The Impact of University Educational Support on Green Entrepreneurial Intention: The Role of Self‑Efficacy and Proactivity

Introduction

The global decline of ecological systems—manifested through climate change, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss—has created an urgent need for development models that simultaneously generate economic value and minimize environmental impacts. In this context, green entrepreneurship has emerged as a pivotal transition mechanism, integrating ecological innovation with the capacity to create market value. The role of university students is particularly noteworthy, as they represent a core force capable of transforming sustainability‑oriented knowledge into viable business initiatives, thereby contributing to the construction of a sustainability‑driven economy (Fatoki, 2024; Asad et al., 2025).

However, the pathway to green entrepreneurship is often more complex and risk‑laden than traditional entrepreneurship due to uncertainties related to technology, regulations, and market acceptance (Anh et al., 2026). This suggests that in order to develop and pursue Green Entrepreneurial Intention (GEI), people need a strong foundation of psychological and behavioral readiness in addition to specialized knowledge (Razhaeva et al., 2022; Rojas et al., 2022; Al Abadie et al., 2023; Guzek et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2023; Aksoy & Akaydin, 2025; Kunie et al., 2025). Recent literature affirms that University Entrepreneurial Support (UES) serves as an important contextual factor that fosters entrepreneurial outcomes in general and green entrepreneurship in particular (Soonsan et al., 2025). Nevertheless, the mechanism through which UES is transformed into GEI has not been fully elucidated: through which psychological–behavioral “links” does UES influence GEI, what is the relative magnitude of these effects, and do these links operate in parallel or sequentially?

To address this gap, the present study adopts Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986), which emphasizes the reciprocal interaction among environment, cognition/personality, and behavior. From the SCT perspective, UES functions as an environmental stimulus capable of shaping students’ internal psychological states—specifically, Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE) and Proactivity (PRO)—which subsequently lead to the formation of GEI. While prior studies have examined these variables individually, few have simultaneously tested ESE and PRO as parallel mediators in the pathway from UES to GEI within the context of green entrepreneurship.

Building on this foundation, the study proposes a dual‑pathway transmission mechanism: (i) a capability‑based pathway, in which UES provides mastery experiences and social persuasion, thereby strengthening ESE; and (ii) a personality‑driven pathway, in which UES nurtures PRO, encouraging individuals to identify and pursue green opportunities and to persevere toward their goals. This approach enables the unpacking of the “black box” between university support and GEI, while moving beyond traditional intention frameworks by clarifying the co‑emergent roles of self‑efficacy and proactive tendencies in the sustainability context (Liñán & Chen, 2009; Rafiq et al., 2024; Soonsan et al., 2025).

The expected contributions of this study include: (1) extending SCT into the domain of sustainable entrepreneurship by constructing and validating a dual‑mediation model of ESE and PRO on the UES → GEI pathway; (2) integrating two research streams that are often examined separately—university support and the psychological mechanisms underlying green intentions—into a unified framework that allows comparison of effect magnitudes across pathways; and (3) providing managerial implications for educational institutions, suggesting that an applied entrepreneurial ecosystem (e.g., coursework, incubation, mentorship, seed funding, competitions) should not only transmit knowledge but also activate both entrepreneurial self‑efficacy and proactivity among students (Qazi et al., 2020).

In summary, the study aims to examine the structural model UES → (ESE, PRO) → GEI, in which ESE and PRO function as two parallel mediators. Based on this model, the article develops hypotheses for each pathway and tests them using empirical data, thereby offering robust evidence for the role of higher education in cultivating future green entrepreneurs.

Literature Review & Hypotheses

Social Cognitive Theory - SCT

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), proposed by Bandura (1986), posits that individual behavior is the outcome of a triadic reciprocal interaction among (i) environmental stimuli, (ii) cognitive or personality states, and (iii) observable actions. From this perspective, University Entrepreneurial Support (UES) operates as an environmental stimulus capable of shaping internal psychological mechanisms—such as Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE) and Proactivity (PRO)—which subsequently influence behavior or behavioral intention related to sustainable entrepreneurship (GEI). Positioning UES, ESE, PRO, and GEI within an SCT‑based framework enables the identification of the transmission mechanism linking the institutional context (i.e., the university) with students’ sustainability‑oriented behavioral intentions, rather than treating these relationships as isolated correlations.

Research concepts

University Entrepreneurial Support (UES): UES refers to the aggregate of resources, services, and ecosystem components provided by universities to foster students’ entrepreneurial behaviors and intentions. These consist of incentive systems, network connections, legal and financial consulting, training programs, labs and incubation areas, and mentoring (Soonsan et al., 2025). In the context of green entrepreneurship, UES additionally encompasses learning content, experiential activities, and opportunities emphasizing competencies for solving environmental problems.

Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE): ESE reflects an individual’s belief in their ability to successfully perform core entrepreneurial tasks—from opportunity recognition to project implementation and business operations—under resource constraints (Soonsan et al., 2025). According to SCT, ESE is shaped and strengthened through mastery experiences, vicarious learning, and social persuasion within the educational environment.

Proactivity (PRO): PRO denotes a forward‑looking, self‑initiated, and goal‑oriented behavioral tendency characterized by the ability to identify opportunities, take calculated risks, and persist in pursuing goals (Qazi et al., 2020; Rafiq et al., 2024). Although it is often viewed as a dispositional trait, PRO can be cultivated through the design of challenge‑rich learning experiences, real‑world project engagement, and constructive feedback–reward mechanisms in higher education settings.

Green Entrepreneurial Intention (GEI): GEI represents an individual’s readiness and determination to create a business that generates market value while simultaneously achieving positive ecological outcomes (Liñán & Chen, 2009; Wang et al., 2021). Because green entrepreneurship involves uncertainties related to technology, value chains, and regulations, GEI typically requires a stronger psychological foundation compared to conventional entrepreneurial intention (Fatoki, 2024).

Research Hypotheses

University Entrepreneurial Support (UES) and Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE).

University Entrepreneurial Support (UES) encompasses training programs, incubation spaces, mentoring networks, and financial assistance provided by universities. Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE) refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to successfully perform entrepreneurial tasks (Soonsan et al., 2025). According to Social Cognitive Theory, the educational environment provides mastery experiences and social persuasion that help students strengthen their confidence in their entrepreneurial capabilities (Thao et al., 2025). When universities offer solid knowledge related to the green economy and adequate infrastructural support, students feel more confident in addressing environmental challenges. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: University Entrepreneurial Support (UES) has a positive effect on Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE).

UES and Proactivity (PRO)

Proactivity (PRO) reflects an individual’s ability to actively seek opportunities, demonstrate initiative, and pursue goals (Trúc et al., 2025). Although PRO is often treated as a personality trait, contemporary educational research suggests that the university environment can cultivate and enhance this proactive orientation. Through real‑world projects, entrepreneurial competitions, and learning environments that promote innovation (UES), students develop a mindset that is resilient to failure and willing to seize opportunities to create positive change (Trúc et al., 2025). Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: University Entrepreneurial Support (UES) has a positive effect on students’ Proactivity (PRO) (Adeleke, 2022; Sri et al., 2022; Simonyan et al., 2023; Tsiganock et al., 2023; Ribeiro et al., 2024; Sanlier & Yasan, 2024).

Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE) and Green Entrepreneurial Intention (GEI)

Green Entrepreneurial Intention (GEI) refers to an individual’s willingness and determination to initiate a business venture that creates ecological value (Liñán & Chen, 2009). Green entrepreneurship is associated with technological and financial barriers; therefore, individuals with high levels of ESE are less likely to be discouraged by challenges, believing that they can operate sustainable ventures and achieve success (Rafiq et al., 2024). Strong empirical evidence confirms that ESE is one of the most robust predictors of GEI (Alvarez‑Risco et al., 2021; Soonsan et al., 2025). Thus, the hypothesis is proposed:

H3: Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE) positively influences Green Entrepreneurial Intention (GEI).

Proactivity (PRO) and Green Entrepreneurial Intention (GEI)

Individuals with high proactivity tend to “think beyond the conventional frame” and enjoy creating new value for society (Rafiq et al., 2024). In the environmental domain, proactive individuals recognize market gaps (e.g., demand for environmentally friendly products) and transform them into business opportunities. Research has demonstrated that students with higher levels of PRO show greater concern for environmental protection and possess stronger green entrepreneurial intentions compared to more passive individuals (Qazi et al., 2020; Trúc et al., 2025). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4: Proactivity (PRO) has a positive effect on Green Entrepreneurial Intention (GEI).

Figure 1 illustrates the proposed research model, showing the relationships among UES, ESE, PRO, and GEI.

Materials and Methods

Research Design

This study employs a quantitative approach with a structural model‑testing design (Structural Equation Modeling – SEM) to examine the relationships among University Educational Support (UES), Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE), Proactivity (PRO), and Green Entrepreneurial Intention (GEI). The Partial Least Squares SEM (PLS-SEM) technique was chosen in light of the existence of multiple latent variables and parallel mediation mechanisms because it is suitable for data that may not strictly follow a normal distribution, handles mediating effects well, and is well-suited for prediction-oriented research (Hair et al., 2024).

Data Collection Procedure

Primary data were collected through a survey administered to undergraduate students enrolled at universities in Vietnam who had participated in entrepreneurship‑related or sustainability‑oriented courses/projects. The questionnaire was delivered in two stages. Pilot test with 30 students to refine item wording, clarity, and scale structure. The main survey was administered online using Google Forms over four weeks (Alhussain et al., 2022; Balaji et al., 2022; Constantin et al., 2022; Delcea et al., 2024; Essah et al., 2024; Frost et al., 2024; Rosellini et al., 2024; Uneno et al., 2024; Umarova et al., 2024).

A convenience sampling method was combined with quality‑control procedures (e.g., removal of overly fast responses, inconsistent answers, and outliers). According to Hair et al. (2024), for a model with four predictors leading to GEI, the minimum sample size required by G*Power (α = 0.05, power = 0.95, effect size = 0.15) is approximately N ≈ 160. However, to enhance reliability and generalizability, the study collected at least 300 valid observations.

Measurement Scales and Scale Adaptation

All measurement scales were adapted from established international studies and modified to fit the Vietnamese context. All items were measured using a 5‑point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

UES was measured based on Yi (2021) and Soonsan et al. (2025), including items on programs, mentoring support, facilities, and green learning opportunities. ESE was measured using the scale from Soonsan et al. (2025), reflecting students’ confidence in identifying, developing, and operating green entrepreneurial projects. PRO was adapted from Qazi et al. (2020) and Rafiq et al. (2024), capturing proactive tendencies, opportunity seeking, and early action. GEI was measured using items from Liñán and Chen (2009) and Wang et al. (2021), capturing students’ readiness to engage in eco‑oriented entrepreneurial activities (Mojsak et al., 2022; Sugimori et al., 2022; Kajanova & Badrov, 2024; Lee & Ferreira, 2024).

Data Analysis Method

The data analysis followed the standard two‑stage procedure of PLS‑SEM:

(1) Assessment of the Measurement Model

• Reliability: Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite Reliability (CR > 0.70)
• Convergent validity: factor loadings (> 0.70) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE > 0.50)
• Discriminant validity: Fornell–Larcker criterion and Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT < 0.85)
• Multicollinearity: Variance Inflation Factor (VIF < 3.3 for all indicators)

(2) Assessment of the Structural Model

• Path coefficients (β) and statistical significance (p‑values) assessed via bootstrapping with 5,000 subsamples
• Coefficient of determination (R²) for ESE, PRO, and GEI
• Model fit: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR < 0.08)
• Indirect effects: examination of mediation effects of ESE and PRO (parallel mediation)
• PLS‑SEM analyses were conducted using SmartPLS 4.0, which enables simultaneous evaluation of both the measurement and structural models with high reliability, aligning with the study’s objective of exploring underlying transmission mechanisms.

Results and Discussion

Sample Characteristics

The sample consists of 303 undergraduate students enrolled in higher education institutions in Vietnam. The average age of respondents is 20.81 years. Female students account for 62.0%, while male students represent 38.0% of the sample. Regarding academic standing, second‑year students make up the largest proportion (36.0%), followed by third‑year students (31.0%), first‑year students (19.5%), and fourth‑year students (13.5%).

In terms of fields of study, Business/Economics constitutes 40.9%, Engineering/IT 30.4%, Environment/Sciences 11.9%, and Other disciplines 16.8%. A total of 66.0% of participants reported having taken an entrepreneurship‑related course, 49.8% had participated in green clubs/activities within the past 12 months, and 9.9% indicated prior entrepreneurial or startup experience.

With respect to monthly personal allowances, 43.9% fall within the 3–5 million VND range, followed by 28.4% between 5–8 million, 18.5% below 3 million, and 9.2% above 8 million. Geographically, students studying in Ho Chi Minh City represent the majority (66.7%), followed by other Southern provinces (21.1%), the Northern region (6.3%), and the Central region (5.9%).

Measurement Model

Table 1. Reliability, Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Factor Loadings

Reliability and Convergent Validity. All factor loadings are high (0.838–0.895), while Cronbach’s Alpha ≥ 0.869, Composite Reliability (CR) ≥ 0.911, and AVE ≥ 0.719—exceeding recommended thresholds (Alpha/CR > 0.70, AVE > 0.50), indicating strong internal reliability and satisfactory convergent validity (Table 1).

Table 2. Fornell–Larcker criteria (Diagonal values = √AVE)

Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker). The square roots of the AVE values (diagonal elements) are all greater than the correlations among the constructs. These results confirm that discriminant validity is satisfactorily established (Table 2).

Structural Model Assessment

Table 3. Coefficient path, CI 95%, and p-value

The structural model estimation results using 5,000‑sample bootstrapping show that all hypothesized paths are statistically significant at p < 0.001 (Table 3). Specifically, University Educational Support (UES) exerts a positive and substantial effect on Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE) with β = 0.457, CI95% [0.383; 0.532], thereby supporting H1. Likewise, UES positively influences Proactivity (PRO) (β = 0.388, CI95% [0.319; 0.457]), confirming H2. Regarding the effects on green entrepreneurial intention, ESE demonstrates a positive and strong impact on GEI (β = 0.315, CI95% [0.241; 0.390]), supporting H3; meanwhile, PRO also shows a significant positive effect on GEI (β = 0.262, CI95% [0.187; 0.337]), providing support for H4. These findings highlight the vital role of UES in fostering GEI through two key psychological mechanisms—students’ self‑efficacy and proactive disposition.

Table 4. R² và f²

The analysis results indicate that the model demonstrates an acceptable level of predictive adequacy (Table 4). Specifically, the coefficient of determination (R²) reaches 0.191 for ESE, 0.154 for PRO, and 0.265 for GEI, suggesting that the predictors explain approximately 26.5% of the variance in green entrepreneurial intention—classified as a medium level according to Hair et al. (2024). Regarding the effect sizes (f²) for GEI, ESE exhibits a small‑to‑medium effect (f² = 0.118), PRO shows a small effect (f² = 0.076), whereas UES demonstrates a very small effect (f² = 0.010). These results imply that ESE contributes more strongly to predicting GEI compared to PRO and the direct effect of UES.

A thorough picture of how educational institutions can influence young people's intention to pursue green entrepreneurship is provided by the suggested study approach. The most significant theoretical realisation is that UES has a dual-pathway transmission mechanism rather than acting in a linear or solitary fashion. The first pathway (UES → ESE → GEI) represents a capability‑based route. University support reduces psychological barriers associated with a lack of experience and provides students with the confidence needed to take action (Soonsan et al., 2025).

The finding that UES strengthens ESE is consistent with international evidence: Saeed et al. (2015), show that the three dimensions of university support (educational support, idea development support, and business development support) all enhance ESE, thereby increasing entrepreneurial intention, with educational support typically yielding the strongest effect. Our findings also resonate with Alvarez‑Risco et al. (2021), who demonstrate that various forms of support (university, conceptual, and national) significantly increase ESE, and that ESE is a strong predictor of GEI, with their model explaining 73.1% of GEI. Additionally, Yi (2021) emphasizes that UES, together with external institutional support, functions as a “bridge” that transforms GEI into green entrepreneurial behavior, reinforcing the argument that UES primarily operates through psychological or mediating mechanisms rather than through direct effects.

Our observed ESE → GEI effect is consistent with recent findings in student populations. Wang et al. (2021) report that green ESE is significantly and positively associated with GEI and plays a central role in psychological models of green entrepreneurship during the COVID‑19 period; motivational factors such as optimism, ecological values, and social responsibility further amplify this relationship. Similarly, Alvarez‑Risco et al. (2021) confirm that ESE is a strong antecedent of GEI among business students, indicating that enhancing ESE is an effective policy lever. However, evidence is not unanimous: in some contexts, ESE may not directly predict intention when factors such as the need for independence or other personal motivations act as mediators or moderators, suggesting cultural or motivational variations.

The PRO → GEI findings align with the literature on proactive behavior in organizational and entrepreneurial contexts. The seminal work of Crant (2000) and the classic scale by Bateman and Crant (1993) both establish that proactivity is a stable behavioral tendency that drives change, opportunity seeking, and perseverance—traits that are particularly suitable for identifying and pursuing green opportunities. At a broader level, the meta‑analysis by Rauch and Frese (2007) shows that proactive personality and generalized self‑efficacy are significantly associated with entrepreneurial entry and success, reinforcing the notion that ESE and PRO jointly constitute a “predictive duo” of entrepreneurial behavior. In the green entrepreneurship domain, Qazi et al. (2020) further demonstrate that university green support (UGS/UES) and personality traits (including proactivity) significantly increase GEI, and that environmental values can strengthen these relationships.

Conclusion

This study advances the understanding of how university educational support (UES) fosters green entrepreneurial intention (GEI) by empirically validating a dual‑mediation mechanism grounded in Social Cognitive Theory. Using data from 303 Vietnamese undergraduate students and applying PLS‑SEM analysis, the findings confirm that UES significantly enhances both Entrepreneurial Self‑Efficacy (ESE) and Proactivity (PRO), which subsequently increase GEI. Among the two mediators, ESE demonstrates a stronger indirect effect, highlighting the central role of confidence in entrepreneurial capabilities when students consider pursuing environmentally oriented ventures. PRO also serves as a meaningful, though comparatively weaker, pathway, underscoring the importance of proactive tendencies in opportunity identification and goal‑directed action within the green entrepreneurship domain.

Theoretical Contribution

The study makes theoretical contributions by unpacking the psychological processes through which institutional support shapes sustainability‑driven entrepreneurial intentions. Rather than exerting a direct influence, UES operates primarily through internal cognitive‑behavioral mechanisms, reinforcing the SCT proposition that environmental stimuli affect behavior via changes in personal agency and self‑regulation.

Managerial Implications

From a practical perspective, the results suggest that universities should move beyond traditional lecture‑based approaches and develop practice‑oriented entrepreneurial ecosystems. Universities should develop a practice‑oriented entrepreneurial ecosystem (e.g., green clubs, ecological seed‑fund programs, mentor networks) to simultaneously enhance students’ confidence (ESE) and stimulate their proactive, action‑oriented tendencies (PRO). Investing in these two psychological drivers is essential for transforming environmental awareness into real green enterprises in the future.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

First, the cross‑sectional design and self‑reported data may entail common method variance; future research should employ multi‑wave longitudinal designs and multi‑source measurement. Second, future studies should examine the moderating role of environmental values and external institutional support, which have shown strengthening effects in previous research. Third, subsequent research may explore behavioral‑level outcomes (GEB) to verify the GEI → GEB “linkage” under the joint influence of UES and the institutional context.

Acknowledgments: We would like to sincerely thank the Editors and Reviewers for their support in the peer review of this study. This study was supported by the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.

Conflict of Interest: None

Financial Support: None

Ethics Statement: This study was conducted in accordance with ethical research standards. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents.