insights for academic research. Moreover, the carried out empirical research highlights that government policies and activities carried out within higher education institutions must be called upon to promote at the community level the benefits of achieving Romania’s sustainable development goals, in order to advance environmental values and thus increase the sustainability awareness of extant and potential entrepreneurs, as well as to facilitate the exposure of young people to successful entrepreneurial models with stimulating effects on their sustainable entrepreneurial intentions.

1. Introduction

Human activity, and especially economic activity, has paid limited attention to environmental and social issues, while economic growth has been considered indispensable for the prosperity of any nation [1]. In such a potentially dichotomous context, sustainable development emerges as a manner in which economic prosperity, social development and environmental protection must intertwine so that meeting the interests and needs of humankind today does not and will not affect the ability to satisfy them in the future [2]. The concept of sustainable development links economic wealth, human development and welfare, along with environmental safeguarding, to ensure the protection of the planetary life support system and the well-being of humankind [3]. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) created and adopted in common by the United Nations member states aim at poverty reduction, equality and social inclusion, unemployment diminution, economic development, infrastructure improvement, innovation expansion, sustainable production, commercialization and consumption [4]. Achieving multiple sustainable development goals can be mainly achieved through activities in the sphere of entrepreneurship [5,6].

In the mainstream literature, the conceptual definitions of entrepreneurship are not standardized; nevertheless, they have in common the notion of profitable activity creation, as a result of identifying, exploring and/or exploiting market opportunities. Therefore, entrepreneurship implies the concomitant existence of entrepreneurial agents (entrepreneurs) and entrepreneurial events (market opportunities), materialized in new economic activities as a result of risk perception and risk taking [7]. These economic activities consist of the creation of new start-up firms or new activities within ongoing extant firms, through entrepreneurs assuming risks and managing activities. Additionally, intrapreneurship, as a component of entrepreneurship, involves an autonomous process whereby employees of an existing firm identify and exploit ideas that lead to new economic activities within the considered firm [8].

Entrepreneurship is perceived as a manner and a path to create jobs and generate employment, stimulate innovation and advance technological progress, generating, on the one hand, economic growth and national prosperity and, on the other hand, major environmental damage through pollution and the use of non-renewable resources [9]. Sustainable entrepreneurship has the potential to deliver the answers and become the solution to both environmental degradation and social inequity [6] on national and local levels. Sustainable entrepreneurship refers to the detection, creation, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities arising from societal and environmental problems, previously ignored, mistreated or ineffectively addressed by public institutions, private companies or civil society organizations, in order to realize future goods and services consistent with the set of proposed sustainable development goals [10,11]. Achieving sustainable development goals through entrepreneurship involves sustained ethical concerns of entrepreneurs to achieve in the same time economic, social and environmental gains [12,13]. However, the existence of restricted market opportunities and environmental regulations can lead to greenwashing, which hinders the achievement of sustainable development goals [14]. As pointed out by Rahman and Nguyen-Viet [15], greenwashing practices relate either to the nature-related actions of a business or the environmental benefits of a product, service or process, being due to selective disclosure on social and environmental practices of a business (e.g., environmentally damaging practices of material mining for green products), decoupling substantive sustainability problems and symbolic environmental protection behaviors (e.g., green advertising or eco-friendly image), and pragmatic legitimacy based on the stakeholders’ personal benefits (e.g., outsourcing to cost-effective countries with questionable working conditions). Achieving sustainable development goals through entrepreneurship influences people’s interest and attractiveness toward sustainability and their level of confidence in their ability and capacity to prevail in certain contexts or in performing specific tasks, with effects on SEI, so in other words, the likelihood of initiating new businesses in the future through involvement in civic activities [16,17,18,19].

The extant literature provides limited information on SEI and its determinants, with empirical studies considering either only the planned behavior model [20,21] as a theoretical foundation or integrating it into the entrepreneurial event model [22], thus resulting in research models tailored to the context of sustainable entrepreneurship and extended by including environmental, educational, psychological, social and/or demographic factors [18,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34].

The research theme of the present paper centers on identifying those factors that mediate and shape the relationship between EV and SEI based on a research design that expands the general theoretical model of an entrepreneurial event [22] and adapts it to the domain of sustainable entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurial event model has been applied as a theoretical research foundation in a small number of previous studies in order to determine the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions [35] or has been integrated into the planned behavior model [20,21] to investigate the determinants of SEI [23,27,28,29,32,33]. Therefore, in the context of an emergent European country such as Romania, the aim of the research is to determine whether the independent variables, perceived desire and feasibility, from the entrepreneurial event model [22] have a dual mediating role in the connection between EV and SEI, as well as whether the variable of ERM would have a moderating role in the relationship between the entrepreneurial event model variables [22] in the context of sustainable entrepreneurship. Consequently, the present study aims to address the following research questions: How does EV influences SEI intermediated through PSED and PSEF among young people studying at university in an academic environment that, through its curriculum and projects, provides the necessary framework to stimulate sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship? How does exposure to entrepreneurial models shape the positive impact of PSED and PSEF on SEI among these young people?

The paper has been divided and structured into certain sections specific to the logic of an empirical research paper in the field of sustainable entrepreneurship. After the introductory section, the theoretical background is presented, based on which the research hypotheses and the proposed research design are argued. Methodological aspects, data analysis, results and discussion are then offered in the following sections, followed by conclusions and theoretical and practical implications derived from the obtained research findings, completed with limitations of the study and future research directions.

2. Literature, Research Propositions and Conceptual Model

2.1. Theoretical Background and Research Hypotheses

The entrepreneurial event model, developed by Shapero and Sokol [22], is one of the earliest theoretical models in the entrepreneurship field. The model is based on the premise that a person’s choice of an entrepreneurial path over other professional alternatives, through the action of creating a business, depends on the occurrence of an entrepreneurial event that leads to certain change decisions and transforms behavioral inertia into action. Under the conditions of entrepreneurial event manifestation, a person’s action to create a business is determined by their perceptions on the desirability or aspiration and feasibility or viability of creating the business, together with the propensity to act in correlation with the opportunities offered by the particularities of the current environment [22]. Perceived desire is connected to the positive or negative attitude toward doing business and a person’s vision regarding the attractiveness of becoming an entrepreneur [36]. Perceived feasibility reflects the extent to which a person feels prepared and capable to start a novel business and to become an entrepreneur [37]. Propensity to act is a person’s disposition and inclination to undertake the entrepreneurial process, according to the individual’s decision to do business and become an entrepreneur [38]. Consequently, the entrepreneurial act is explained by the combination of three categories of factors, namely perceived desire, perceived feasibility and propensity to act, which determine entrepreneurial intention [39]. Entrepreneurial intention is a person’s perceived belief regarding their willingness to launch a new business venture and planning forward-looking actions to achieve this goal [40,41]. Entrepreneurial intention, influenced by the stimulation of desire and feasibility perceived by a person regarding an entrepreneurial act [42], presumes the existence of a potential for a particular activity prior to the manifestation of the entrepreneurial event and the propensity to act after the event has already occurred [37,42]. In their model, Shapero and Sokol [22] did not explicitly refer to entrepreneurial intention; this concept was incorporated by Krueger and Carsrud [43] following the reformulation of the original model. The Shapero and Sokol model [22] accepts the case where a person perceives the creation of a new firm as feasible and desirable, and therefore credible, and such discernments are likely to create the intention to go into a new business or start a new business [37,44]. Therefore, some authors [38] consider that the propensity to act, as the prompting factor of the entrepreneurial act and precipitating factor of the entrepreneurial initiatives, does not significantly add to a deeper understanding of the entrepreneurial event model [22], while desire and feasibility perceived regarding the entrepreneurial action remain crucial [42] and serve furtherly as direct precursors to entrepreneurial intentions [45]. Krueger et al. [42] underline that perceived desire reflects a person’s attitude toward the attractiveness of an entrepreneurial behavior under the constraints of subjective norms regarding whether or not to engage in that behavior as a consequence of social pressures, while perceived feasibility refers to perceived behavioral control, so to a person’s self-assessed perception concerning own capabilities to perform an entrepreneurial behavior [18,27,46]. Individual attitude, subjective norms and behavioral control are behavioral variables that relate to intention and, in the entrepreneurial context, to entrepreneurial intention, in conformity with the theoretical model of planned behavior [20,21]. Consequently, the two theoretical models tested and widely used to determine the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention could be overlapping [42,47]. Other authors have highlighted the possibility to merge and integrate the two theoretical models [29,48,49,50].

Traditionally, entrepreneurial action has an economic objective, mainly focused on efficiency and profit [31], on the one hand, with positive effects on economic growth, job creation and innovation [35,51] and, on the other hand, with negative effects on the environment due to pollution and overuse of non-renewable resources [18]. In this context arises the individuals’ needs to create businesses that minimize negative environmental impacts, with concomitant beneficial effects on the wider community [32]. The need to create value for the environment and society, prior to creating economic value for oneself, makes it necessary to study the intention to generate sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial actions [30]. SEI is a person’s state of mind that illustrates their “conviction and commitment to set up in the future a new business venture that creates economic, social and environmental values” [23] (p. 662) as well. A person’s perceived environmental proclivity indicates the meaning they attach to the environment, as well as their EV [52], with impact on SEI [53,54]. The manner of how EV relate to SEI has not been fully clarified in previous empirical research studies [30]. EV can negatively influence SEI when they are related to reducing the economic value that an individual can provide for himself/herself through entrepreneurial activity, due to the increasing costs of covering environmental damage; however, they can influence it positively when they can create economic value by treating social and environmental problems as business opportunities to be solved through successful business ventures [11,55,56,57]. Empirical research results emphasized positive direct linkage between EV and SEI [30] or positive indirect relations mediated solely by personal attitudes toward sustainable entrepreneurship [34]. Nițu-Antonie et al. [29] showed that behavioral factors (personal attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) do not exclusively mediate the link between EV and SEI, because the indirect relationship is double-mediated by behavioral factors and PSEF, as well as by perceived desire. There are some empirical studies reporting an insignificant influence of an individual’s perceived desire and feasibility on SEI [23]. Other empirical studies report positive direct connections between PSED and SEI and between PSEF and SEI [27,28,29,32] or only a significant influence of PSED on SEI, with an insignificant influence of PSEF [33].

All of the previously discussed studies and the selected papers presented in more detail within

Table 1. Selected empirical studies on the influencing factors of potential entrepreneurs’ SEI.

Authors	Theoretical Framework	Antecedents	Mediators	Moderator	Sample	Empirical Results
Peng et al. [30]	Extends the planned behavior theoretic model	Environmental values (EV)	Self-efficacy   Personal attitude   Subjective norms	Experience level of the respondents	Meta-analysis	EV positively influence SEI.   The relations between EV and SEI, EV and personal attitude and EV and self-efficacy are moderated by the previous experience of respondents.   The relation between EV and social norms is not moderated by the previous experience of respondents.
Yasir et al. [34]	Extends the planned behavior theoretic model	Environmental values (EV)   Extrinsic rewards   Intrinsic rewards   Consideration of immediate consequences   Consideration of future consequences   Entrepreneurial education   Subjective norms	Attitude toward sustainable entrepreneurship   Perceived behavioral control	Not included	Students from Pakistan	Attitude toward sustainable entrepreneurship, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurial education influences directly and positively the SEI.   Attitude toward sustainable entrepreneurship mediates the positive relations between EV, intrinsic rewards, consideration of future consequences on SEI.   EV and consideration of future consequences have higher indirect impact on SEI.   Attitude toward sustainable entrepreneurship does not mediate the negative relation between extrinsic reward and SEI.   Perceived behavioral control mediates the positive relation between the consideration of future consequences and SEI, without mediating the negative relation between the consideration of immediate consequences and SEI.
Niţu-Antonie et al. [29]	Integrates and extends the theoretical models of planned behavior and entrepreneurial event	Environmental values (EV)	Behavioral factors   Perceived desire   Perceived feasibility	Entrepreneurship education level	Students from Romania	PSED and PSEF are direct antecedents of SEI, behavior factors are antecedents of perceived desire and feasibility, while EV are antecedents of the behavioral factors.   There is an indirect and thus positive relation between EV and SEI, double-mediated by behavioral factors and PSEF while moderated by entrepreneurial education.   The impact of PSEF is more pronounced when respondents have access to basic entrepreneurial education rather than in the case of those with advanced entrepreneurial education.   The indirect relation between EV and SEI is double-mediated by behavioral factors and PSED only in the case of students with advanced entrepreneurial education.

regarding the determinants of SEI have considered the planned behavior model [20,21] or an integration of it with the entrepreneurial event model [22] as applied theoretical frameworks, and some other influencing factors have been considered as a result of model adaptation to sustainable entrepreneurship. Missing from the highlighted empirical research is an investigation of the antecedents of SEI based on the entrepreneurial event model [22], extended with EV. Therefore, additional empirical research using such a theoretical framework is justified and warranted in the context of current empirical studies attempting to integrate or enlarge the two original theoretical frameworks [20,21,22] in order to establish the influencing factors of SEI, yet reaching conflicting results regarding the direct relationships between perceived desirability, respectively feasibility and SEI [23,27,28,29,32,33].

Contradictory findings have also been reported on the mediating role of behavioral characteristics considering the relationship between EV and SEI [29,32] and mixed results concerning the dual mediation of this relationship, serially and in parallel, by behavioral characteristics together with PSED and PSEF [29]. Accordingly, the following research hypotheses were formulated:

H1. 

EV influence directly and positively PSED.

H2. 

EV directly and positively influence PSEF.

H3. 

PSED directly and positively influences SEI.

H4. 

PSEF directly and positively influences SEI.

H5. 

The indirect effect of EV on SEI is mediated in parallel by PSED (H5a) and PSEF (H5b).

A person’s exposure to role models refers to the process by which the individual identifies with other people’s behaviors because of a personal need to build their own personality and motivate and guide particular actions [58,59,60]. The positive effect of observing others materializes in individual preferences to follow a certain type of behavior, career decisions and actions taken as a result [61,62]. In the entrepreneurial context, exposure to role models has a positive effect on entrepreneurial intentions and also on entrepreneurial behavior [63]. Entrepreneurial role models (ERM) in someone’s family environment (parents, grandparents, relatives) and social environment (friends, colleagues, peers, acquaintances) can influence the person’s entrepreneurial intentions because the entrepreneurial environment facilitates business-related learning experiences and the acquisition of positive beliefs about a career in entrepreneurship [60,64,65,66,67]. Family members with an entrepreneurial spirit may pass on business-related interests to their descendants, providing them with the opportunity to create their own business, offering support and resources to pursue it [68]. However, they may also provide a negative entrepreneurial role model, especially if they fail to pursue their entrepreneurial activities or if they encounter numerous problems or complications (low income, limited prestige and little professional satisfaction, job burnout, etc.) [69,70,71].

Parents play the most important role in triggering their offspring’s desire for entrepreneurial behavior [72,73]; however, individuals exposed to parental entrepreneurial role models view entrepreneurial careers as feasible but not desirable if they have experienced also the negative aspects of starting and running a business as a result of these previous exposures [74]. Parental entrepreneurial performance as perceived by descendants, on the one hand, positively influences their perceived entrepreneurial desire and feasibility through exposure mechanisms and, on the other hand, inhibits the transposal of their PSED and PSEF into entrepreneurial intentions as a result of the ascending mechanisms of social comparison [75]. Empirical results reported by some researchers indicate that exposure to ERM in the home environment can be directly and indirectly related to entrepreneurial intention [75,76,77], the linkage between the two constructs being partially mediated by the desire and feasibility of starting a new business [77].

Ambiguous empirical evidence was found on the moderating effect of family support on the linkage between entrepreneurial confidence and entrepreneurial optimism on entrepreneurial intention in general, without being particularized to the sustainability context. In this case, the cultural characteristics of the origin countries for the surveyed students explain the mixed, significant and negative, as well as non-existent, effects of the moderating role of family support on the relation between the considered constructs [78]. From the investigated empirical studies, which examined entrepreneurial intentions generally without focusing on sustainable entrepreneurship, exposure to ERM may be a direct and indirect antecedent of entrepreneurial intention, mediated in part by a person’s perceived feasibility and desire for entrepreneurship, with a negative or non-existent moderating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurial confidence along with entrepreneurial optimism and entrepreneurial intention. The following research propositions were articulated in light of the aforementioned theoretical and empirical findings:

H6. 

ERM moderates the relationship between PSED and SEI.

H7. 

ERM moderates the relationship between PSEF and SEI.

2.2. The Proposed Research Model

The conceptual research design of the present paper considers the theoretical framework of the entrepreneurial event model [22], reformulated by Krueger and Carsrud [43], with the aim to detect the role of EV on SEI and the mediating–moderating effects of PSED and PSEF, along with the exposure to ERM from the familial and social environments (Figure 1).

This theoretical model is a comprehensive one and assumes that a person perceives an entrepreneurial act as credible, thus feasible and desirable, and such perceptions are likely to create the intention to generate or develop a business [22,43]. In order to adapt the model to the situation of sustainable entrepreneurship, environmental values are included as an exogenous variable to directly and positively stimulate a person’s perceived desire and feasibility related to the sustainable entrepreneurial act, as well as indirectly the sustainable entrepreneurial intentions through desire and feasibility [22,23,27,28,29,33,43]. An individual’s exposure to entrepreneurial role models, especially to those people who carry out entrepreneurial activities and who are part of his/her family or social environment, is considered as another exogenous variable that can positively influence the incentive effect of perceived sustainable entrepreneurial desire and feasibility on entrepreneurial intention, as a result of the transmission of information on how an entrepreneurial activity is carried out, the social capital on business partners and the financial support by those people who can provide it [22,43,79].

Based on the discussion from the previous Section 2.1 and according to Table 1, the investigated empirical studies have revealed either the exclusive use and extension of the planned behavior model in order to identify the influencing factors of sustainable entrepreneurial intention [22] or its integration into the entrepreneurial event model [34], considering the level of students’ entrepreneurial education as a moderating factor of the relations between the key determinants and SEI. The originality of the research design is in that none of the investigated empirical studies that dealt with the influencing factors of SEI were exclusively based on the theoretical approach derived from the entrepreneurial event model [22,43]. Likewise, within the reviewed mediation–moderation models, the mediating role of PSED and PSEF in the linkage between EV and SEI, then the moderating role of ERM in the relation between PSED and SEI, and in the relation between PSED and SEI is not examined.

3. Methodology

In order to create an extended overview of the undertaken study, the methodological section encompasses a part regarding the national entrepreneurial landscape in Romania to offer details on the macroeconomic context of the research, followed by a part presenting the research setting and participants within the current research, completed by the presentation of the research design, scales and measures used within the instrument collecting the primary data and finalized with the main aspects of the data analysis strategy.

3.1. The Research Context

Romania has been attempting to promote economic growth over the past two decades by encouraging and fostering entrepreneurial aspirations and intentions and by promoting entrepreneurial culture and spirit for the future implementation of entrepreneurial initiatives. In this sense, based on the International Monetary Fund [80] data and forecasts, in the last few years, Romania attained a real gross domestic product growth rate of +5.88% in 2021 and +4.8% in 2022; however, the forecasts indicate a decrease for the following years, of a total of −1.3% until 2027.

Regarding the business demography statistics for 2022, there were 536,491 active SMEs accounted in Romania, out of which 89.99% were micro-sized enterprises with 0–9 employees [81]. Moreover, there were 152,809 new registered start-ups in 2022, with 3.04% more than in the previous year [82], proving an increasing interest in entrepreneurship in the country.

Regarding the entrepreneurial landscape in Romania, the most recent data of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Consortium [83] show that only 9.68% of the adult (18–64) population are currently owners or managers of a new business or are nascent entrepreneurs engaged in creating a new start-up; thus, the national early-stage entrepreneurial activity is at a medium level compared to some other entrepreneurially performant countries. Within the above two categories, there are slightly more (1.21) improvement-driven opportunity-motivated entrepreneurs compared to the number of necessity-motivated ones. In addition, half (50.02%) of the Romanian adult population report that they have the required skills, competencies, abilities, knowledge or information to start a new business, and 49.13% perceive that they manage to identify proper opportunities to start a firm or entrepreneurial activity. Moreover, 67.78% of Romanian adults consider entrepreneurship as a good and potentially successful career option, and 72.25% consider that successful, efficient and recognized entrepreneurs have a positive image and a high status in society. Although the career to become an entrepreneur is positively seen, only 9.68% of the adult population has entrepreneurial intentions for the next 3 years.

Concerning the population, firm and governmental attitude and actions toward sustainability, based on the data from the Sachs et al. report [84], Romania ranks overall in 30th place from the 163 analyzed countries, with a total progress of 77.72% toward achieving all 17 SDGs, along with a spillover score of 90.5; thus, the initiatives and actions within the national framework create rather positive spillover effects over the other countries. Regarding the current situation on SDGs, Romania has no SDG fully achieved, and no major challenges remain to attain them, although challenges remain for SDG 1, SDG 4, SDG 6–8, SDG 11 and SDG 17, and significant challenges remain for SGD 2–3, SDG 5, SDG 9–10 and SDG 12–16.

Bearing in mind all of the above changes, both at population interest and national policy levels, there is an increasing focus on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions providing a favorable context for entrepreneurial research, in general, and for sustainable entrepreneurship, in particular.

3.2. Research Setting and Participants

The participants of this study include business and economics students from different business and economic study programs within the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration in the framework of the West University of Timisoara, located in the western part of Romania. Authors opted for the above research milieu for several reasons: (i) it is a recognized and well-known higher education institution, located within the country’s four traditional university centers (Bucharest, Iași, Cluj-Napoca and Timișoara); (ii) it is part of the Universitaria Consortium encompassing the country’s five largest universities; (iii) the West University of Timișoara (in general) and the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration (in particular) attract students from all over the country and therefore can be considered representative for the youths’ attitude concerning entrepreneurship even at a national level; and (iv) from the spatial location perspective, the university is placed in a three-land region, an economically developed province with rich history and multiple cultural influences, offering several opportunities for young generations. Concerning the research population, the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration was selected due to having students with either entrepreneurial or employment-type career interests and students being beneficiaries of an advanced approach of the entrepreneurial spirit, culture and competences, having specific formal and informal entrepreneurial courses and workshops; meetings with experienced entrepreneurs as potential mentors; innovative labs and best case practices; and multiple financing opportunities and project competitions. Respondents were students, as potential entrepreneurs in the nearby future, enrolled and pursuing their studies during the 2021/2022 academic year at the selected higher education institution.

As a sampling method, the stratified random version was used, with the number of students at each study level being the basis for application (

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of participants’ demographics, summary of Levene’s test and F-test results.

Variables	N	%	Levene’s Test (sig.)	F-Test (sig.)	SEI Mean Value
Gender			1.098 (0.296)	0.138 (0.711)
▪ Male	56	26.54%			3.7429
▪ Female	155	73.46%			3.7871
Study level			1.331 (0.250)	0.004 (0.951)
▪ Pre-graduate (bachelor)	135	63.98%			3.7778
▪ Graduate (master)	76	36.02%			3.7711
Entrepreneurial education			0.214 (0.644)	0.691 (0.407)
▪ None	55	26.07%			3.7018
▪ Specific disciplines	156	73.93%			3.8013
Entrepreneurial role model			0.138 (0.710)	0.897 (0.345)
▪ None	139	65.88%			3.7396
▪ Yes (exposure in family or social environment)	72	34.12%			3.8444

). From the target population, the sample of respondents (n = 211) included 135 pre-graduate (bachelor level) and 76 graduated (master level) participants. Furthermore, the sample encompassed 155 (73.46%) female and 56 (26.54%) male students. Concerning the entrepreneurial education of respondents, the participants reported that 156 (73.93%) had an entrepreneurship discipline, while 55 (26.07%) followed no such specific formal subject. Additionally, 65.88% of the respondents stated that they had an entrepreneur within their immediate or extended family or in their social circle, such as friends, coworkers, colleagues, classmates, peers or acquaintances, while the remaining 34.12% stated having no such person within their environment, thus lacking such a direct and close entrepreneurial model.

Following the approach of Truong et al. [79], Table 2 above shows the descriptive statistics presenting the respondents’ demographic features, also the main results of Levene’s test and F-test from the one-way ANOVA, in order to indicate potential differences between respondents’ intentions and their self-reported demographics.

Summary information in Table 2 demonstrates Levene’s test with a p above 0.05, complemented with Fisher’s F-test for between-group statistics also with a p above 0.05 in terms of all the considered demographic variables: gender, study level, specific entrepreneurial education and exposure to ERM. Therefore, the levels of SEI did not differ significantly in terms of the two genders (females and males), in terms of the two study levels (undergraduate (bachelor) and graduate (master) students), in terms of education type (with or without an entrepreneurship discipline) and in terms of exposure to ERM within their family or social environment or the lack of it. Consequently, there were no statistically significant between-groups variances and differences with regard to SEI in the case of respondent students based on the four demographic variables. However, in the case of the last variable, exposure to entrepreneurial paragons had the highest variance (3.7396–3.8444) between the two considered subgroups, supporting the authors’ decision to consider the given variable as a moderator within the research.

3.3. Research Design, Instrument and Measures

In order to collect the necessary primary data regarding the studied theme, an online questionnaire was created based on the available measurement scales within the sustainable entrepreneurship field.

The questionnaire consisted of 37 items for the four main constructs, not including the participants’ socio-demographic characteristics, which added 4 more questions. The respondents were requested to select one of the clearly delimited echelons on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“totally disagree”) to 5 (“totally agree”) in the case of the statements specific to the modeled main constructs.

The environmental value construct (EV), reflecting a person’s deep considerations for ecological, social and economic factors and their interdependent implications [85], was measured through six statements adopted from the operationalization suggestion of Mair and Noboa [86], encompassing items such as “Make the world a better place to live in” (EV3).

In terms of the two proposed mediators, perceived sustainable entrepreneurial desire (PSED) was assessed by the means of eight statements, while perceived sustainable entrepreneurial feasibility (PSEF) was measured via eighteen statements. For both constructs, the scale operationalization was derived from Koe et al. [18], counting items such as “Design sustainability assuring product/service” (PSED3) or “Design sustainability product/service” (PSEZ2).

Sustainable entrepreneurial intention (SEI), as a resultant variable, reflects the conscious and explicit assertion of an individual to adopt an entrepreneurial behavior according to the positive principles of socioecological sustainability [85]. The applied measurement scale with five statements was developed by Sher et al. [87] and includes statements such as “If I would set up my own business, it will enhance sustainable development” (SEI3).

Additionally, within the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, the questionnaire included the respondents’ gender (with the options: female/male), study level (with the options: undergraduate/bachelor or graduate/master), entrepreneurial education (with options: no/yes) and potential exposure to ERM (with options: no/yes) within the family or social environment.

The questionnaire was developed and refined with the support of four academic staff members for translation and wording and afterward pre-tested before launching the questionnaire on a limited sample of students for validation and proper understanding evaluation purposes.

The online questionnaires were transmitted via a link to the form placed on the Google platform. In conformity with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and research-related regulations of the West University of Timisoara, prior to beginning the questionnaire’s completion, prospective respondents were:

• Assured anonymity, for themselves and for their answers as well, and thus, no respondent identification data were required or registered (such as name or email address);
• Informed upon the purpose of the questionnaire within the first introductory page of the questionnaire;
• Provided with details regarding the data analysis process and reassured that no individual response would be released;
• To check a box for their intent and willingness to continue the online survey and their consent to do so, thus agreeing to partake in the study, contribute to science and accept that their responses would be statistically analyzed, treated at a collective level and reported in publications.

3.4. Data Analysis Design

For data analysis purposes, the recommendations of Hair et al. [88] were followed, analyzing in the first part the sample-specific descriptive statistics, evaluating afterward the psychometric properties of the measurement scales, followed by hypothesis testing for structural model validation (

Table 3. Data analysis design.

Data Analysis Component	Data Analysis Methods and Techniques
1. Sample description	Descriptive statistics, Levene and Fisher tests
2. Measurement assessment	Reliability testing considering Cronbach’s alpha and the composite reliability of scales Construct validity based on factor loadings and dimensionality structure following the exploratory factor analysis Discriminant validity evaluated through comparison between square-root of average variance extracted and Pearson correlations
3. Research model evaluation	Structural equation modeling for direct causal relation evaluations (hypotheses H1–H4) PROCESS macro model 14 for testing conditional indirect relationships (mediated (H5a, H5b) and moderated hypotheses (H6, H7))

). In terms of statistical software, IBM SPSS 23 and its AMOS extension module were used, completed with Hayes’s PROCESS macro.

Firstly, besides absolute and relative frequencies as descriptive statistics of the demographic features of the respondents, Levene’s and Fisher’s tests were used to determine potential differences between groups of students depending on their self-reported demographics.

Secondly, the commonly used psychometric properties specific to the applied measurement scales were assessed, in the form of reliability, followed by construct validity and completed with the discriminant validity of scales regarding the four modeled constructs. Both Cronbach’s alpha (traditional version) and composite reliability (modern form) were assessed to test measurement scale reliability and internal consistency. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to weight and evaluate convergent construct validity along with the dimensionality structure of the constructs, using principal component analysis in combination with the varimax rotation. Discriminant validity assessment was realized by applying the Fornell–Larcker criterion [89] in the form of comparing inter-construct correlations against the square-root value of average variance extracted.

Thirdly, in order to test direct causal relationships between the four main constructs, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed, delimiting thus the influence of the potential determinant factors on SEI (hypotheses H1–H4). Structural equation modeling is recognized nowadays as one of the most popular and influential techniques for causal relationship analysis, particularly in the management and entrepreneurship research fields [79].

Finally, Hayes’s PROCESS macro [90] was implemented in order to investigate in the same model parallel mediation and moderation. Consequently, model 14 permitted the evaluation of the conditional indirect relationships between EV and SEI, through PSED and PSEF as potential mediators (H5a, H5b) and the exposure to ERM as a moderator (H6, H7). The PROCESS macro’s primary benefit is the sequential development of the research model in order to calculate both direct and indirect effects and sum them for the total effect, along with testing the specific moderated mediation based on the bootstrap technic and the index of moderated mediation [90].

4. Empirical Results

4.1. Measurement Assessment

For the internal consistency assessment of the measurement scale, Hair et al. [88] recommend a minimal proper value of 0.6 as the standard threshold in the case of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and composite reliability. Regarding all of the four constructs considered within the proposed model, Cronbach’s alpha displayed sufficiently high values between 0.876 and 0.956, along with composite reliability having values registered between 0.947 and 0.976 (

Table 4. Internal consistency assessment: reliability and convergent validity.

Constructs	Items	Factor Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Environmental values (EV)	EV1 EV2 EV3 EV4 EV5 EV6	0.825 0.850 0.805 0.853 0.713 0.692	0.878	0.947	0.790
Perceived sustainable entrepreneurial desire (PSED)	PSED1 PSED2 PSED3 PSED4 PSED5 PSED6 PSED7 PSED8	0.886 0.885 0.869 0.749 0.801 0.694 0.881 0.707	0.911	0.965	0.809
Perceived sustainable entrepreneurial feasibility (PSEF)	PSEF1 PSEF2 PSEF3 PSEF4 PSEF5 PSEF6 PSEF7 PSEF8 PSEF9 PSEF10 PSEF11 PSEF12 PSEF13 PSEF14 PSEF15 PSEF16 PSEF17 PSEF18	0.657 0.790 0.769 0.781 0.772 0.708 0.641 0.735 0.680 0.788 0.700 0.690 0.559 0.841 0.732 0.845 0.908 0.863	0.956	0.976	0.748
Sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (SEI)	SEI1 SEI2 SEI3 SEI4 SEI5	0.840 0.867 0.861 0.756 0.781	0.876	0.950	0.821
Exposure to entrepreneurial role models (ERM)	ERM1	-	-	-	-

.)

Based on data in Table 4, all items loaded meaningfully on their respective constructs, with sufficiently high scores for the factor loadings, ranging between 0.692 and 0.853 for environmental values, between 0.694 and 0.886 for PSED, between 0.559 and 0.908 for PSEF and between 0.5756 and 0.867 for SEI. Therefore, in the case of all of the above four constructs, scores for factor loadings meet the threshold of 0.50 recommended by Hair et al. [88] and establish item-level convergent validity. In addition, average variance extracted (AVE) values higher than 0.50 [89] indicate construct-level convergent validity.

Discriminant validity was evaluated using the Fornell–Larcker criterion [89], by comparing the square root of AVE with inter-construct correlations. In addition, based on Hair et al. [88], construct-level discriminant validity is assured if the amount of the factor loading of each item is superior compared to the rest of its cross-loadings. In this sense,

Table 5. Internal consistency assessment: discriminant validity.

Constructs	EV	PSED	PSEF	SEI	ERM
EV	0.889
PSED	0.598 **	0.899
PSEF	0.507 **	0.725 **	0.865
SEI	0.603 **	0.558 **	0.653 **	0.906
ERM	0.037	0.122	0.172 *	0.065	-

Note: square roots of AVE are placed on the diagonal, and Pearson correlations are located below them, correlations being significant at ** 0.01 level (2-tailed), * 0.01 level (2-tailed).

shows that for all of the four modeled constructs, the square-root values of average variance extracted (AVE) were greater compared to the inter-construct correlations.

4.2. Direct Causal Effect Analysis

Nowadays, structural equation modeling (SEM) is the preferred higher-order modeling technique [79] to test multiple sequentially linked causal relationships. Structural equation modeling (SEM) specific path analysis is recommended by Hair et al. [88] to test hypotheses for theory assessment, validation and endorsement; in the present study, the entrepreneurial event theory was altered to fit the framework of sustainable entrepreneurship.

The visual AMOS output is presented in Figure 2, while the results from the table-type AMOS output are systematized in

Table 6. Results of causal hypothesis testing based on structural equation modeling in AMOS.

Hypothesis	Modeled Relation			Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	p-Value	Decision
H1	EV	→	PSED	0.695	0.084	9.489	<0.001	valid
H2	EV	→	PSEF	0.604	0.064	7.247	<0.001	valid
H3	PSED	→	SEI	0.286	0.057	4.402	<0.001	valid
H4	PSEF	→	SEI	0.552	0.106	6.891	<0.001	valid

. Based on the maximum likelihood technique, the estimated regression weights are reported within their standardized form in Figure 2 and Table 6. The obtained and above- and below-presented data analysis findings illustrate significant direct influences and effects of each determinant factor upon the considered result variables in the case of all of the first four proposed research hypotheses.

Firstly, EV is a direct, positive and statistically highly significant predictor of PSED, based on the following output table statistics: β = 0.695, S.E. = 0.084, and p < 0.001. Thus, hypothesis H1 is accepted as valid.

Secondly, EV is a direct, positive and statistically highly significant predictor of PSEF, based on the following output table statistics: β = 0.604, S.E. = 0.064, and p < 0.001. Hence, hypothesis H2 is accepted as valid.

Thirdly, PSED is a direct, positive and statistically highly significant predictor of SEI, based on the following output table statistics: β = 0.286, S.E. = 0.057, and p < 0.001. Therefore, hypothesis H3 is accepted as valid.

Fourthly, PSEF is a direct, positive and statistically highly significant predictor of SEI, based on the following output table statistics: β = 0.552, S.E. = 0.106, and p < 0.001. Consequently, hypothesis H4 is accepted as valid.

Finally, based on the tested structural equation model, since EV, PSED and PSEF were all significant predictors of SEI, all of the above variables jointly accounted for 51.9% of the variation in SEI.

4.3. Mediation and Moderation Analysis

The proposed research model (Figure 1) involves testing for the indirect effect of environmental values (X, independent variable) on sustainable entrepreneurial intentions (Y, dependent variable) via the proposed parallel mediators, perceived sustainable entrepreneurial desire (M1, first mediator) and perceived sustainable entrepreneurial feasibility (M2, second mediator), with the indirect effect being moderated by exposure to entrepreneurial role models (W, moderator), thus being applied only in the last part of the model in the form of a second-stage moderation.

In order to test the above relations in the form of moderation and parallel mediation hypotheses, Hayes’s PROCESS macro [90] was applied. Model 14 with multiple parallel mediators was found as best fitting the proposed model and research objectives, using the bootstrap method to estimate the conditional indirect relationships through the two parallel mediating variables and the moderator variable.

Based on the PROCESS macro, for the whole model, including the causal, mediated and moderated relations (interactions), the predictors accounted for significant variation in SEI. R² = 0.5415; F = 40.1598, p < 0.0001, and thus, with 54,15% considered a high variance of the explained dependent variable, the explanatory power of the proposed research model is quite good [91].

Table 7. Results of conditional indirect effects considered within the research model based on the PROCESS macro.

Indirect Relationship	Moderator Level (W)	Effect	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
EV → PSED (M1) → SEI	None (0)	0.0646	0.1009	−0.1255	0.2753
	Exposure (1)	−0.1405	0.0765	−0.2842	0.0219
	Index of moderated mediation	−0.2051	0.1212	−0.4509	0.0324
EV → PSEF (ME) → SEI	None (0)	0.2131	0.0731	0.0791	0.3666
	Exposure (1)	0.4472	0.0753	0.3060	0.6023
	Index of moderated mediation	0.2341	0.0859	0.0761	0.4094

reflects the overall indirect effects pertaining to the indirect effect of EV on SEI via PSED (M1, first mediator) along with the indirect effect of EV on SEI via PSEF (M2, second mediator).

The specific indirect effect reflected by the EV on SEI via PSED (first mediator) is found to be statistically not significant because the null value falls within the obtained confidence intervals of [−0.1255; 0.2753] and [−0.2842; 0.0219]; thus, hypothesis H5a is accepted as invalid.

Contrarily, the specific indirect effect reflected by the EV on SEI via PSEF (second mediator) is found to be statistically significant because the null value falls outside the obtained confidence intervals of [0.0791; 0.3666] and [0.3060; 0.6023]; thus, hypothesis H5b is accepted as valid.

The index of moderated mediation (IMM), reflecting the difference between conditional indirect effects, quantifies the linear functional relationship between the above indirect effects and the exposure to ERM, as a moderator (W), tested with the bootstrap method (confidence interval of 95% and 5000 as the number of bootstrap samples).

Within the first portion of Table 6, the IMM= −0.2051 with a bootstrap 95%CI = (−0.4509; 0.0324); since the null value falls between the lower and upper bounds of the interval, exposure to ERM is not moderating the indirect effect via PSED. Therefore, hypothesis H6 is accepted as invalid.

Within the second portion of Table 6, the IMM= −0.2051 with a bootstrap 95%CI = (−0.4509; 0.0324); since the null value falls between the lower and upper bounds of the interval, exposure to ERM is moderating the indirect effect via PSEF. Consequently, hypothesis H7 is accepted as valid.

The plot in Figure 3 provides a graphical approach to visualizing changes in the simple slopes between perceived feasibility and intention regarding sustainable entrepreneurship across levels of exposure to ERM. All the slopes are positive; however, the slope is more pronounced in the case of moving from no ERM to exposure to ERM. Thus, a weaker positive relationship was found among respondents having no relation to entreprenurial role models (blue line), and a stronger positive connection was found among participant beneficiaries of the diverse support from ERM (green line).

5. Discussion

The research results revealed several linkages and connections between an individual’s EV, PSED, PSEF and SEI. In addition to contributing to the documentation and delimitation of the antecedents of SEI specific to academically educated young adults, the present paper provides answers to the two main research questions. Firstly, it demonstrates that PSED and PSEF act as mediating factors within the link between EV and SEI. Secondly, as for the relationship between PSEF and SEI, it validates that exposure to ERM can play a moderating role.

The authors did not identify any recent studies that take into account the entrepreneurial event model [22] and extrapolate it to the context of sustainable entrepreneurship in the topic of SEI. Moreover, the conceptual model examined in the current study also takes into account the conditional analysis, in the form of the mediation and moderation processes, for the factors that influence individuals’ intentions to engage in sustainable business, thus offering fresh insights into the connection between EV and such intentions among young people participating in higher education.

Without any other empirical study pertaining to the findings of the current study in order to assure consistent or inconsistent results, the validated research hypotheses revealed direct causal associations between EV and PSED, also EV and PSEF. However, in accordance with other empirical findings from studies on different samples of students from various countries, the next validated hypotheses (H3 and H4) also showed a direct relationship between PSED and SEI, as well as between PSEF and SEI [27,28,29,31,32], under conditions for which a few empirical research studies regarding these antecedent-type constructs proved no direct effects on SEI [22]. A positive association of perceived desire and feasibility with entrepreneurial intention, which has not been particularized to a sustainable context, has been identified in several empirical studies emphasized by Ali et al. [92], Fitzsimmons and Douglas [93], Krueger and Brazeal [94], Krueger et al. [11], Krueger [95], Segal et al. [96] and more recently Soomro et al. [35].

The connection between environmental ideals and values (EV) and SEI is mediated by PSEF; however, the relationship is not mediated through PSED. PSED may be positively influenced by other factors besides the significance that university-educated young people attach to the environment, in the context of Romania, an economy with large gaps in meeting SGDs compared to other EU countries. Although no empirical results consistent with those of the present study were found, there is one recent empirical research study that indicates that the relationship between EV and SEI is doubly mediated, in a serial manner by behavioral factors (composed of individual attitude, subjective or social norms and perceived behavioral control) and PSEF but not by the considered compartmental factors together with PSED [27]. Previous empirical research identified a direct positive linkage between environmental values and sustainable entrepreneurial intention [29] and an indirect link between these constructs mediated by attitudes toward sustainable entrepreneurship [33].

In addition, exposure to ERM has a moderating impact on the linkage between PSEF and intention to start or engage in a sustainable entrepreneurial business but does not significantly moderate the relationship between PSED and SEI. Exposure to ERM can prompt the knowledge of business management, the opportunity to own a business and the supportive material resources, thus amplifying the positive influence of PSEF or viability upon the aspiration of students to assume SEI and sustainable entrepreneurial behavior. Within the economic and social framework of an emerging country such as Romania, the positive influence of perceived desire on SEI is not amplified by exposure to entrepreneurial models in family and social environments because family pressures may lead young people to seek instead employment opportunities as a result of upward mechanisms of social comparison. No prior research was identified examining the effects of exposure to ERM on the linkage between the factors under consideration and SEI. One study [75] that considered high school and college students in Romania reported that entrepreneurial family background was directly and positively related to entrepreneurial intention, however without reflecting any particularization to sustainable entrepreneurship, and another empirical study [77] showed an indirect linkage between exposure to entrepreneurial role models and entrepreneurial intention, partially mediated by feasibility and desire for entrepreneurship.

6. Conclusions, Implications, Limits and Future Research Directions

6.1. Main Conclusions and Theoretical and Practical Implications of the Study

The undertaken research delineated some antecedents specific to SEI, explicit for students with a higher education background developed in a Romanian university, by using the entrepreneurial event model.

The confirmed research propositions showed that PSED and PSEF were the main direct drivers of SEI, while EV were found to have an impact on PSED and PSEF. The validated empirical research model revealed an indirect relationship between the construct of EV and the construct of SEI, mediated through the construct of PSEF and moderated by the exposure-to-ERM construct.

The proposed research model was created so to reflect an extended and adapted entrepreneurial event model for the field of sustainable entrepreneurship. Its main goal was to identify the potential factors influencing SEI and facilitating the analysis, within a single research model, of both the mediating role of PSED and PSEF and the relationship power altering the moderating role of exposure to ERM in the direction of enhancing the strength of the connections between the modeled constructs.

From a theoretical point of view, the study supports and reinforces the importance of the entrepreneurial event framework in examining the key determinants of SEI because it shows that EV have a significant indirect impact on SEI, mediated by PSEF [22]. Exposure to ERM, whether from the social environment or the individual’s own family, can strengthen the beneficial influence that students’ PSEF and viability of a sustainable business have on their intentions to pursue SEI, adding new information and deeper insight into the initial theoretical model.

The practical impact of the present research consists of two main aspects. On the one hand, through its originality, the validated research model offers new investigative perspectives for research in entrepreneurship. On the other hand, the obtained empirical data and findings enrich the understanding and knowledge on the determinants of SEI, while the causal relationships between the modeled variables are helpful for governmental policy makers and university administrations in order to intensify and increase the level of extant and potential future entrepreneurs’ awareness and consideration of EV. The obtained research results are useful at governmental, higher education institution and society levels, entities concerned about the necessity and usefulness of promoting the advantages of achieving the sustainable development goals assumed by Romania, in order to improve the necessity of EV for actual and aspirant entrepreneurs, which would positively impact their PSED and PSEF regarding sustainable business endeavors. At the governmental level, the development and promotion of preferential policies and codes of sustainable conduct could lead entrepreneurs to assimilate different ways of applying EV. At the university level, there should be concerns and initiatives to include and promote EV within the students’ entrepreneurship education and to provide more knowledge on government policies, development programs and support systems in order to enhance the students’ perception of sustainable entrepreneurial desire, impacting afterward their sustainable entrepreneurship intentions. Universities should develop further international academic relations and business partnerships to increase the quality of theoretical knowledge on sustainable entrepreneurship, stimulate the entrepreneurial thinking and practical experience of students in business incubators or through exposure to successful ERM (mentors, coaches), which could boost their PSED and PSEF, and augment the influence of these factors on students’ SEI.

6.2. Limitations of the Current Study and Propositions for Future Research Directions

The current research suffers from some specific limitations. The obtained results were confirmed on a sample of respondents from a single Romanian higher education institution, so the current study has some limitations. Therefore, within future research, it would be necessary to increase the sample size of students who were surveyed and use mixed quantitative and qualitative methodologies, so that the empirical results could be improved and generalized at the level of young university students in Romania. Furthermore, carrying out comparative studies on the proposed research model within different countries would enhance the models’ robustness and predictive power.

Consideration of both the direct and the indirect effects of additional influencing factors, including more specific economic, environmental and social values on SEI and also effective entrepreneurial behavior, may represent future research directions. The study did not address the context of crisis situations (pandemics, economic crises), and there is a need to further understand how these may affect exposure to entrepreneurial models and SEI, with a potential impact on the practical implications of the research.