Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Rakicevic, Z.; Njegic, K.;
Cogoljevic, M.; Rakicevic, J. Mediated
Effect of Entrepreneurial Education
on Students’ Intention to Engage in
Social Entrepreneurial Projects.
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su15054606
Academic Editors: Vladimir
Obradovi´c and Ding Ronggui
Received: 17 September 2022
Revised: 15 November 2022
Accepted: 2 December 2022
Published: 4 March 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Mediated Effect of Entrepreneurial Education on Students’
Intention to Engage in Social Entrepreneurial Projects
Zoran Rakicevic 1, * , Katarina Njegic 2, Maja Cogoljevic 2and Jovana Rakicevic 1
1Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship,
11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*Correspondence: zoran.rakicevic@fon.bg.ac.rs
Abstract:
Social enterprises are gaining great importance, since they can efficiently solve social
problems and help reduce unemployment. Thus, it is important to discover how social entrepreneurial
intention (SEI) can be enhanced. In this paper, a model of the impact of entrepreneurial education (EE)
on SEI is formulated by relying on the human capital theory. It is hypothesized that EE acts on SEI
directly as well as indirectly by increasing the perceived importance of social entrepreneurship (PISE).
The model was evaluated on a sample of 400 students from the Republic of Serbia, and Bosnia and
Herzegovina. The analysis was conducted using partial least squares structural equation modelling
(PLS-SEM). In addition, a multigroup analysis was conducted in order to establish differences in the
proposed relationship between countries. The obtained results indicate a positive impact of EE on
SEI and a positive impact of PISE on SEI in both observed countries. The influence of EE on PISE, as
well as the indirect effect of EE on SEI through PISE, was confirmed in Serbia, but not in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. The results of this paper justify further government investment in the development
of educational programs. This paper also gives recommendations to universities, educators, and
researchers.
Keywords:
social entrepreneurial intention; entrepreneurial education; social entrepreneurial project;
perceived importance of social entrepreneurship; social entrepreneurs; students
1. Introduction
Due to the increasing social problems and the diverse needs of vulnerable groups,
social entrepreneurship is gaining more and more attention in both developed and develop-
ing countries. Social entrepreneurial projects can provide innovative solutions to social and
environmental problems, and their potential to do that becomes even more significant in
conditions of global disruptions such as that caused by COVID-19 [
1
]. Social entrepreneur-
ship is the initiator of social change. It differs from traditional entrepreneurship since its
primary goal is to create social value, while making a profit and maximizing personal and
shareholder wealth is its secondary goal [
2
]. Social entrepreneurs strive to reduce poverty
and illiteracy, improve collective wellbeing, overcome social injustice, and preserve the
environment for future generations [3].
Social entrepreneurship is valuable in developing and underdeveloped countries where
disharmony between social development and economic inequality is
pronounced [4,5]
. Social
entrepreneurial projects have the potential to solve social problems effectively and more
efficiently than the state can [
6
]. Entrepreneurship is crucial since it creates new job
vacancies thus acting against unemployment [
7
,
8
]. Therefore, it is important to uncover
how the development of social enterprises can be encouraged.
The involvement of individuals in social entrepreneurial projects is closely related to
their intentions [
9
]. Many authors believe that social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) is the
best way to predict whether an individual will start his/her own social enterprise [
10
–
12
].
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054606 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 2 of 16
Therefore, it is essential to uncover the factors that should be acted upon in order to increase
SEI and motivate individuals to engage in new social entrepreneurial projects. The most
relevant target group when examining SEI are students because they have the greatest
entrepreneurial potential [13–15].
SEI is a relatively new topic. Since 2010, it has been intensively studied and there
has been a growing interest in the drivers of SEI [
16
]. In the field of entrepreneurial
intention (EI), there is strong evidence that EE has a positive effect on EI [
17
,
18
]. Although
the concept of SEI originated from the concept of EI, few authors have shown interest
in examining the way EE contributes to SEI. The majority of the studies in the field of
SEI explore the behavioral characteristics of potential social entrepreneurs based on the
theory of planned behavior (TPB) and social cognitive career theory (SCCT) [
10
,
19
]. Some
authors recognize that it is necessary to introduce other theoretical approaches into SEI
research [
16
]. Estrin, Mickiewicz, and Stephan [
20
] highlighted that in order to understand
social entrepreneurship, it is necessary to take into account not only motivational factors but
also human capital theory (HCT). Tan, Le, and Xuan [
16
] conducted a literature review on
SEI and identified certain gaps. They called for further research particularly emphasizing
the importance of understanding the impact of human capital on SEI. Recently, authors
have begun to recognize this gap, but there is still little evidence of the impact of EE on
SEI [21–23].
This paper strives to fill an existing gap in the literature. The aim is to examine
whether EE influences SEI and how. Based on the assumptions of HCT, we develop a model
that assumes that EE positively affects SEI directly as well as indirectly through a better
perception of the importance of social entrepreneurship. We tested the model on a sample
of students from the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H). Then, using
multigroup analysis, we examined the differences in the proposed relationships between
the observed countries.
This paper adds to the current literature in different ways. A comprehensive frame-
work of the factors that affect SEI has not yet been reached. This paper establishes the
relationship between EE and SEI and contributes to shaping the theoretical framework of
the determinants of SEI. Moreover, we introduce a new variable to SEI research. This is
the first paper examining the influence of perceived importance of social entrepreneurship
(PISE) on SEI. That way, we broaden the existing framework of SEI antecedents. Most
authors rely on the TPB and SCCT to explain the drivers of SEI, while this paper aims to
contribute to HCT by showing that education is an important determinant of SEI. This
paper examines not only the impact of EE on SEI but also the mechanism behind this effect.
As stated previously, this is an important but insufficiently explored issue [
22
]. In the field
of SEI, empirical evidence from less developed European countries is scarce. Most of the
research was conducted in Africa, Asia, and North America [
16
]. Moreover, studies that
offer and compare results from more than one country are sparse [
16
]. This paper seeks to
fill these gaps in the literature by providing evidence from two countries, Serbia and B&H.
Serbia is a small developing country, while B&H is a small underdeveloped country. Both
of them went through a transition process and social entrepreneurship started developing
late, as well as the research in this field. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no similar
research has been conducted so far.
The establishment of the relationship between EE, PISE, and SEI is important from
a practical point of view. For policymakers, this implies that it is reasonable to further
invest in the development of educational programs, as well as in other activities that
aim to promote social entrepreneurship and increase awareness of the importance of
social enterprises. For higher education institutions and educators, the results of this
paper demonstrate the importance of informing students about societal problems and the
potential of social enterprises to solve those problems. In order to increase SEI, in addition
to acquiring entrepreneurial knowledge and skills, faculty/college students should gain
insight into existing social issues, develop empathy, and be introduced to positive examples
from the social entrepreneurial practice.
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 3 of 16
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In the next section, we develop a
conceptual framework. Based on the HCT and previous research in the field of SEI and
EI, we develop the hypotheses. In the third part of the paper, we present the methodology.
Subsequently, we demonstrate the results of the empirical research (Section 4). Section 5of
the paper relates to the theoretical and practical implications of the conducted research. We
conclude with the limitations and directions for future research.
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1. Theoretical Background
The concept of social entrepreneurship (SE) is closely related to the field of en-
trepreneurship [
6
,
9
]. Therefore, to understand SE it is very important “to put it under
entrepreneurship research” [
24
] (p. 20). Although the subject of SE has been discussed in
scientific circles since the 1990s, there is still no consensus among authors regarding a single
definition of SE [
3
]. Most authors highlight that the main feature of SE is the creation of
social value [
25
–
27
]. While commercial entrepreneurs are motivated solely by profitability,
social entrepreneurs primarily seek to satisfy social needs and solve social problems [
3
,
28
].
The authors of [
29
] (p. 328) explain that “social entrepreneurs are people who realize where
there is an opportunity to satisfy some unmet need that the state welfare system will not
or cannot meet, and who gather together the necessary resources (generally people, often
volunteers, money and premises) and use these to ‘make a difference’ ”.
In the field of SE, great importance is attached to SEI, since intention is seen as the best
predictor of future entrepreneurial behavior [
30
,
31
]. Research shows that intentions highly
correlate with the actual engagement in entrepreneurial projects [
32
,
33
]. Entrepreneurial
intention is defined as an individual’s desire and determination to engage in new venture
creation [
34
]. Similarly, SEI refers to the tendency and determination of an individual
to engage in social entrepreneurial projects with the goal of creating social value and
generating financial returns [21,24].
HCT was originally introduced to explain income inequality [
35
]. Later, it was ac-
cepted and extensively applied in the field of entrepreneurship to explain entrepreneurial
activity [13,36]
. This theory offers promising prospects for understanding the entrepreneurial
process [
20
,
37
]. Human capital represents a set of skills, knowledge, and other attributes
that promote an individual’s capacity to execute productive work [
38
]. HCT discusses
several attributes of human capital: education, experience, knowledge, and skills [
39
,
40
].
Education plays a critical role in the formation of human capital [
38
]. HCT declares that
knowledge acquired through education enhances individuals’ cognitive capability so they
recognize market opportunities more effectively [
41
]. According to HCT, individuals who
possess entrepreneurial knowledge are inclined to grow into entrepreneurs [42,43].
In this paper, EE is defined as an educational program whose aim is to provide students
with the necessary knowledge and skills in the field of entrepreneurship, as well as to
cultivate a set of entrepreneurial attitudes, skills, and competencies of students that would
enable them to start their own business [44,45].
Based on their literature review concerning the application of HCT in the field of
entrepreneurship, the authors of [
37
] recognize three significant EE outcomes: (1) EE gener-
ates entrepreneurial knowledge and skills; (2) education enhances positive perceptions of
entrepreneurship; (3) education acts positively on the intention to become an entrepreneur.
Authors who relied on HCT showed that knowledge increases entrepreneurial readiness
and motivation [
13
,
46
,
47
], as well as an entrepreneurial mindset [
42
], all of which leads to
enhanced entrepreneurial intention. Exposure to EE makes students perceive entrepreneur-
ship as more desirable and feasible [48]. EE also cultivates entrepreneurial spirit [18].
Each of the EE outcomes mentioned above is crucial for SE as well. However, in
the field of SE, the studies that prove this are scarce [
22
]. One of the few works dealing
with human capital in SE is the study of Estrin, Mickiewicz, and Stephan [
20
]. They
identified that education has a stronger effect on social entrepreneurs than on commercial
entrepreneurs. The reason behind this are the essential differences between commercial
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 4 of 16
and social entrepreneurship. They believe that the knowledge and skills acquired through
education programs are more important for social entrepreneurs because of the essence of
their calling. Social entrepreneurs, in addition to recognizing profitable opportunities in
the market, must also recognize unsatisfied social needs. They have to find a way to create
social value, at the same time providing sustainable existence for their social project. The
authors [
20
] (p. 453) also state that “
. . .
education enhances other pro-social actions such
as volunteering and political activism” and thus “higher education instils preferences and
motivations consistent with the core aspiration of social entrepreneurs to contribute to the
welfare of others and to create societal wealth”.
A distinctive feature of SE is the recognition of social problems, empathy towards
vulnerable groups, and the desire to improve collective wellbeing. Thus, educational
process should introduce students to various societal problems and the potential of social
enterprises to solve them. To capture this important aspect of education, we developed
a new variable—PISE. PISE represents students’ attitude towards the potential of social
entrepreneurship to resolve social issues. This variable highlights the essence of SE, its
main feature, which is the alleviation of social problems.
Based on all the above, we suggest that EE has a positive effect on SEI. Education
contributes to a better perception of the importance of SE, thus producing the mediating
effect of EE on SEI.
Considering the presented viewpoints, and in order to uncover the essence of the
relationship between EE and SEI, we address the following research question:
What is the role of PISE in the relationship between EE and SEI?
2.2. Hypothesis Development
Through education, students acquire theoretical foundations, practices, and techniques
in the field of entrepreneurship [
13
]. They also develop a set of skills such as “opportunity
recognition and exploitation, enterprise conception and development, creativity, inno-
vation, risk-taking and initiative, tolerance for uncertainty, self-confidence, etc.” [
17
] (p.
3). Acquired knowledge and skills afford students the self-confidence to start their own
entrepreneurial projects and enable them to efficiently discover and use opportunities on
the market [
49
]. Knowledge is essential for acquiring financial and physical resources [
36
].
It also promotes further learning and enables the acquisition of new knowledge and skills,
which are necessary to run a business successfully [36,50].
There are numerous studies in the field of entrepreneurship that demonstrate a pos-
itive influence of education on entrepreneurial intention [
17
,
18
,
51
–
53
]. However, in the
field of SEI, such studies are scarce. Among the few studies dealing with this relationship
are the studies [
19
,
22
]. In both studies, authors found a positive effect of EE on SEI. Pre-
vious studies [
23
,
26
] also proved that social EE positively affected SEI. The authors [
54
]
investigated the relationship between human capital and SEI and found a positive rela-
tionship. Nevertheless, some authors obtained insignificant results. Shahverdi, Ismail, and
Qureshi [
55
] examined whether the lack of knowledge negatively affected SEI and found
no confirmation for their hypothesis. The above arguments imply that there is a need for
further investigation of the impact of education on SEI. Therefore, this study proposes that:
H1: EE positively affects SEI.
EE provides students with practical knowledge and skills for starting their own
business. It also provides students with information about the latest trends in the world,
reveals problems in society, and encourages students’ desire to contribute to the community.
Students are the initiators of changes, so during their studies, they should gain insight into
the unmet needs of society and how these needs can be met. Therefore, education should
lead to a better perception of the importance of social entrepreneurship. Some research
points to this relationship. Previous studies [
56
,
57
] showed that higher education leads to a
greater desire for volunteering and other self-initiated pro-social actions. Some authors [
58
]
highlight that humanistic and ethical education is critical in forming a positive perception
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 5 of 16
of social entrepreneurship. They found that ethical education has a positive impact on the
development of social entrepreneurship competency. According to all of the above, this
paper suggests the following hypothesis:
H2: EE positively affects PISE.
The main characteristic of social entrepreneurs is empathy and the desire to help
vulnerable groups. If students believe that they can effectively solve problems in a soci-
ety by establishing social enterprises, they will be more motivated to initiate their own
social entrepreneurial projects, knowing that they can contribute to the society and provide
themselves with employment and income. The authors [
21
] argue that the majority of the
student population today are millennials and that they are the generation most concerned
with environmental and social problems. Therefore, they emphasize the need to extend
research frameworks to include “all sentiments of responsibility and stewardship towards
social, cultural and environmental issues” [
21
] (p.7). To the best of the authors’ knowl-
edge, there are no research papers investigating the impact of PISE on SEI. Constructs
similar to PISE can be found in the literature, showing their positive influence on SEI. For
instance, [
21
] confirmed that social, cultural, and environmental responsibility leads to
higher SEI. Considering the existing gap in the literature, this paper assumes:
H3: PISE positively affects SEI.
Many authors in the field of EI found that the relationship between EE and intentions
was not straightforward. Some of the variables that have been shown to mediate the
relationship between EE and EI are self-efficacy [
59
,
60
], entrepreneurial
passion [45,59]
,
individual entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial motivation [
17
], entrepreneurial
mindset [61]
, entrepreneurial competence [
62
], perceived desirability and perceived
feasibility [60]
. In SEI research, the indirect effect of EE is just beginning to receive the at-
tention of researchers. Recently, authors of [
22
] found that EE affects SEI indirectly through
entrepreneurial social networks. Based on the aforementioned research, it can be concluded
that EE does not only act directly on SEI but that at least part of that influence is realized
through a mediator variable. Thus, the way in which EE affects SEI should be examined in
order to better understand the essence of this relationship. According to all of the above, it
is assumed that:
H4: PISE mediates the relationship between EE and SEI.
The proposed conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 6 of 16
A country’s level of development is an important factor that can affect the relationship
between human capital and SEI [
20
]. Thus, the relationships in the model we proposed
may vary due to the different research contexts and distinctive preferences and attitudes
of the respondents. In the field of SEI, studies that involve more than one country are
scarce. In their literature review, authors of [
16
] found that only two studies (out of a
total of 36 studies examining SEI) were cross-country. Those studies [11,63] show that SEI
depends on institutional environment and that the respondents are affected by their culture,
which is reflected in the process of SEI formation [
16
]. In order to fill the existing gap in
the literature, we examine whether the relationships in the proposed model differ between
the Republic of Serbia and B&H. The Republic of Serbia is a small developing country,
while B&H is a small underdeveloped country. Both countries went through a transition
process and entrepreneurship started to develop late. Therefore, both countries have little
experience in the field of social entrepreneurship.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and Data Collection Procedure
In order to collect the required data, we prepared a structured questionnaire. Consid-
ering the research goal and research questions, we wanted to survey the final-year students
at faculties and colleges that offer entrepreneurship courses. Thus, the respondents had to
meet two main criteria: (1) they had to be final-year faculty/college students, and (2) they
had to have attended one or more courses in entrepreneurship. The snowball technique
was identified as the most adequate sampling technique. This technique enabled access
to students abroad (in B&H) and quick collection of the needed number of completed
questionnaires. Due to the problems caused by COVID-19, many higher education insti-
tutions transitioned to online classes. This was one of the reasons why we opted for an
online survey through Google Forms, since it was easier to reach students in B&H online,
without the need for travel. The online survey also facilitated the implementation of the
snowball technique.
The survey was conducted in May 2022. First, we collected student e-mail addresses
through personal contacts with colleagues that work on faculties in Serbia and B&H. Target
students were then sent an e-mail with the survey link. Students who completed the
questionnaire were asked to forward it to their colleagues who met the required sample
criteria. We also posted the questionnaire on social networks. Respondents mostly came
from faculties and colleges in the fields of business, management, and economics. A smaller
number of respondents in the sample attended technical faculties.
According to [
64
], a minimum of 130 observations enables a research model with
two exogenous
constructs to detect satisfactory R
2
values. Following these recommenda-
tions, the goal was to collect 200 completed questionnaires in each country. The survey was
finished after we collected the target number of questionnaires. The final sample consisted
of 400 students: 200 from the Republic of Serbia, and the other half from B&H. The main
characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1.
3.2. Data Analysis
For the evaluation of the hypotheses, we used partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM). All calculations were conducted in SmartPLS 3.3.9 software. PLS-SEM
is considered a second-generation technique that is superior to first-generation methods
such as correlation, regression, ANOVA, t-test, etc. [65]. This method is recommended for
exploratory research [
66
]. It is stated that “PLS can provide advantages over first-generation
techniques and CB-SEM techniques for preliminary theory building” [
65
] (p.124). As the
aim of this paper was to test relationships that are not firmly grounded in existing theories,
PLS-SEM was chosen. Another advantage of this method is that it is not sensitive to
sample size, since it uses the bootstrapping procedure, which extracts the maximum
information from the existing sample by creating a large number of subsamples based
on existing observations [
67
]. In addition, it allows multigroup analysis, and easy testing
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 7 of 16
of mediated relationships in the model, and is not sensitive to the violation of normality
assumptions [68].
Table 1. Key characteristics of the respondents in the sample.
Characteristics of the Respondents Serbia (N = 200) B&H (N = 200)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Gender
Male 106 53 95 47.5
Female 94 47 105 52.5
Age
18–24 127 63.5 120 60
24–30 73 36.5 80 40
Faculty
Private 83 41.5 72 36
Public 117 58.5 128 64
3.3. Measurement Scales
The majority of measurement scales that were used were adopted from previous
research in the field of EE and SEI. All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale.
The measurement items are listed in Appendix A. All constructs in the model were defined
as reflective constructs.
EE is composed of four reflective indicators (EE1, EE2, EE3, EE4). It was measured
according to [
69
]. This scale captures the extent to which entrepreneurial education helped
students to develop the initiative and desire to become an entrepreneur, the extent to which
EE helped individuals to better understand the role of entrepreneurs in society, and the
extent to which EE provided students with the skills and knowledge necessary to run
a business.
Perceived importance of social entrepreneurship (PISE) is described through four
reflective indicators. We developed a scale to measure PISE, since we found no previous
studies that used this construct. The goal was to capture the extent to which students
believed social entrepreneurship could contribute to solving social issues. The respondents
were asked to rate the extent to which they believed that social entrepreneurship contributed
to the improvement of overall economic conditions in the society (PISE1), the reduction
of social differences (PISE2), the improvement of conditions of endangered/marginalized
groups (PISE3), and the preservation of the environment (PISE4).
Social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) incorporates three reflective indicators (SEI1,
SEI2, and SEI3). To measure this construct, we adopted a scale used by [
21
]. This scale
includes three questions regarding the willingness and determination of students to start
their own social enterprise in the future (see Appendix A).
4. Results
PLS-SEM requires a two-phase analysis. In the first phase, the measurement model is
tested, and in the second phase, the structural relationships in the model are analyzed [
66
].
After examining the structural relationships in the model on the entire sample (Serbia and
B&H together), we conducted a multi-group analysis (MGA) in order to establish whether
the relationships in the model differ across the observed countries.
4.1. Measurement Model Assessment
The reliability and validity of the measurement scales were assessed by using the
PLS algorithm function, and the obtained results are shown in Table 2, along with the
descriptive statistics.
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 8 of 16
Table 2. The assessment of reliability and convergent validity.
Latent Variables and Their Indicators Mean Std. Dev Factor Loadings CR AVE
Entrepreneurial education (EE) 0.816 0.529
EE1 2.19 0.905 0.804
EE2 1.94 0.868 0.590
EE3 2.64 1.269 0.808
EE4 1.88 0.932 0.686
Perceived importance of social entrepreneurship (PISE) 0.891 0.673
PISE1 3.53 0.941 0.889
PISE2 3.62 0.910 0.879
PISE3 3.53 0.843 0.756
PISE4 3.42 0.901 0.746
Social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) 0.793 0.566
SEI1 2.51 1.024 0.726
SEI2 3.48 1.069 0.877
SEI3 2.09 0.890 0.633
To demonstrate convergent validity, we looked at the factor loadings. According
to [
70
] (p. 605), factor loadings should be higher than 0.5 when there are more than
120 observations
in the sample. This is true for all the constructs in our model, so we
conclude that the indicators converge well towards the variables to which they were
assigned. The other requirement for the establishment of convergent validity is that CR
values should be greater than 0.7, AVE values should be greater than 0.5, and that CR
values for all constructs should be greater than their AVE values [
71
]. The obtained results
show that this requirement is satisfied. We evaluated internal consistency reliability based
on composite reliability (CR). CR for all constructs was at a satisfactory level between 0.7
and 0.95, as recommended in the literature [72,73].
Discriminant validity was assessed using the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
As presented in Table 3, the values of HTMT ratios are lower than 0.85 as recommended
by [
74
], meaning that the constructs differ conceptually and that further analysis of the
structural relationships in the model is accepted.
Table 3. HTMT ratio.
Constructs EE PISE
PISE 0.181
SEI 0.407 0.310
4.2. Structural Model Assessment
Before the evaluation of the structural model, we ascertained that the collinearity
would not bias the obtained results. For both variables EE and PISE, which are the predictors
of SEI, VIF values were 1.023, which is satisfactory since it is less than the threshold of
3 recommended by [73].
In order to evaluate the model’s explanatory power, we observed the coefficient of
determination—R
2
[
75
]. For SEI, which is the main endogenous construct in the model, R
2
was 0.209, which is above the minimum required value of 0.10 that occurs in social sciences
research [
76
]. Thus, we concluded that predictor variables in the model sufficiently explain
the dependent variable SEI.
We applied the bootstrap procedure with 5000 subsamples (BCa method) in order
to assess the significance and relevance of the path coefficients in the model. The results
were obtained based on a two-tailed t-test with a 5% significance level. We evaluated the
hypotheses based on the sign and significance of the t-value. The obtained results are
presented in Table 4.
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 9 of 16
Table 4. Evaluation of the hypotheses.
Hypotheses βCoefficients t-Value p-Value Supported
H1: EE -> SEI 0.340 8.215 0.000 Yes
H2: EE -> PISE 0.150 2.921 0.004 Yes
H3: PISE -> SEI 0.258 5.480 0.000 Yes
H4: EE -> PISE -> SEI 0.039 2.445 0.015 Yes
The results presented in Table 4reveal that EE has a statistically significant and positive
effect on SEI (
β
= 0.340, p< 0.001), which provides support for Hypothesis H1. It was also
confirmed that EE positively affected PISE (
β
= 0.150, p< 0.05). This result indicates that H2
is supported as well. It was confirmed that PISE positively affected SEI (
β
= 0.258, p< 0.001),
providing support for the third hypothesis (H3). Testing of the indirect relationships in
the model showed that EE affected SEI indirectly through PISE (
β
= 0.039, p< 0.05), which
validated the fourth hypothesis (H4). The obtained results uncovered that the relationship
between EE and SEI is twofold. Both direct and indirect effects are significant, meaning
that PISE partially mediates the relationship between EE and SEI.
4.3. Multi-Group Analysis
In order to conduct a multi-group analysis (MGA) we first defined two groups of
respondents. The first group consisted of 200 students from B&H, and the second group
contained 200 responses acquired from the Republic of Serbia. Our model incorporates
multiple-item constructs, which require a measurement invariance check. If measurement
equivalence is not established in cross-country research, it can lead to a misinterpretation
of the results by causing measurement error, biased estimators, and reduced power of
statistical tests [
77
]. We tested measurement invariance as [
73
] recommended. It was
found that outer loadings do not differ significantly between groups. This means that
there are no measurement differences, and that the measurement model is good when
looking at separate groups. After this examination, we tested the structural relationships
in the proposed model using the bootstrap procedure (5000 subsamples, two-tailed t-test,
5% significance level) within MGA in SmartPLS. This procedure calculates t-values and
p-values on individual samples, then examines whether the t-values between the groups
are statistically significantly different and calculates the p-values of that difference. The
results demonstrate whether and how the relationships in the model differ in the observed
countries. The obtained results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. The results of a multi-group analysis.
Structural Relationships βCoef. (B&H) βCoef. (Serbia) t-Value (B&H) t-Value (Serbia) p-Value (B&H) p-Value (Serbia)
EE -> SEI 0.249 0.432 3.345 8.016 0.001 0.000
EE -> PISE 0.007 0.268 0.072 4.082 0.942 0.000
PISE -> SEI 0.255 0.246 3.532 3.622 0.000 0.000
EE -> PISE -> SEI 0.002 0.066 0.068 2.418 0.946 0.016
MGA revealed that the relationship between EE and SEI differs significantly between
Serbia and B&H. In both countries, this relationship is positive and statistically signif-
icant (
p≤0.001
), but in Serbia, this relationship is significantly stronger than in B&H
(
t-valueSerbia = 8.016
> t-value
B&H
= 3.345). The p-value of the difference in t-values was
0.035 (p< 0.05). The effect of EE on PISE also differs between countries. Table 5shows
that this effect is statistically significant in Serbia (p< 0.001), but it is insignificant in B&H
(p> 0.1). The p-value for the difference in t-values was 0.023 (p< 0.05), showing that this
relationship differs significantly between observed countries. MGA also showed that the
effect of PISE on EE does not differ between observed groups and it is statistically signifi-
cant in both countries (p< 0.001). Regarding the indirect effect of EE on SEI through PISE,
based on the obtained results, it can be concluded that in Serbia this effect is positive and
statistically significant (t-value = 2.418, p< 0.05), while in B&H this effect is insignificant
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 10 of 16
(t-value = 0.068, p> 0.1). This is expected and understandable, since the effect of EE on PISE
was shown to be insignificant in B&H. Thus, the mediating effect in B&H is not manifested.
5. Discussion
Many empirical studies examined the relationship between EE and EI. However, in
the field of SEI such studies are scarce. Thus, the effect EE has on SEI is insufficiently
examined. Moreover, there is little evidence on the drivers of SEI from less developed
European countries. To enrich the existing literature, we created a model of the impact of
EE on SEI based on the HCT. We tested the model on a sample of students from Serbia and
B&H. The results provided a better understanding of the hypothesized relationships.
5.1. Theoretical Implications
It was confirmed that EE positively affects SEI (H1), which is in line with the results
of previous studies [
19
,
22
,
23
,
26
,
54
]. This relationship proved to be statistically significant
both in Serbia and B&H, while being significantly stronger in Serbia. The identified positive
influence of EE on SEI in both countries indicates the possibility of generalizing the results
as well as the necessity of including EE in the theoretical framework of drivers of SEI.
From the perspective of HCT, this finding is important because it confirms that knowledge
and skills acquired through education encourage the development of SEI. Moreover, the
findings validate the application of HCT in explaining the effect of EE on SEI.
The results of the presented research (H2) indicate that a higher level of EE leads to a
better PISE. PISE is a variable that has not appeared in SEI research previously. Therefore,
the results cannot be compared to any existing study. This finding contributes to HCT
because it reveals a new way in which education impacts students. Through education,
students not only acquire theoretical knowledge but also become more aware of the prob-
lems in a society and modes of how these problems can be solved effectively. Although this
relationship was confirmed on the entire sample, and the part of the sample consisting only
of students from Serbia, it was not confirmed in B&H. Therefore, this relationship requires
further examination.
The conducted research revealed that PISE positively affects SEI (H3). Earlier studies
have shown that constructs similar to PISE influence SEI. Therefore, the obtained results
could be said to correspond to the results of previous research [
21
]. The relationship
between PISE and SEI is found to be statistically significant on individual samples, as
well as when observing the entire sample. Moreover, there was no statistically significant
difference in the strength of this relationship between Serbia and B&H.Therefore, if students
rate the importance of social enterprises highly, they are more ready to start their own
social entrepreneurial projects. From a theoretical point of view, this finding is important
because it suggests the possibility of including PISE as a new variable in the framework of
SEI antecedents.
The results outlined in this paper prove that EE has an indirect effect on SEI. It was
shown that PISE partially mediates the relationship between EE and SEI (H4), which is
in line with the findings of [
22
], since they also discovered a mediated effect of EE on
SEI. Our research shows that EE exerts its influence on SEI in two ways—directly and
indirectly. Through education, students gain greater awareness of the importance of social
entrepreneurship for resolving social issues. This further leads to a greater desire to start
their own social entrepreneurial projects. Our analysis showed that the mediating effect
of EE on SEI was statistically significant when the whole sample was analyzed. However,
MGA uncovered that mediation existed in the case of Serbia, but not in the case of B&H.
This result is expected, since in B&H the effect from EE to PISE was insignificant, and thus
EE could not manifest an indirect effect on SEI through PISE. From a theoretical perspective
and for those researchers examining SEI, this finding is important since it shows that SEI
differs depending on the research context. Thus, it is necessary to consider the level of
development of the country and other environmental factors when examining it.
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 11 of 16
5.2. Practical Implications
This study provides interesting implications for policymakers, universities, educators,
and researchers in the field of SEI.
Our findings reveal that EE is an important factor that contributes to the increase of SEI.
This demonstrates the importance of education for the formation of students’ intentions to
start their own social entrepreneurial projects. Therefore, the number of social enterprises
can be increased by the improvement of educational programs and launch of university
social entrepreneurship projects. For policymakers, this finding is noteworthy because it
justifies further investments in education. Students are the agents of initiative and change
in society. If the government wants to create new jobs and solve social problems, it should
invest in the education of new generations, which will induce changes in the community.
The establishment of new enterprises is particularly important in countries in transition
that face problems of high unemployment, economic inactivity, poor competitiveness,
low levels of investment, and with inefficient state enterprises [
78
,
79
]. In Serbia as well
as in B&H, youth unemployment is a burning issue. A large number of young people
cannot find a job after completing their studies, or they wait a long time for their first
employment opportunity. High unemployment rates among students can be considered an
opportunity for economic development [
18
]. In order to stimulate social entrepreneurship,
the government should create a favorable environment, introduce additional incentives for
entrepreneurs and provide various facilities for those engaging in new business. This will
make it easier for students to start their own social entrepreneurial projects.
This paper showed that PISE has a positive effect on SEI, which means that students
will be more motivated to engage in social entrepreneurial projects if they think that
SE is effective in mitigating social problems. In order to increase student awareness
of the importance of SE, the state can organize and finance various activities aimed at
familiarizing students with the problems in society and demonstrating previous positive
business practices in the field of SE.
The established relationship between EE and SEI indicates that higher education
institutions are crucial for promoting entrepreneurship in a country. Universities play a
stimulant role for innovation and entrepreneurship by upgrading educational and research
systems [
80
,
81
]. These are places of knowledge acquisition, accumulation of new ideas, and
development of entrepreneurial initiative. This is why young people should be properly
guided and their full potential should be exploited. University management plays a critical
role in this by properly designing educational programs on entrepreneurship. Students
should be provided with the knowledge and skills they need to run a business, not just the
theoretical knowledge on social entrepreneurship. Educational programs at universities
should also provide information about vulnerable groups and environmental protection
problems, as well as any other problems in a society. It is also advised to develop new
educational programs that include work on developing empathy and instilling moral
values in students in order to encourage the desire to help vulnerable groups.
Educators also play a prominent role in the process of SEI formation among students.
With their expertise and experience, they should provide students with relevant and new
knowledge in the field of entrepreneurship. In addition, they should familiarize students
with the problems in the community and the importance of social entrepreneurship, since
it was shown that EE acts on SEI directly as well as indirectly through PISE. Educators
should focus on practical work. Students should be provided with practical examples
that demonstrate what entrepreneurship entails and what awaits them when they become
entrepreneurs. Lectures should be organized in such a way as to provide students with
positive examples from practice in addition to theoretical knowledge. In addition, students
should have good role models. For example, successful social entrepreneurs could be
invited to classes to share their experiences with students and motivate them. Professors
should also be supportive and help students formulate an idea and turn it into a feasible
business model that will grow into a sustainable social project.
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 12 of 16
In Serbia, education proved to raise students’ awareness of the importance of SE. How-
ever, in B&H the relationship between EE and PISE proved to be statistically insignificant,
which meant that PISE does not mediate the relationship between EE and SEI. Such a
result may have been caused by the sample size. A larger sample may have shown this
relationship to be statistically significant. Another potential cause of this finding may be the
difference in educational curricula between Serbia and B&H. Our research indicated that
in B&H education contributed insufficiently to an understanding of the importance of SE.
Therefore, in B&H, special attention should be devoted to the improvement of programs in
the field of entrepreneurship so that students are adequately informed about social prob-
lems, vulnerable groups, environmental problems, and the potential of social enterprises to
effectively mitigate those problems.
The relationship between PISE and SEI was found to be statistically significant in both
countries. Thus, those who highly value SE and its ability to solve problems in society
have the desire to become social entrepreneurs. Therefore, it is necessary to work on
increasing students’ awareness of the importance of SE. Both the state and universities can
be involved in this. Workshops and other activities, advertisements on TV, and other media
should convey to students which groups are at risk and how they can be helped practically
with the aim of generating new ideas. Therefore, it is important to inform students with
involvement of the state and universities, and then universities have to provide students
with adequate knowledge and skills for starting a business.
6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Directions for Future Work
This paper provides empirical evidence of the relationship between EE, PISE, and SEI.
Relying on HCT, we developed a model that particularly emphasizes the role of knowledge
acquired through higher education, as well as the importance of PISE for the formation of
SEI. The main contribution of this paper is the establishment of the relationship between
EE and SEI in the research context in which this relationship was not tested before. This is
also the first study that provides evidence on the impact of PISE on SEI.
6.1. Limitations
Although this paper provides new insights into the relationship between EE and
SEI, there are several research limitations that should be acknowledged. First of all, re-
search results should be interpreted according to the research context. The findings and
recommendations of this work can eventually be applied to countries of the same level
of development and with similar institutional environments. In this paper, the data were
collected using the convenient sampling technique, which represents a certain limitation.
Therefore, it is recommended to re-examine the relationships we proposed on a random
sample. The majority of the students in the sample were from business and management
faculties/colleges. Therefore, it is recommended to examine the level of SEI on a larger
sample formed of students from different fields of interest. The paper examines how
students evaluate the education they received during their studies, and this may not align
with reality. Acquired knowledge is the result of other individual factors and not only
the program implemented by the faculty. Therefore, experimental research is needed in
order to establish the contribution of specific curricula and subjects to the development
of SEI. Moreover, students’ perceptions and their intention to become entrepreneurs were
examined, which does not necessarily result in starting a social entrepreneurial project in
the future. However, it is equally important to examine perceptions, because they are the
key to the formation of SEI [
21
]. This paper formulated the PISE variable, which has not
appeared in SEI research so far, and a self-developed measuring scale was used to measure
it. Therefore, this measurement scale needs to be verified in other research contexts. In
addition, the relationship between EE and PISE proved to be statistically insignificant in
B&H, as well as the indirect influence of EE on SEI. Therefore, it is necessary to further
examine these relationships.
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 13 of 16
6.2. Directions for Future Work
Referring to the directions for future work, it was shown that PISE partially mediates
the relationship between EE and SEI in Serbia, which means that there are more mediators
of this relationship. Researchers are advised to include other mediating variables in their
research frameworks. It would also be interesting to examine the factors that moderate
these relationships. As was shown in this paper, the results differ depending on the research
context and therefore more cross-country studies are necessary. Moreover, longitudinal
studies would be very useful for examining the development and changes in students’ SEI,
since one generation of students cannot represent the impact of EE on SEI well enough. It
is necessary to continuously examine the intentions of several consecutive generations of
students in order to reach more precise conclusions.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, Z.R. and K.N.; Methodology, K.N.; Software, K.N.; Vali-
dation, Z.R., K.N. and M.C.; Formal Analysis, Z.R. and K.N.; Investigation, Z.R.; Data Collection, all
authors; Data Curation, J.R.; Writing—original draft preparation, Z.R.; Writing—review and editing,
M.C. and J.R.; Visualization, J.R.; Supervision M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Measurement scales
Social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) was measured according to Bazan et al. (2020):
(1 = “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”)
•SEI1—I expect that in the future I will be involved in launching a social enterprise.
•SEI2—My professional goal is to become a social entrepreneur.
•SEI3—I am seriously thinking about starting a social enterprise in the future.
Entrepreneurial education (EE) was measured according to Walter and Block (2016):
(1 = “strongly disagree”, 5= “strongly agree”)
•
EE1—My school education helped me develop my sense of initiative—a sort of en-
trepreneurial attitude.
•
EE2—My school education helped me to better understand the role of entrepreneurs
in society.
•EE3—My school education made me interested to become an entrepreneur.
•
EE4—My school education gave me skills and know-how that enable me to run
a business.
Perceived importance of social entrepreneurship (PISE) is a self-developed measure.
The respondents were asked to indicate the level to which they think that social enterprises
contribute to the following:
(1—“social entrepreneurship does not contribute at all”; 5—“social entrepreneurship
contributes substantially”)
•PISE1—the improvement of economic conditions in the society.
•PISE2—reduction of social differences.
•PISE3—the improvement of conditions of endangered/marginalized groups.
•PISE4—environmental protection.
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 14 of 16
References
1.
Ruiz-Rosa, I.; Gutiérrez-Taño, D.; García-Rodríguez, F.J. Social entrepreneurial intention and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic:
A structural model. Sustainability 2020,12, 6970. [CrossRef]
2.
Gupta, P.; Chauhan, S.; Paul, J.; Jaiswal, M.P. Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda. J. Bus. Res.
2020,113, 209–229. [CrossRef]
3.
Cardella, G.M.; Hernández-Sánchez, B.R.; Monteiro, A.A.; Sánchez-García, J.C. Social entrepreneurship research: Intellectual
structures and future perspectives. Sustainability 2021,13, 7532. [CrossRef]
4.
Hossain, M.U.; Asheq, A.A. Do leadership orientation and proactive personality influence social entrepreneurial intention? Int. J.
Manag. Enterp. Dev. 2020,19, 109–125. [CrossRef]
5.
Raki´cevi´c, Z.; Omerbegovi´c-Bijelovi´c, J.; Leˇci´c-Cvetkovi´c, D. A model for effective planning of SME support services. Eval.
Program Plan. 2016,54, 30–40. [CrossRef]
6.
Chipeta, E.M.; Surujlal, J. Influence of attitude, risk taking propensity and proactive personality on social entrepreneurship
intentions. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2017,15, 27–36. [CrossRef]
7.
Raki´cevi ´c, J.; Levi Jakši´c, M.; Jovanovi´c, M. Measuring the Potential for Technology Entrepreneurship Development: Serbian Case.
Manag. J. Sust. Bus. Manag. Solut. Emerg. Econ. 2018,23, 13–25. [CrossRef]
8. Vujiˇci´c, S.; Ravi ´c, N.; Nikoli´c, M. The influence of planning on the development of innovation in small and medium enterprises.
Trendovi U Posl. 2021,9, 78–83. [CrossRef]
9.
Mair, J.; Noboa, E. Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Venture are Formed. In Social Entrepreneurship;
Mair, J., Robinson, J., Hockerts, K., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2006; pp. 121–135.
10.
Tu, B.; Bhowmik, R.; Hasan, M.; Asheq, A.A.; Rahaman, M.; Chen, X. Graduate Students’ Behavioral Intention towards Social
Entrepreneurship: Role of Social Vision, Innovativeness, Social Proactiveness, and Risk Taking. Sustainability
2021
,13, 6386.
[CrossRef]
11.
Yang, R.; Meyskens, M.; Zheng, C.; Hu, L. Social entrepreneurial intentions: China versus the USA–Is there a difference? Int. J.
Entrep. Innov. 2015,16, 253–267. [CrossRef]
12.
Stankovi´c, R.; De ¯
danski, S.; Vojteški-Kljenak, D. Entrepreneurial values research in Serbia. Int. Rev.
2015
, 63–73. Available online:
https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/2217-9739/2015/2217-97391502063S.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2022).
13.
Aboobaker, N.; Renjini, D. Human capital and entrepreneurial intentions: Do entrepreneurship education and training provided
by universities add value? Horizon 2020,28, 73–83. [CrossRef]
14. Omerbegovi´c-Bijelovi ´c, J.; Raki´cevi´c, Z.; Mirkovi ´c, P. Elements for Designing Stakeholders’ Programmes of Encouraging Young
People to Engage in Entrepreneurship. Manag. J. Sust. Bus. Manag. Solut. Emerg. Econ. 2016,81, 1–14. [CrossRef]
15.
Raki´cevi ´c, Z.; Ljami´c-Ivanovi´c, B.; Omerbegovi ´c-Bijelovi´c, J. Survey on Entrepreneurial Readiness:
М
anagement vs Engineer-
ing Students in Serbia. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium SymOrg 2014, Zlatibor, Serbia, 6–10 June 2014;
Markovi´c, A., Barjaktarovi´cRakoˇcevi´c, S., Eds.; Faculty of Organizational Sciences: Belgrade, Serbia, 2014; pp. 551–560.
16.
Tan, L.P.; Le, A.N.H.; Xuan, L.P. A systematic literature review on social entrepreneurial intention. J. Soc. Entrep.
2020
,11, 241–256.
[CrossRef]
17.
Otache, I.; Edopkolor, J.E.; Kadiri, U. A serial mediation model of the relationship between entrepreneurial education, orientation,
motivation and intentions. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2022,20, 100645. [CrossRef]
18.
Ramadani, V.; Rahman, M.M.; Salamzadeh, A.; Rahaman, M.S.; Abazi-Alili, H. Entrepreneurship Education and Graduates’
Entrepreneurial Intentions: Does Gender Matter? A Multi-Group Analysis using AMOS. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
2022
,180,
121693. [CrossRef]
19.
Hassan, H.M.K. Intention towards social entrepreneurship of university students in an emerging economy: The influence of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurship education. Horiz. 2020,28, 133–151. [CrossRef]
20.
Estrin, S.; Mickiewicz, T.; Stephan, U. Human capital in social and commercial entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur.
2016
,31, 449–467.
[CrossRef]
21.
Bazan, C.; Gaultois, H.; Shaikh, A.; Gillespie, K.; Frederick, S.; Amjad, A.; Yap, S.; Finn, C.; Rayner, J.; Belal, N. Effect of the
university on the social entrepreneurial intention of students. NEJE 2020,23, 3–24. [CrossRef]
22.
Hassan, H.M.; Igel, B.; Shamsuddoha, M. Entrepreneurship Education and Social Entrepreneurial Intentions: The Mediating
Effects of Entrepreneurial Social Network. Front. Psychol. 2022,13, 860273. [CrossRef]
23.
Tiwari, P.; Bhat, A.K.; Tikoria, J. Mediating role of prosocial motivation in predicting social entrepreneurial intentions. J. Soc.
Entrep. 2022,13, 118–141. [CrossRef]
24.
Tran, A.T.; Von Korflesch, H. A conceptual model of social entrepreneurial intention based on the social cognitive career theory.
APJIE 2016,10, 17–38. [CrossRef]
25.
Chipeta, E.M.; Kruse, P.; Surujlal, J. Effects of gender on antecedents to social entrepreneurship among university students in
South Africa. IJBM
2020
,12, 18–33. Available online: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijbms/issue/52544/676592 (accessed on
17 July 2022).
26.
Naveed, M.; Zia, M.Q.; Younis, S.; Shah, Z.A. Relationship of individual social entrepreneurial orientations and intentions: Role
of social entrepreneurship education. APJIE 2021,15, 39–50. [CrossRef]
27.
Iqbal, J.; Kousar, S.; Ul Hameed, W. Antecedents of sustainable social entrepreneurship initiatives in Pakistan and Outcomes:
Collaboration between quadruple helix sectors. Sustainability 2018,10, 4539. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 15 of 16
28.
Shahid, S.M.; Alarifi, G. Social entrepreneurship education: A conceptual framework and review. Int. J. Educ. Manag.
2021
,19,
100533. [CrossRef]
29.
Thompson, J.; Alvy, G.; Lees, A. Social entrepreneurship–a new look at the people and the potential. Manag. Decis.
2020
,38,
328–338. [CrossRef]
30. Bosnjak, M.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. The Theory of Planned Behavior: Selected Recent Advances and Applications. EJOP 2020,16,
352–356. [CrossRef]
31. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991,50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
32.
Ajzen, I.; Czasch, C.; Flood, M.G. From intentions to behavior: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. J.
Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009,39, 1356–1372. [CrossRef]
33. Manolova, T.S.; Brush, C.G.; Edelman, L.F. What do women entrepreneurs want? Strateg. Chang. 2008,17, 69–82. [CrossRef]
34. Tran, A.T.; Korflesch, H.V. Factors influencing social entrepreneurial intention: A theoretical model. IJMAS 2017,3, 38–44.
35. Mincer, J. Investment in human capital and personal income distribution. J. Polit. Econ. 1958,66, 281–302. [CrossRef]
36.
Unger, J.M.; Rauch, A.; Frese, M.; Rosenbusch, N. Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. J. Bus.
Ventur. 2011,26, 341–358. [CrossRef]
37.
Martin, B.C.; McNally, J.J.; Kay, M.J. Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of
entrepreneurship education outcomes. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013,28, 211–224. [CrossRef]
38.
Schultz, T.W. Nobel lecture: The economics of being poor. J Polit Econ
1980
,88, 639–651. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/
stable/1837306 (accessed on 13 July 2022). [CrossRef]
39.
Becker, G.S. Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. J. Polit. Econ.
1962
,70 Pt 2, 9–49. Available online: https:
//www.jstor.org/stable/1829103 (accessed on 25 June 2022). [CrossRef]
40.
Schultz, T.W. Investment in human capital. Am. Econ. Rev.
1961
,51, 1–17. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1818907
(accessed on 10 August 2022).
41.
Hindle, K.; Klyver, K.; Jennings, D.F. An “informed” intent model: Incorporating human capital, social capital, and gender
variables into the theoretical model of entrepreneurial intentions. In Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind; Carsrud, A.L.,
Brannback, M., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 35–50.
42.
Saptono, A.; Wibowo, A.; Narmaditya, B.S.; Karyaningsih, R.P.D.; Yanto, H. Does entrepreneurial education matter for Indonesian
students’ entrepreneurial preparation: The mediating role of entrepreneurial mindset and knowledge. Cogent Educ.
2020
,7,
1836728. [CrossRef]
43.
Ni, H.; Ye, Y. Entrepreneurship education matters: Exploring secondary vocational school students’ entrepreneurial intention in
China. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2018,27, 409–418. [CrossRef]
44.
Otache, I.; Umar, K.; Audu, Y.; Onalo, U. The effects of entrepreneurship education on students’ entrepreneurial intentions: A
longitudinal approach. Educ. Train. 2019,63, 967–991. [CrossRef]
45.
Uddin, M.; Chowdhury, R.A.; Hoque, N.; Ahmad, A.; Mamun, A.; Uddin, M.N. Developing entrepreneurial intentions among
business graduates of higher educational institutions through entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial passion: A
moderated mediation model. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2022,20, 100647. [CrossRef]
46.
Coduras, A.; Saiz-Alvarez, J.M.; Ruiz, J. Measuring readiness for entrepreneurship: An information tool proposal. JIK
2016
,1,
99–108. [CrossRef]
47.
Ruiz, J.; Soriano, D.R.; Coduras, A. Challenges in measuring readiness for entrepreneurship. Manag. Decis.
2016
,54, 1022–1046.
[CrossRef]
48.
Peterman, N.E.; Kennedy, J. Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. ETP
2003
,28, 129–144.
[CrossRef]
49.
Davidsson, P.; Honig, B. The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. J. Bus. Ventur.
2003
,18, 301–331.
[CrossRef]
50.
Marvel, M.R.; Davis, J.L.; Sproul, C.R. Human capital and entrepreneurship research: A critical review and future directions. ETP
2016,40, 599–626. [CrossRef]
51.
Maresch, D.; Harms, R.; Kailer, N.; Wimmer-Wurm, B. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention
of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
2016
,104,
172–179. [CrossRef]
52.
Solesvik, M.; Westhead, P.; Matlay, H. Cultural factors and entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurship education.
Educ. Train. 2014,56, 680–696. [CrossRef]
53.
Liu, X.; Lin, C.; Zhao, G.; Zhao, D. Research on the effects of entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on college
students’ entrepreneurial intention. Front. Psychol. 2019,10, 869. [CrossRef]
54.
Jemari, M.A.; Kasuma, J.; Kamaruddin, H.M.; Tama, H.A.; Morshidi, I.; Suria, K. Relationship between human capital and social
capital towards social entrepreneurial intention among the public university students. IJAAS 2017,4, 179–184. [CrossRef]
55.
Shahverdi, M.; Ismail, K.; Qureshi, M. The effect of perceived barriers on social entrepreneurship intention in Malaysian
universities: The moderating role of education. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2018,8, 341–352. [CrossRef]
56.
Schofer, E.; Fourcade-Gourinchas, M. The structural contexts of civic engagement: Voluntary association membership in
comparative perspective. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2001,66, 806–828. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 4606 16 of 16
57.
Schwartz, S.H. Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior. In Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The
Better Angels of Our Nature; Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., Eds.; American Psychological Association Press: Washington, DC, USA,
2010; pp. 221–242.
58.
Vázquez-Parra, J.C.; García-González, A.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Ethical education and its impact on the perceived development
of social entrepreneurship competency. High. Educ. Ski. Work-Based Learn. 2022,12, 369–383. [CrossRef]
59.
Li, L.; Wu, D. Entrepreneurial education and students’ entrepreneurial intention: Does team cooperation matter? J. Glob. Entrep.
Res. 2019,9, 35. [CrossRef]
60.
Byabashaija, W.; Katono, I. The impact of college entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention to start a
business in Uganda. J. Dev. Entrep. 2011,16, 127–144. [CrossRef]
61.
Cui, J.; Bell, R. Behavioural entrepreneurial mindset: How entrepreneurial education activity impacts entrepreneurial intention
and behaviour. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2022,20, 100639. [CrossRef]
62.
Lv, Y.; Chen, Y.; Sha, Y.; Wang, J.; An, L.; Chen, T.; Huang, X.; Huang, Y.; Huang, L. How Entrepreneurship Education at
Universities Influences Entrepreneurial Intention: Mediating Effect Based on Entrepreneurial Competence. Front. Psychol. 2021,
12, 655868. [CrossRef]
63.
Ip, C.Y.; Wu, S.C.; Liu, H.C.; Liang, C. Social entrepreneurial intentions of students from Hong Kong. J. Entrep.
2018
,27, 47–64.
[CrossRef]
64.
Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd
ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017.
65.
Lowry, P.B.; Gaskin, J. Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal
theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 2014,57, 123–146. [CrossRef]
66.
Hair, J.F., Jr.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev.
2019
,
31, 2–24. [CrossRef]
67.
McIntosh, C.N.; Edwards, J.R.; Antonakis, J. Reflections on partial least squares path modeling. Organ. Res. Methods
2014
,17,
210–251. [CrossRef]
68.
Sarstedt, M.; Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M. Multigroup Analysis in Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Modeling: Alternative Methods
and Empirical Results. In Measurement and Research Methods in International Marketing; Sarstedt, M., Schwaiger, M., Taylor, C.R.,
Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2011; pp. 195–218.
69.
Walter, S.G.; Block, J.H. Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: An institutional perspective. J. Bus. Ventur.
2016
,31, 216–233.
[CrossRef]
70.
Hair, J.F.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA, 2014.
71.
Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981,18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
72.
Diamantopoulos, A.; Sarstedt, M.; Fuchs, C.; Wilczynski, P.; Kaiser, S. Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item
scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012,40, 434–449. [CrossRef]
73.
Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling; SAGE
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017.
74.
Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015,43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
75. Shmueli, G.; Koppius, O.R. Predictive analytics in information systems research. MIS Q. 2011,35, 553–572. [CrossRef]
76. Falk, R.F.; Miller, N.B. A Primer for Soft Modelling; University of Akron Press: Akron, OH, USA, 1992.
77.
Diamantopoulos, A.; Papadopoulos, N. Assessing the cross-national invariance of formative measures: Guidelines for inter-
national business researchers. J. Int. Bus. Stud.
2010
,41, 360–370. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27752498
(accessed on 15 July 2022). [CrossRef]
78.
Ravi´c, N.; Obradovic, I. Programi finansijske podrške malim i srednjim preduze´cima u Republici Srbiji od strane nebankarskih
institucija. Trendovi Poslovanju 2017,1, 25–32.
79.
Milanovi´c, J. Analysis of the competitiveness of the sector of small and medium enterprises and entrepreneurs in the Republic of
Serbia. Int. Rev. 2020, 128–135. [CrossRef]
80.
Naderibeni, N.; Salamzadeh, A.; Radovi´c-Markovi ´c, M. Providing an entrepreneurial research framework in an entrepreneurial
university. Int. Rev. 2020, 43–56. [CrossRef]
81. Stankovi´c, M.; Glušac, D. Innovation in the EU: Economic and legal aspect. Eur. Proj. Manag. J. 2021,11, 31–36. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Content uploaded by Zoran Rakićević
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zoran Rakićević on Mar 04, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
