How Does Policy Perception Affect Green Entrepreneurship Behavior? An Empirical Analysis from China

Chu, Fengdi; Zhang, Wei; Jiang, Yuan

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7973046

Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Discrete Dynamics in Economic and Business Systems

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 | Article ID 7973046 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7973046

How Does Policy Perception Affect Green Entrepreneurship Behavior? An Empirical Analysis from China

Fengdi Chu,¹Wei Zhang,²and Yuan Jiang³

Academic Editor: Baogui Xin

Received19 Jun 2021

Accepted15 Jul 2021

Published23 Jul 2021

Abstract

As sustainable development has become a worldwide concern in dealing with tensions between economic development and resource sustainability, green entrepreneurship as a potential solution is gaining popularity. This paper investigates the perceptions of green policies and their impact on green entrepreneurial behavior. Furthermore, green self-efficacy is identified as a psychological mechanism linking green entrepreneurship policies and green entrepreneur behavior and moral reflectiveness as a boundary condition. Building on the policy acceptance model (PAM), the relationships between two policy perceptions and two green entrepreneurial behaviors, the mediating effect of green self-efficacy, and the moderating effect of moral reflectiveness are explored. Results support the mediation and moderation effects, implying that governmental institutions can strive to improve entrepreneurs’ perceived usefulness and ease of use in terms of public policies to strengthen their engagement in green entrepreneurial behaviors.

1. Introduction

Despite the rapid economic growth over the last several decades, concern remains that the overexploitation of natural resources driven by human industrialization has been causing degradation of the environment and ecological system. Since a large part of the world’s economy depends on the sustainability of natural systems [1], environmental challenges such as pollution and deforestation will eventually threaten the viability of my economic systems [2–4]. Responding to these challenges, green entrepreneurship—a form of enterprise development that takes into account ecological and economic benefits—draws increasing attention from scholars and business entrepreneurs.

In a narrow sense, green entrepreneurship is considered to deal with a start-up company that offers green products and services in innovative ways. On the other hand, as green entrepreneurs can also be present in established firms, green entrepreneurship is widely defined as “an innovative, market-oriented, and personality-driven form of value creation through green innovations and products exceeding the start-up phase of a company” [5]. In short, green entrepreneurship is a more recent type of entrepreneurship model which is beneficial to both economic and ecological development. The ultimate goal of green entrepreneurship is to achieve sustainable economic development for human society [6].

A close examination of green entrepreneurship suggests a combination of various behaviors, including green vision, engaging in green innovation, identifying green opportunities, taking the risk, dealing with resources, decision-making and problem-solving, and dealing with growth [7]. The literature has shown that environment-related market failures can motivate green entrepreneurial behaviors [8]. Because of the unique characteristics of many environmental resources, they are often not easy to adapt to market allocation, which leads to environmental market failures [8]. As such, the key to achieving environmental entrepreneurship lies in overcoming barriers to the efficient functioning of markets for environmental resources. Among the alternative forces to stimulate green entrepreneurial behavior are policies initiated by government agencies of different levels [9, 10]. With legitimate authority and power, government policies can accelerate the process of identifying and analyzing green entrepreneurial opportunities and engaging in green entrepreneurship. In fact, many governments have issued policies to encourage and support green entrepreneurial behaviors in recent years [11, 12]. For example, Germany imposes a car tax on the amount of harmful gases produced by cars. The French government imposes an energy tax on companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [13] In China, the payment mechanism of Environmental Services (PES) is one of the important measures to address cross-border environmental pollution problems [14]. Accordingly, numerous policy studies have been conducted in a bid to understand the impact of government policies on green entrepreneurship, mostly from a macro perspective [15–20], leaving the microbehavioral consequences unexplored. Yet, the final success of green entrepreneurship has to be achieved through entrepreneurs’ behavior.

However, implementing green policies successfully requires more than the government’s authority. The positive relationship between green entrepreneurship policy and green entrepreneurial behavior is not guaranteed [21]. The extant literature has reported that entrepreneurs’ positive attitudes and intentions are predictors of green entrepreneurial behaviors, while not all policies will stimulate entrepreneurs’ positive attitudes toward green entrepreneurship [22, 23]. Therefore, a better understanding of the cognitive mechanisms linking green entrepreneurship policies and green entrepreneurial behavior is necessary.

In this study, we build on the policy acceptance model (PAM) to explore the green entrepreneurs’ policy implementation process. Pierce and colleagues adopt the technology acceptance model (TAM) to PAM in their study of the American health care policy acceptance [24]. Drawing from the PAM framework, we identify green entrepreneur’s policy perceptions (perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness) as antecedents of their green self-efficacy, which in turn results in their green entrepreneurship behaviors (task-related and proactive green entrepreneurial behaviors). The PAM suggests that both policy perception variables are positively related to attitudes, thus influencing green entrepreneurship behaviors [24]. However, a more relevant variable on individuals’ cognition that motivates performance is self-efficacy. Therefore, green self-efficacy is introduced as a meditation variable. In addition, I also examine the boundary condition—entrepreneurs’ moral reflectiveness—for the effects of policy perceptions. The proenvironment idea or behavior is related to ethical values since the sustainability of natural systems is beneficial to all human beings. The concept model is shown in Figure 1.

This study contributes to the literature on green entrepreneurial behavior in several ways. First, to my knowledge, this is the first study extending the PAM to understand green entrepreneurship policy acceptance. Furthermore, to better understand the behavioral consequences, we differentiate between task-related green entrepreneurial behavior and proactive entrepreneurial behavior. Last but not least, this study enriches the policy-behavior relationship by including in the model a mediating mechanism of green self-efficacy and a boundary condition of moral reflectiveness.

2. Theoretical Foundation and Research Hypotheses

2.1. The PAM and Green Self-Efficacy

A useful framework to understand the adoption of policy change is the policy acceptance model (PAM). PAM is an extension of the original technology acceptance model (TAM), which attempts to predict and explain technology acceptance and use through the user’s particular beliefs [25]. Although the TAM is designed to understand technology acceptance at first, it has been successfully adopted to understand many other kinds of acceptance processes. Zhang et al. extend the TAM to the field of Green Human Resource Management [26]. Cho uses TAM to analyze the acceptance of digital advertising policy [27]. The PAM focuses on the field of public policy by including the traditional constructs of TAM and additional variables in relation to the domain of policy research. According to the PAM framework, policy acceptance and use are affected by attitude toward use, which is shaped by perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness [24]. Although these relationships seem to be self-evident at first glance, little research has been done to apply the PAM model to examine specific policies in the green area. However, a study extended the PAM to analyze the impact of cooperating green policies [28]. The findings of this study confirmed the positive effects of employees’ policy perceptions on workplace green behavior, which indicates the possibility of adopting the PAM to the field of green public policy or, more specifically, green entrepreneurship policy.

In the PAM framework, perceived ease of use is considered as the degree to which an entrepreneur believes that following a particular green entrepreneurship policy will be free of effort [24]. Accepting new policies is not always easy. Entrepreneurs care about the effort they need to exert since time and resources are limited and they cannot afford to take too much risk. When an entrepreneur feels that following a particular policy only requires little time and resources, his or her level of perceived ease of use of policy will be high. In addition, perceived usefulness is referred to as the extent to which an entrepreneur believes that following a particular green entrepreneurship policy will enhance his or her entrepreneurial performance [24]. Budiningsih et al. think that entrepreneurs are the persons who pursue business success [29]. Stefko et al. prove that they are motivated by the improvement of entrepreneurial performance [30]. Therefore, they will perceive public policy from the perspective of useless. Davis’s research suggests that both perception variables noted above are positively related to attitudes [31]. Zheng proposes individual’s outcome perceptions/expectations—for example, a perceived increase in resource cost predicts their acceptance attitude [32]. Kallbekken et al. realize the significance of expected effectiveness in influencing attitudes toward behavior [33]. However, a more relevant variable on individuals’ cognition about performing a certain task or behaviors is self-efficacy, which has been neglected [34]. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s own judgment of capability to participate in a particular activity to attain a particular goal [34]. Previous research reports that higher self-efficacy is the result of environment evaluation. [35]. Therefore, it is very likely that PEOU and PU are positively related to green self-efficacy.

We consider an entrepreneur’s green self-efficacy as his or her own judgment of the capabilities to engage in green entrepreneurship to achieve both environmental and economic goals. When judging whether they are able to do something, individuals not only assess their abilities based on social experience and vicarious experience but also compare their own abilities with those needed for a certain activity [36]. In the process of green entrepreneurship, capabilities like green technological knowledge and green creativity are all essential elements considered in the evaluation [38]. Moreover, green entrepreneurship policies requiring companies to meet strict standards to protect the environment even make the goal of green entrepreneurship more difficult to reach. If entrepreneurs have to spare much effort owing to such policies, they tend to view green entrepreneurship as challenging and arduous. Conversely, if they perceive the policies to be easy to abide by, they are likely to form high levels of self-efficacy regarding green entrepreneurial endeavors.

On the other hand, green entrepreneurship policies do not put forward only obligations and burdens. To encourage green entrepreneurial adventures, some policies come with resources and opportunities to help green entrepreneurs solve problems and overcome barriers, which makes green entrepreneurship easier. These policies drive entrepreneurs to set high expectations in their green entrepreneurial performance. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis.

H1. Entrepreneurs’ perceived (green entrepreneurship policy) ease of use is positively related to their green self-efficacy.

Albert Bandura argues that emotional arousal is one of four main antecedents of self-efficacy [37]. Individuals are more likely to expect success when they are not bothered by negative arousal [37]. Therefore, the profitable implementation of green entrepreneurship policy triggers positive feelings like excitement, thus affecting green self-efficacy positively. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis.

H2. Entrepreneurs’ perceived (green entrepreneurship policy) usefulness is positively related to their green self-efficacy.

The cost-benefit paradigm from behavioral decision theory can also explain the importance of perceptions when studying green entrepreneur policy adoption progress. It explains people's choice-making through a process of a cognitive trade-off between the effort required and the benefit attained [38–40]. The least effort but the most rewarding policy is the easiest and exciting to implement, thus impacting entrepreneurs’ green self-efficacy.

2.2. The Moderating Effect of Moral Reflectiveness

Green entrepreneurial behaviors involve moral values and beliefs. Previous studies have found that individuals who give considerable thought to morality and moral matters will be more committed to prosocial or proenvironmental behaviors [41–43]. Muhammad Abbas’ research shows that two types of moral identity (internalization and symbolization) are related to environmentally friendly behaviors [44]. Moral reflectiveness helps an individual to care about morality. It is considered an individual difference in the amount of morally guided reflection people participate in concerning their daily experiences and the extent to which they contemplate moral issues in their daily life [42]. Previous studies have found that moral reflectiveness has a direct impact on green behavior., Afsarl finds that moral reflectiveness partially mediated the relationship between perceived CSR and employee proenvironmental behavior [45]. However, it is also likely to act as a boundary condition [46].

Human evaluation of themselves and their behavior can be motivated by either intrinsic motivation or integrated extrinsic motivation [47]. Intrinsic motivation is based on people’s inherent tendency to positively engage in activities to feel a sense of fulfillment. Moral reflectiveness belongs to intrinsic motivation because even if an individual has no benefit or pressure, he or she will do what is ethically and morally right to feel a sense of meaningfulness. On the contrary, extrinsic motivation refers to a tendency to participate in activities leading to some separate outcome such as reward, approval from others, or the avoidance of punishment. In this regard, policies that contain the public expectation and corresponding rewards are extrinsic motivations [48]. In general, policy perception and moral reflectiveness function in vastly different ways in affecting individuals’ evaluation of themselves and their behaviors.

Moral reflection and perceptions of green policy may replace each other in motivating green self-efficacy. Entrepreneurs with low moral standards are more concerned with the instrumental values of policies. Therefore, they care more about PU and PEOU. On the other hand, for entrepreneurs with high moral standards, the instrumental values of these policies become less relevant.

Therefore, when entrepreneurs are less morally concerned, their perceptions of policy values (i.e., easy to use and useful) can boost their self-efficacy in engaging in green entrepreneurship behavior. When entrepreneurs have strong moral reflectiveness, the influence of two green entrepreneurship policy perceptions on green self-efficacy will weaken. Based on these arguments, we propose the following hypotheses.

H3. Entrepreneurs’ moral reflectiveness moderates the effect of perceived (green entrepreneurship policy) ease of use on their green self-efficacy, such that the effect will weaken as moral reflectiveness increases.

H4. Entrepreneurs’ moral reflectiveness moderates the effect of perceived (green entrepreneurship policy) usefulness on their green self-efficacy, such that the effect will weaken as moral reflectiveness increases.

2.3. Green Self-Efficacy and Green Entrepreneurial Behavior

Prior studies believed that self-efficacy is an important proximal determinant of human motivation, affect, and action [49]. Previous studies have confirmed that self-efficacy is positively related to entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial behavior [34]. Zhao finds that the effects of perceived learning from entrepreneurship-related courses, previous entrepreneurial experience, and risk propensity on entrepreneurial intentions were fully mediated by entrepreneurial self-efficacy [50]. Therefore, in the context of green entrepreneurship, green self-efficacy is likely to be associated with green entrepreneurial behavior.

In this study, we divide green entrepreneurial behavior into task-related green entrepreneurial behavior and proactive green entrepreneurial behavior. Such division of green entrepreneurial behavior is in line with a motivation theory. Individuals are motivated by either extrinsic factors or intrinsic factors [46]. Task-related green entrepreneurial behavior is the proenvironmental behaviors stipulated by extrinsic factors. For example, meeting particular standards of products is a kind of task-related green entrepreneurial behavior. In fact, as environmental degradation becomes more severe, the government often requires entrepreneurs to pay attention to ecological protection, society calls for social responsibility of companies, and markets demand more green services and products, all of which motivate green entrepreneurial behavior [51]. However, proactive green entrepreneurial behavior is motivated by intrinsic determinants including entrepreneurs’ own beliefs, values, and willingness. In fact, starting a green business can not only save costs on the premise of ensuring product quality but also build a good reputation among customers and improve the core competitiveness of enterprises in the market [52]. Furthermore, except for gaining profits, some green entrepreneurs consider improvement of ecological sustainability as one of company’s ultimate goals [53]. Such entrepreneurs may proactively take entrepreneurial measures that even exceed government regulations regarding environmental sustainability [54]. For example, Elon Musk's electric car product Tesla is committed to abandoning its dependence on oil, while most governments simply require automotive products to reduce energy consumption. For entrepreneurs like him, green entrepreneurship behavior is not only a business but also personal responsibility [54].

There is another reason why it is necessary to divide green entrepreneurial behavior into two types. Green self-efficacy may have different functions when impacting green entrepreneurial behavior [34]. Flannery and May propose that self-efficacy impacts not only one’s level of effort and persistence on a specific task but also one’s choice of activities [37]. A high level of self-efficacy expectations regarding performance in a specific behavioral setting leads individuals to approach that setting, whereas low self-efficacy expectations lead individuals to avoid that setting [48]. Therefore, for entrepreneurs who do not will to take green actions, when they feel more confident about their ability to respond to outside pressure, they will engage in stress reduction activities. However, if they lack self-efficacy, they may avoid doing green entrepreneurial activities as much as possible. Therefore, self-efficacy predicts task-related green entrepreneurial behavior.

H5. Entrepreneurs’ green self-efficacy is positively related to their task-related green entrepreneurship behaviors.

Besides, it was proposed that self-efficacy decreases the anxiety of failure [34]. It may empower entrepreneurs to actively participate in green entrepreneurship activities. Besides, it was found that self-efficacy makes individuals feel the success is easy to obtain [34]. Therefore, they may set higher goals and do more green activities than asked.

H6. Entrepreneurs’ green self-efficacy is positively related to their proactive green entrepreneurship behaviors.

3. Materials and Methods

To test the hypotheses proposed in this study, we collected data from green technical entrepreneurs whose firms are located in five high-tech science parks in central China. Initial company background and contact information were obtained through the administrative offices of the park, based on which we selected 405 companies that focus on research and new product development in environmental consulting and service, green technology, clean energy production, eco-agriculture technology, green infrastructure building, etc. Then, we contacted these companies via emails and/or phone calls, with 294 agreeing to participate in the study. The contact person of these potential participating companies provided the e-mail address of either the founder or a member of the entrepreneurial team, to which we sent an online survey link. To increase the response rate, I also sent several reminders to those who did not respond to the survey. There were 272 responses received, with 245 complete cases that were then used in the final analysis.

In the final sample, there were 70% of males, 87.3% of them had a bachelor’s degree or above, and their average age was about 32 (SD = 7.31). The average company age was about three (SD = 7.30), and the average size (number of employees) was 30 (SD = 25.67).

3.1. Measures

All measures adopted in the study were translated and back-translated into Chinese. Adapting J. A. Flaherty and M. Gavilia’s methods, we pay close attention to the content, semantic, technical, criterion, and conceptual equivalence of two languages to make sure the translation is correct [55]. Respondents rated all items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1, “strongly disagree”, to 7, “strongly agree.” Both policy perception variables—perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness—were measured with items adapted from prior studies [24]. Specifically, six items were used to rate perceived ease of use. A sample item is “implementing changes in policies concerning green entrepreneurship will be easy for me and/or my team” (α = 0.85). Another six items were used to measure perceived usefulness. A sample item is “the changes in the green policy would enable me to manage my work behavior more efficiently” (α = 0.88).(1)Green Self-Efficacy. This variable was measured with four items adapted from prior studies [17]. A sample item is “I can achieve most of the environmental goals and perform effectively on environmental missions” (α = 0.82).(2)Moral Reflectiveness. Five items from prior studies were adopted to rate respondents’ level of moral reflectiveness [42]. A sample item is “I regularly think about the ethical implications of my decisions” (α = 0.86).(3)Task-Related Green Entrepreneurship Behavior. We developed three items based on Keogh and Polonsky to measure task-related green entrepreneurial behavior [54]. A sample item is “I solve environmental problems that have not been solved by turning entrepreneurial ideas into green products, technologies, and services.” (α = 0.846).(4)Proactive Green Entrepreneurship Behavior. Similarly, three items from prior studies were adopted to measure proactive green entrepreneurial behavior [56]. A sample item is “I frequently look at future industry trends, understand green development opportunities, and take early action to manage change” (α = 0.889).(5)Control Variables. I included respondents’ age, gender (male = 0; female = 1), and education level as demographic controls. In addition, I also controlled for company size and age in line with previous entrepreneurship research.

3.2. Analyses

Before testing for hypotheses, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess the discriminability of the measures using Lisrel. Specifically, a six-factor model with items loaded on their respective factors produced a satisfactory fit (χ2 = 475.78 [df = 309, ), CFI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.048; RMSEA = 0.047), which was significantly better than two alternative models that combined either two policy perception variables (χ2 = 1184.04 (df = 314, ), CFI = 0.86; SRMR = 0.09; RMSEA = 0.11) or two green entrepreneurship behavior variables (χ2 = 710.70 (df = 314, ), CFI = 0.94; SRMR = 0.061; RMSEA = 0.072). Lastly, a single-factor model that all items were loaded on one factor resulted in the worst fit (χ2 = 3108.62 (df = 324, ), CFI = 0.55; SRMR = 0.15; RMSEA = 0.19). Together, these results supported the hypothesized six-factor model. Further tested hypotheses with hierarchical multiple regression models enter main effects first, followed by the interaction effects [57]. The moderation effects were examined with grand-mean centered variables [58].

The materials and methods section should contain sufficient detail so that all procedures can be repeated. It may be divided into headed subsections if several methods are described.

4. Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Table 1, showing that most of the main study variables were positively correlated with each other. For example, two policy perception variables were correlated with green self-efficacy, which in turn were correlated with two types of green entrepreneurship behaviors.

Hypotheses 1 and 2 proposed two positive relationships between policy perception and green self-efficacy. Table 2 represents the results of the regression models. Regarding these hypotheses, Model 1 shows that both perceived ease of use (β = 0.32, ) and perceived usefulness (β = 0.30, ) were positively related to green self-efficacy, which supported both hypotheses.

Next, we tested the two moderation effects proposed in Hypotheses 3 and 4, which predicted that entrepreneurs’ moral reflectiveness would moderate the effects of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on their green self-efficacy. As shown in Model 2 of Table 2, the interaction effects were both significant and negative (for perceived ease of use × moral reflectiveness: β = −0.12, ; for perceived usefulness × moral reflectiveness: β = −0.11, ), indicating that policy perceptions had stronger effects on green self-efficacy for those with lower levels of moral reflectiveness.

Finally, we examined the associations of green self-efficacy with the two types of green entrepreneurship behaviors proposed in Hypotheses 5 and 6. As shown in Model 4, green self-efficacy was positively related to task-related green entrepreneurship behavior (β = 0.26, ); similarly, Model 6 demonstrates a positive relationship between green self-efficacy and proactive green entrepreneurship behavior (β = 0.22, ). In addition, for both task-related and proactive green entrepreneurship behaviors, adding green self-efficacy into the model reduced the effect size of both perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, suggesting that green self-efficacy partially mediates the relationship between both policy perception variables and green entrepreneurial behaviors. Taken together, these results supported all hypotheses.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Discussion

As environmental issues have aroused the government’s concern, recent years have witnessed the increase of green entrepreneurship public policies. Green entrepreneurial behavior is considered effective in sustaining economic and environmental systems. The main purpose of this research is to explore the process through which green entrepreneurship public policy transforms into green entrepreneurial behavior. Based on prior literature and frameworks about the acceptance of information systems and policies [22–24], the PAM framework was adopted to examine two policy perceptions, green self-efficacy, two entrepreneurship behaviors, and moral reflectiveness as a moderator. Results supported the mediated relationships between policy perceptions, green self-efficacy, and behavior. Furthermore, the positive relationship between policy perceptions and green self-efficacy is moderated by individual attributes of moral reflectiveness. In particular, this study offers several important findings.

Firstly, consistent with the conclusions drawn by Pierce’s studies, significant positive impacts of two types of perceptions of green entrepreneurship policies (perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness) on their green self-efficacy were found [24]. The theoretical importance of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as determinants of recipients’ behavior is indicated by previous studies around various kinds of acceptance processes. Zhang et al. find Green Employee Behavior in China is affected by PU and PEOU [26]. Cho proves that the acceptance of digital advertising policy is greatly impacted by PU and PEOU [27]. Secondly, this study found positive relationships between individuals’ green self-efficacy and their environmentally friendly entrepreneurial behaviors, including task-related green entrepreneurial behaviors and proactive entrepreneurial behaviors. It is in line with Bandura’s research that individuals with high self-efficacy will do more work and work harder [37]. The partial mediate relationship of green self-efficacy may be explained by PU and PEOU’s direct impact on environmentally friendly entrepreneurial behaviors. Lastly, entrepreneurs’ moral reflectiveness interacted with policy perceptions to affect their green self-efficacy. The relationship between perception and self-efficacy was stronger for those with low moral reflectiveness. It can be explained by motivation theory that individuals’ actions are either influenced by intrinsic or extrinsic factors [46]. To conclude, the results found in the paper can also be explained by Bandura’s reciprocal determinism model, which proposes that intrinsic factors like cognitive process and outside environment operate as interacting determinants that influence each other bidirectionally [34]. In this paper, internal and external factors will interact to influence green entrepreneurial behavior. To be specific, for entrepreneurs who are willing to start green businesses, if they lack external support or their inner self-efficacy is not high enough, they will suspend their entrepreneurial plan. The green entrepreneurship policy plays the extrinsic motivator role to increase their inner self-efficiency level and further prompts proenvironment entrepreneurial activities. However, with high moral reflectiveness, entrepreneurs are willing to overcome various difficulties to act greenly even when they lack confidence or outside support.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the green behavior literature in three important ways. Firstly, the PAM was extended to the field of green entrepreneurship public policy. We adopted the model and applied it at the microlevel to explain how entrepreneurs' perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of green entrepreneurship policy deferentially influence their green entrepreneurial behaviors. The main purpose is to unpack individuals’ psychological mechanisms when facing green entrepreneurship public policy.

Secondly, we extended the self-efficacy theory in the field of green entrepreneurship. Self-efficacy can predict a lot of behaviors. Houmann and Gavin prove that self-efficacy is positively related to an individual’s creativity performance [59]. However, it is the first time the mediated effects of green self-efficacy between two kinds of policy perceptions and green entrepreneurial behaviors have been examined and confirmed.

Thirdly, a framework for the study of green entrepreneurial behavior from a policy perspective was established. There is not much research on green entrepreneurial motivation, and there is less research from the perspective of macro policy. Previous research investigated motivators such as market opportunities and personal characteristics in explaining green entrepreneurial behaviors. This study extends these findings by showing that entrepreneurs’ perceptions of green entrepreneurship policy (i.e., perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) significantly impact their behaviors.

Fourthly, this paper divides green entrepreneurial behavior into task-related green entrepreneurial behaviors and proactive entrepreneurial behaviors, which is in line with a motivation theory. Task-related green entrepreneurial behavior is the behavior driven by extrinsic motivation, which is influenced by extrinsic policy pressure. However, proactive entrepreneurial behavior is the behavior driven by intrinsic motivation, which mainly depends on inner belief.

What’s more, the moderating effect of moral reflectiveness was confirmed. Previous studies suggest that moral reflectiveness may have a direct impact on green entrepreneurial behavior. This research illustrates that individuals’ personal values (moral reflectiveness) can moderate the effects of their perceptions of green entrepreneurship public policy on their green entrepreneurial behaviors through their attitudes toward the policy. This is also aligned with the motivation literature that moral reflectiveness can function as an intrinsic motivator to change their attitudes toward the policy [60].

5.3. Practical Implications

Furthermore, our study has also some practical implications. On the one hand, it helps green entrepreneurship policymakers to make better policies. The conclusion running through empirical research on policy implementation is that the acceptance and adoption of new policies are hard, as it is difficult for policymakers to predict people's perceptions and attitudes toward new policies. The willingness to implement new policies can be influenced by various factors largely beyond the reach of the policy, such as social pressures and culture [21]. However, strengthening people’s perceived usefulness and ease of use may significantly increase the possibility of successful green entrepreneurship policy implementation. On the other hand, this research has demonstrated that sometimes entrepreneurs do not only focus on their performance; he or she can be motivated to conduct proactive entrepreneurial green behaviors.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

This study has also some limitations which deserve to be considered in future research. Firstly, the data came from a narrow demographic population in China. This limit of the research also raises questions about the standard of behavior in different countries. Although we have carefully chosen a general measure of green behavior that can apply to a variety of countries or regions, future research may be fruitful to use more representative samples to examine the process of green entrepreneurship and public policy acceptance within a particular country or region. Furthermore, this study did not explore the factors that affect the two policy perceptions, so the framework for studying green entrepreneurial behavior from a macro policy perspective is not comprehensive enough. Future research may be fruitful if other factors affecting policy perceptions are taken into account, such as knowledge level and age.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71804056 and 71932004), Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of the Ministry of Education of China (18YJC630250), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (#2018M642033).

References

R. Costanza, R. d’Arge, R. de Groot et al., “The value of the World’s ecosystem services and natural capital,” Nature, vol. 387, no. 15, pp. 253–260, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Xu, C. Wang, and P. Zhou, “GVRP considered oil-gas recovery in refined oil distribution: from an environmental perspective,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 235, Article ID 108078, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Xu, J. Hao, L. Yu, and Y. Deng, “Fuzzy optimal allocation model for task-resource assignment problem in a collaborative logistics network,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1112–1125, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Xu, Z. Wei, Q. Ji, C. Wang, and G. Gao, “Global renewable energy development: influencing factors, trend predictions and countermeasures,” Resources Policy, vol. 63, no. 10, Article ID 101470, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Schaltegger, “A framework for ecopreneurship: leading bioneers and environmental managers to ecopreneurship,” Greener Management International, vol. 38, no. 14, pp. 45–58, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. Dean and J. S. McMullen, “Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action,” Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 50–76, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. A. Dixon and A. Clifford, “Ecopreneurship - a new approach to managing the triple bottom line,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 326–345, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Cohen and M. I. Winn, “Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship,” Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 29–49, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Klewitz and E. G. Hansen, “Sustainability-oriented innovation of smes: a systematic review,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 65, no. FEB. 15, pp. 57–75, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. R. Baum and E. A. Locke, “The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 587–598, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Triguero, L. Moreno-Mondéjar, and M. A. Davia, “Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in european smes,” Ecological Economics, vol. 92, no. 92, pp. 25–33, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Seyfang and A. Smith, “Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda,” Environmental Politics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 584–603, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Qu, H. Yang, and Y. Ji, “Low-carbon supply chain optimization considering warranty period and carbon emission reduction level under cap-and-trade regulation,” Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 1, no. 28, pp. 1–28, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Qu, Y. Li, and Y. Ji, “The mixed integer robust maximum expert consensus models for large-scale GDM under uncertainty circumstances,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 107, Article ID 107369, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. O. Ndubisi and N. R. Nair, “Green entrepreneurship (GE) and green value added (GVA): a conceptual framework,” International Journal of Entrepreneurship, vol. 13, no. 21, pp. 21–34, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Ivanova and A. Latyshov, “Sustainable entrepreneurship: agrarian policy in South Korea,” Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 748–760, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-S. Chen, C.-H. Chang, S.-L. Yeh, and H.-I. Cheng, “Green shared vision and green creativity: the mediation roles of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy,” Quality and Quantity, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 1169–1184, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Yi, “From green entrepreneurial intentions to green entrepreneurial behaviors: the role of university entrepreneurial support and external institutional support,” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 963–979, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Vuorio, K. Puumalainen, and K. Fellnhofer, “Drivers of entrepreneurial intentions in sustainable entrepreneurship,” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 359–381, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. E. Nikolaou, K. Tasopoulou, and K. Tsagarakis, “A typology of green entrepreneurs based on institutional and resource-based views,” The Journal of Entrepreneurship, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 111–132, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
M. W. McLaughlin, “Learning from experience: lessons from policy implementation,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 171–178, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Tesprasit, P. Aksharanandana, and A. Kanchanavibhu, “Building green entrepreneurship: a journey of environmental awareness to green entrepreneurs in Thailand,” Journal of Information Technology and Applied Management, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 35–47, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Demirel, Q. C. Li, F. Rentocchini, and J. P. Tamvada, “Born to be green: new insights into the economics and management of green entrepreneurship,” Small Business Economics, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 759–771, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. P. Pierce, C. Willy, R. Roncace, and J. Bischoff, “Extending the technology acceptance model: policy acceptance model (PAM),” American Journal of Health Sciences (AJHS), vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 129–144, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 475–487, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zhang, Y. Luo, X. Zhang, and J. Zhao, “How green human resource management can promote green employee behavior in China: a technology acceptance model perspective,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 19, Article ID 5408, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Cho, Y. Cheon, and J. W. Jun, “Digital advertising policy acceptance by out-of-home advertising firms: a combination of TAM and TOE framework,” International Journal of Advertising, pp. 1–19, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Yang, Y. Jiang, W. Zhang, Q. Zhang, and H. Gong, “An empirical examination of individual green policy perception and green behaviors,” International Journal of Manpower, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1021–1040, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Budiningsih, H. Sukamto, and S. Mujiani, “Dominant determinant characteristics of innovative behavior of new entrepreneur candidates,” Management Science Letters, vol. 18, no. 13, pp. 1813–1820, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Stefko, R. Fedorko, N. Svetozarovova, and L. Nastisin, “Start-up management and the relationship between the level of awareness among potential young entrepreneurs and the motivation to start own business,” Quality-Access to Success, vol. 22, no. 183, pp. 86–90, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Zheng, Z. Liu, C. Liu, and N. Shiwakoti, “Understanding public response to a congestion charge: a random-effects ordered logit approach,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 70, no. 117, p. 4, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kallbekken, J. H. Garcia, and K. Korneliussen, “Determinants of public support for transport taxes,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 58, pp. 67–78, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Gist, C. Schwoerer, and B. Rosen, “Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 884–891, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bandura, “Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 117–148, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Shaheen and S. Al-Haddad, “Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial behavior,” International Journal of Development and Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 2385–2402, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
B. L. Flannery and D. R. May, “Environmental ethical decision making in the US metal-finishing industry,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 642–662, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Kim, Y. Kim, and K. Han, “Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy,” Journal of Management, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1335–1358, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,” Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 191–215, 1977.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. R. Beach and T. R. Mitchell, “A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 439–449, 1978.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. J. Johnson and J. W. Payne, “Effort and accuracy in choice,” Management Science, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 395–414, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. Payne, “Contingent decision behavior,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 382–402, 1982.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Aquino and I. I. Reed, “The self-importance of moral identity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 83, no. 6, Article ID 1423, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Reynolds, “Moral attentiveness: who pays attention to the moral aspects of life?” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 93, no. 5, Article ID 1027, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Afsar and W. A. Umrani, “Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior at workplace: the role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 109–125, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Abbas and F. Bashir, “Having a green identity: does pro-environmental self-identity mediate the effects of moral identity on ethical consumption and pro-environmental behaviour?” Studies in Psychology, vol. 1, no. 32, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Afsar and W. A. Umrani, “Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior at workplace: the role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being,” American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
T. A. Norton, H. Zacher, and N. M. Ashkanasy, “Organizational sustainability policies and employee green behavior: the mediating role of work climate perceptions,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 38, pp. 49–54, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory of organizational management,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 361–384, 1989.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Bandura, “The assessment and predictive generality of self percepts of efficacy,” Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 195–199, 1982.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Zhao, S. Seibert, and G. Hills, “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions,” The Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 1265–1272, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Lotfi and S. Jafari, “The effect of emerging green market on green entrepreneurship and sustainable development in knowledge-based companies,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1–18, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Qu, Y. Li, and Y. Ji, “The mixed integer robust maximum expert consensus models for large-scale GDM under uncertainty circumstances,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 107, Article ID 107369, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. D. Keogh and M. J. Polonsky, “Environmental commitment: a basis for environmental entrepreneurship?” Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 38–49, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Demirel, Q. C. Li, and F. Rentocchini, “Born to be green: new insights into the economics and management of green entrepreneurship,” Small Business Economics, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 759–771, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Ge, D. Jiang, Y. Gao et al., “The influence of legitimacy on a proactive green orientation and green performance: a study based on transitional economy scenarios in China,” Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 12, Article ID 1344, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Flaherty and M. Gavilia, “Developing instruments for cross-cultural psychiatric research,” Journal of Nerve Mental Discussion, vol. 176, no. 20, pp. 257–263, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Hofmann and M. B. Gavin, “Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: implications for research in organizations,” Journal of Management, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 623–641, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. S. Aiken and S. G. West, “Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions - institute for social and economic research,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 119-120, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2021 Fengdi Chu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1597

Downloads

1205

Citations