“Quiet the Mind, and the Soul Will Speak”! Exploring the Boundary Effects of Green Mindfulness and Spiritual Intelligence on University Students’ Green Entrepreneurial Intention–Behavior Link

Abstract

Given the escalated gravity of interest in green start-ups in recent years, extant research on green entrepreneurial behavior has investigated the influence of green entrepreneurial intention in stimulating behavior. However, factors that shape green entrepreneurial intention warrant empirical scrutiny to provide a more nuanced understanding of how green entrepreneurial intention transforms into green entrepreneurial behavior. This study aims to explore the role of an individual’s cognitive mechanism, i.e., green mindfulness, in predicting university students’ green entrepreneurial behavior. The study examines a serial mediation model of green intrinsic motivation and green entrepreneurial intention in the relationship between green mindfulness and green entrepreneurial behavior. In addition, the study investigates the moderating role of spiritual intelligence in the direct relationship between green mindfulness and green intrinsic motivation, and the indirect association between green mindfulness and green entrepreneurial intention through green intrinsic motivation. The study adopts a time-lagged design to collect data from university students from Punjab, Pakistan. The authors analyze 395 responses from students in their final years using SmartPLS (v 4.0). As projected, our findings reveal that green mindfulness elevates green entrepreneurial intention through the mediator effect of green intrinsic motivation, which translates into green entrepreneurial behavior. Furthermore, spiritual intelligence significantly moderates the relationship between green mindfulness and green entrepreneurial intention, mediated by green intrinsic motivation, such that at high levels of spiritual intelligence the association is more pronounced and vice versa. The study presents several noteworthy theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, the study contributes to the extant literature by investigating the link between green mindfulness and green entrepreneurial behavior through the serial mediator effects of green entrepreneurial intention and green intrinsic motivation and the moderator effect of spiritual intelligence. From a practical perspective the study presents a theoretical framework of university students’ green entrepreneurial intentions, culminating in green entrepreneurial behavior. By investigating these linkages our research draws practitioners’ attention to the crucial roles of green mindfulness and spiritual intelligence in fostering green entrepreneurial behavior.

1. Introduction

There has been a burgeoning academic and practical interest in green start-ups in recent years as a remedy to cope with escalated environmental calamities and challenges [1,2,3]. The term “green start-up” or “going green” reflects entrepreneurial initiatives intended to offer a service, make a product, or use a process that alleviates environmental hazards and benefits the environment [2,4]. According to Ball and Kittler [5], hazardous human activities and global warming have adversely impacted the weather and our planet earth in numerous ways. The ecological theory, in this regard, contemplates that human activities are the leading reasons for causing harm to nature, and such damages must be curtailed immediately [5]. Resultantly, green entrepreneurial activities are upheld as the magic bullets for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to promote economic growth and transform this earth into a liveable planet. As endorsed by Chapman and Hottenrott [4], the compelling reasons for stimulating the transition to more “green environmental settings” and the “green entrepreneurial initiatives” are the benediction of the immediate acknowledgement of the “going green” concept. The swelled-up green wave of creative destruction warrants immediate countermeasures from the entrepreneurship domain [6] and higher educational institutions [7].

Considering the importance of green start-ups in reducing deforestation, improving environmental quality, and protecting the ecosystem, the emergence of a growing body of research that attempts to identify its drivers more clearly is unsurprising. In this regard, a preponderance of research studies has sought to investigate the link between green entrepreneurial intention (GEI) and green entrepreneurial behavior (GEB). In this surge, university students pursuing entrepreneurial careers have become the focus of interest in recent studies [8,9]. This is because entrepreneurial activities curb the mounting unemployment and promote economic growth, job creation, and innovation [8]. A host of researchers in recent years have found that the entrepreneurial success rate in developed nations is twice, i.e., 20%, compared to university graduates in developing countries with a success rate of 10%, wherein the start-up rate is only 2% [10]. Not surprisingly, understanding the determinants of GEI of university students has taken a priority for researchers and practitioners in developing countries. Therefore, factors that might translate GEI into exaggerated GEB necessitate empirical scrutiny to provide a finer-grain understanding of the phenomenon.

The purpose of this study is threefold. First, it explores the factors that shape university students’ GEI. There are repeated calls to investigate factors that might nurture university students’ GEI [7,10]. We meet these calls by proposing green mindfulness (G-MFN) as the underpinning mechanism shaping GEI. Although several preliminary studies have attempted to explore the antecedents of GEI. For instance, researchers have examined numerous factors such as university entrepreneurial support and external institutional support [11], entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial passion, and entrepreneurial alertness [10], attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioral control [12], personality traits and risk aversion [13], perceived desirability and perceived feasibility [14], among others. However, prior studies have yet to examine the critical role of G-MFN in elevating university students’ GEI. We project that G-MFN is essential in modelling GEI because it divulges a person’s cognitive mechanism that might elucidate how intentions transform into behaviors. In this regard, green mindfulness, “a state of conscious awareness in which individuals are implicitly aware of the context and content of environmental information and knowledge” [15] (p. 1170), holds particular salience and relevance to understanding GEI.

In addition, the study investigates the hitherto unexplored causal mechanism that might underpin the association between G-MFN and GEI: green intrinsic motivation (GIM). GIM refers to “the motivation that engages in a green behavior that arises from within the individual because it is naturally gratifying to you” [10] (p. 256). Despite the growing interest in examining the antecedents of GEI, research studies casting GIM still need to be included in the extant literature. Our study fills this gap by projecting GIM as a mediating variable between G-MFN and GEI. By examining GIM as a causal mechanism, this study seeks to understand the locus of causality to be an internal factor, thus offering the maximum capacity to irradiate the influence of G-MFN on GEI.

Second, in addition to guiding the theoretical arguments concerning the apparent indirect effect of G-MFN on GEI through the mediator effect of GIM, this study explores the boundary conditions of the G-MFN–GEI nexus. We propose that spiritual intelligence (SI) moderates the relationship between G-MFN and GEI through the mediating role of GIM. SI refers to the incarceration of two distinct concepts—spirituality and intelligence—into a single terminology. It offers spiritual insights that enable individuals to direct their attention and actions to a more significant cause based on spiritual values [16]. This is in line with the recommendations of Amankwah and Sesen [7] and Li et al. [10] to explore university students’ GEI boundary conditions, although several prior studies have sought to explore the boundary effects of factors such as family support [17], university entrepreneurial support [18], and external institutional support [11], among others. However, investigating the boundary effects of SI is novel and pertinent because SI is expected to play a crucial role in exciting the cognitive mechanisms, i.e., G-MFN inducing GIM and GEI.

Last but not least, the study aims to advance the conceptual model by exploring the role of G-MFN in predicting GEB through the serial mediation of GIM and GEI, although the association between intention and behavior has well-supported theoretical underpinnings, e.g., the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [19] and the theory of reasoned action (TRA) [20]. Nevertheless, growing empirical evidence depicts that intention may not reliably lead to changes in behavior [21]. Researchers have increasingly been interested in examining factors that might translate intention into behavior. Therefore, we predict that GIM stimulated by G-MFN engenders GEI, which offers a more propelling motive to engage in GEB. We specifically propose that: (1) GIM mediates the association between G-MFN and GEI; (2) SI moderates the direct relationship between G-MFN and GEI, and the indirect relationship between G-MFN and GEI mediated by GIM; and (3) GIM and GEI serially mediate the association between G-MFN and GEB.

In addition to measuring the direct effect of G-MFN on GEI through the mediating role of GIM and the moderating role of SI, this study anchors on the self-determination theory (SDT) [22,23] to underpin the underlying associations. The study projects that G-MFN serves as a gateway that embarks upon one’s ability of awareness, translating into self-regulated functioning, i.e., GIM that facilitates performance outcomes, i.e., GEI, ultimately, leveraging GEB. In this study we propose specifically that: (1) G-MFN predicts university students’ GEB; (2) GIM and GEI serially mediate the association between G-MFN and GEB; and (3) SI moderates the direct relationship between G-MFN and GIM, and the indirect relationship between G-MFN and GEI through GIM.

We contribute to the literature in several ways. First, we address the dearth of research on individual factors associated with entrepreneurial behavior by investigating the significant role of individual cognitive mechanism, i.e., G-MFN, on GEB. Second, we predict that the relationship between G-MFN and GEB may be influenced by a serial mediation model, i.e., GIM and GEI. That is to say, mindfully green individuals have a higher tendency of developing GIM because of the belief that they can influence the environment through their actions. Thus, G-MFN elicits GIM, which in turn, enhances GEI, and then GEB. By investigating these linkages, we address the calls of Amankwah and Sesen [7] and Li et al. [10], proposing a theoretical framework that may transform university students’ GEI into elevated GEB. Finally, by assessing the moderating role of SI in the underlying relationships, we present a finer-grain understanding of the phenomenon that might strengthen the associations between G-MFN and GIM, and G-MFN and GEI through GIM. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no prior studies have tested these linkages.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Green Entrepreneurship: An Overview

An extensive review of the entrepreneurship literature reveals that green entrepreneurship has emerged as a relatively new phenomenon [24,25]. Although the conceptual roots of green entrepreneurship can be traced back to the seminal work of Blue [26] and Bennett [27], who coined the term borrowing from entrepreneurship and environment domains. However, recently the term has netted a considerably broadened conceptualization [11]. Further, a deeper look into the field suggests that it needs a consensus on its definition and terms. A host of researchers in recent years conducted a systematic literature review to identify a range of different terms and meanings concerning green entrepreneurship [28]. For instance, Burzyńska et al. [29] identified numerous terms encompassing green entrepreneurship, such as ecologically sustainable, environment, eco-entrepreneurship, and sustainable entrepreneurship. It is argued that green entrepreneurship intends to offer products and/or technologies that minimize hazardous environmental calamities [30], and the actions of entrepreneurs are driven by a concern for the environment but not profit [24]. According to Yi [11], green entrepreneurship, in its narrow stance, reflects green start-ups intended to produce environmental products or services. In a broader spectrum, the term refers to personality-oriented, market-oriented, and innovative value creation that leverages cleaner production processes or ecological management practices translating into green business start-ups, engendering ecological and natural resources. The study draws on the SDT to explore the boundary conditions of GEI–GEB, resulting in green start-ups.

2.2. Self-Determination Theory

The current study draws on the SDT [22,23], which reflects a theory of human wellness, development, and motivation [31]. According to Deci and Ryan [23], SDT views motivation as the core of social, cognitive, and biological regulation and engenders persistence, direction, and energy of activation and intention. In addition, the theory posits that human beings have natural motivational tendencies to learn, explore, and assimilate knowledge and developing new skills [23], and direct their behaviors towards goal attainment [32]. Moreover, the natural motivational tendency of human beings may be influenced by social contexts [23].

SDT specifies that human behaviors are self-determined or autonomous and satisfy their three universal basic psychological needs, i.e., “need for autonomy”, “need for competence”, and “need for relatedness” [33]. Moreover, SDT allows individuals to differentiate between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation reflects an individual’s behaviors guided by external factors such as pride and prestige, avoiding uncertain circumstances, or monetary rewards. On the contrary, intrinsic motivation reflects autonomous motivation and involves inherent pleasure and satisfaction in a particular behavior.

The autonomous continuum of this theory purports that intrinsic motivation or identified regulation, i.e., GIM, serves individuals’ basic needs [22,23] and directs behaviors towards goal attainment, i.e., GEI. In addition, the study posits that contextual factors also modulate self-determined motivation. Hence, one could direct their behaviors towards goal attainment that procures satisfaction and pleasure inherent to the task, i.e., GEI. Moreover, individuals with higher SI internalize social values because of their perceptions of social obligations. They are self-driven and energetic to perform actions irrespective of external rewards (e.g., actions that yield inner satisfaction and a sense of fulfillment, i.e., GEI). Thus, the study builds on the SDT to hypothesize that G-MFN can promote GEI and GEB through GIM, moderated by SI.

2.3. Hypotheses

2.3.1. Green Mindfulness and Green Intrinsic Motivation

According to the SDT, intrinsic motivation refers to a state of love and passion that drives people to perform tasks rather than getting influenced by external benefits or rewards [22]. According to Deci [34,35], individuals who feel more excited, engaged, and satisfied are driven by their inner selves based on passionate interest, love, and curiosity for the work. For instance, playing golf, gardening, or bargaining amuse individuals [33] because of the intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, and happiness in performing such activities. Similarly, passion for green and pro-environmental behavior is driven by GIM, which reflects “the love, passion, or interest for green and pro-environmental behavior that is driven by internal drive or rewards” [36]. Individuals who possess higher GIM have a higher tendency to love and passion about the environment [10], as GIM elevates their interest and engagement in green activities and provokes pro-environmental behaviors.

In this study we predict that G-MFN is an individual’s cognitive resource that triggers GIM. According to Brown and Ryan [37], mindful individuals do not contemplate, fantasize, or worry about the future because of their ability to monitor their inner and outer environment. Mindfulness allows people to observe their experiences without analyzing, evaluating, reflecting, or judging those; hence, leveraging them to become less vulnerable to the negative feelings linked with status and conflicts, rewards, failure, and opinions of others [38]. Subsequently, mindful individuals develop a capacity to discern the positive aspect of life [39]. Furthermore, Brown and Ryan [37] found that high levels of mindfulness relate positively to positive affect, while low mindfulness levels relate negatively to negative affect. In addition, mindful individuals are more likely to attend to prompts arising from their basic needs and regulate their behavior in a way that accomplishes these needs [37], nurturing their intrinsic motivation [40]. Some preliminary studies encapsulating mindfulness and intrinsic motivation assessment have found a positive correlation among them [40,41,42]. Marrying these allusions, we hypothesize that green mindfulness drives intrinsic motivation among individuals, nourishing their pro-environmental behaviors.

Thus,

Hypotheses 1 (H1).

G-MFN has a significant positive association with GIM.

2.3.2. Green Intrinsic Motivation and Green Entrepreneurial Intention

The study further proposes that GIM influences GEI. Entrepreneurial intention represents the intention to start a new business as an alternative to seeking employment for oneself [8]. According to Liu et al. [43], intention serves as a basis to carry out a specific action engendering attention, decisions, and interest. Specifically, in the context of green entrepreneurship, GEI refers to the intent of starting a new business capable of addressing environmental issues by offering products, services, and/or processes that minimize ecological hazards [44]. Several factors might influence individuals’ eco-friendly intentions and behavior [45]. For the past couple of years, empirical studies have witnessed a mounting gravity of interest to explore factors contributing to the GEI of university students. We propose that GIM is one of the most imperious recipes that shapes individuals’ GEI.

It is argued that individuals’ motivational orientation towards work differs based on the factors that drive these motivations. For instance, intrinsically motivated individuals are more inclined towards performing activities that they find exciting and lovable [35]. In doing so, they are more likely to develop new skill sets as they are deeply involved in those activities. In juxtaposition, people with a higher tendency for extrinsic motivation are more interested in performing activities in which external rewards are salient [10]. Intrinsic motivation for green tasks increases when people have a deeper affiliation for and interest in the environment, which they find interesting, enjoyable, and positively challenging [46]. A growing body of empirical evidence found positive correlates between intrinsic motivation and performance outcomes, both in the occupational [10] and entrepreneurship contexts [47]. However, studies investigating green intrinsic motivation as an underlying mechanism transforming GEI still need to be included in the extant literature. We propose that individuals with a high sense of environmental responsibility have higher motivation for green tasks, which translates into elevated GEI. For instance, individuals who lack concern for the environment are least likely to yield the expected outcomes, i.e., engendering GEI [34]. In this regard, GIM can only be effective when individuals are interested in curbing environmental issues and challenges. The probability of transforming GEI will be high for individuals who find green activities enjoyable and exciting.

Thus,

Hypotheses 2 (H2).

GIM has a significant positive association with GEI.

2.3.3. The Mediating Role of Green Intrinsic Motivation

In combination, we propose that GIM serves as a causal mechanism between G-MFN and GEI. We project that to ripen GEI, individuals need to draw on their unique resources (i.e., G-MFN) that lay down the foundation for green behavior. Guided by SDT [22,23], employees exhibit SDT-based interventions, i.e., they equip themselves with sufficient cognitive resources in terms of G-MFN that allow them to identify and encode environmental problems, search for information, and develop novel and innovative ideas for rendering solutions to pro-environmental issues. Subsequently, G-MFN is the recipe for cultivating GEI that will enable entrepreneurs to elevate the environmental impact and alleviate eco-degradation through infusing unique and innovative pro-environmental ideas, processes, and products and services based on GIM. This is because individuals who draw on G-MFN pay active attention and awareness to the updated information and knowledge about the environment, which nourishes GIM. Ultimately, they are more likely to infuse their cognitive needs into idea generation or exploration in the pro-environmental context by manifesting increased GEI. Thus,

Hypotheses 3 (H3).

GIM mediates the association between G-MFN and GEI.

2.3.4. Green Entrepreneurial Intention and Green Entrepreneurial Behavior

Extensive empirical evidence suggests that intention is the best predictor of behavior [19,48]. As discussed above, scholars have increasingly focused on entrepreneurial intention because “entrepreneurship is generally seen as an intentional behavior” [49] and “entrepreneurial behaviors are the result of intention” [50]. According to DeNoble et al. [51], an entrepreneur’s intrinsic behavioral tendency, preference, and cognition to commence a new business are stimulated by entrepreneurial intention. Similarly, Krueger [52] states that entrepreneurial intention reflects individuals’ subjective expectations and attitude of being potential entrepreneurs, which determine their tendency to engage in behaviors. Likewise, Liu et al. [43] noted that individuals’ decisions to create a new business are regulated by planned behavior and thoughtful thinking. We propose that individuals who draw on G-MFN elicit superior GIM, which fosters GEI, and then GEB. That is to say, eco-friendly entrepreneurial ideas stimulated by inspiration must be reached through GEI. Individuals with higher levels of GEI will more likely be engaged in GEB than those with lower levels of GEI. In this perspective, Kautonen et al. [53] examined the relationship between GEI and GEB and found positive correlates among these constructs. Thus,

Hypotheses 4 (H4).

GEI has a significant positive association with GEB.

2.3.5. Serial Mediator Effects of Green Intrinsic Motivation and Green Entrepreneurial Intention

Subsequently, we propose that escalated levels of GEI turn into enhanced GEB. There is a broad agreement that supports the corollary that GEI translates into increased GEB. For instance, one of the widely utilized application is Ajzen’s TPB [19]—which is an extension of Ajzen and Fishbein’s TRA [48]—which explains entrepreneurial intention as a readiness to execute entrepreneurial behavior [11]. The theory purports that the stronger the intentions of an individual to engage in entrepreneurial behavior, the more likely that person will start a new business [53]. The underlying notion behind this argument is the strength of GEI, which indicates the extent to which an individual is encouraged to engage in GEB because it represents the amount of effort a person is willing to invest in business activities [54]. Drawing on the SDT [22,23], we propose that individuals who draw on their unique cognitive resources, i.e., G-MFN, are more likely to develop deep enthusiasm and interest in executing GEB through GIM and GEI. This is because individuals who have higher compassion for the environment are internally driven to manifest behaviors that promote environmentalism, thereby providing a more compelling reason to turn their GEI into GEB.

Thus,

Hypotheses 5 (H5).

GIM and GEI serially mediate the link between G-MFN and GEB.

2.3.6. Moderator Effect of Spiritual Intelligence

Although we expect a positive link between G-MFN and GIM (and GEI), the variability observed between the antecedents of GEI [7,10] suggests the potential for moderators. We therefore propose the moderating role of SI in the association between G-MFN and GIM (and GEI). Zohar [55] defined SI as “a kind of intelligence that can solve the semantic and value issues, intelligence which can make the daily life activities richer in context, wider and more meaningful”. SI allows individuals to employ spiritual values that are directed to elevate an individual’s performance [16]. The term SI constitutes the concepts of spirituality and intelligence conjoining into a single concept [56]. According to King and DeCicco [57], there are four components of SI:

• Critical existential thinking—“Ability to think critically about the truth and essence of the universe, time, life, death and other metaphysical or existential issues”;
• Personal meaning production—“Ability to create personal intentions, purpose and direction in all mental experiences including the capability to establish and implement the purpose of life”;
• Transcendental awareness—“Ability to recognize and understand the superior and transcendental dimensions and aspects of self, others and the world in waking life and consciousness”;
• Conscious state expansion—“Ability to enter higher levels of spiritual and beyond consciousness states of mind and exiting from at will”.

Individuals with higher levels of SI can foresee a more significant purpose in their existence [16]. They are well aware that they are accountable for their actions and responsible towards their surroundings. Particularly in green entrepreneurship, individuals with high SI are more likely to develop a more profound sense of accountability to protect their environment. This is because when they realize that their actions should be “ecologically answerable” and “society-specific”, they extend their participation in environment-related activities [15]. SI helps individuals view their work in a larger and more mindful context, eliciting intrinsic valence of their efforts. This is based on the SDT [22,23], which posits that by provoking positive feelings nurtured on a prime cause, e.g., an environmental obligation, SI elevates satisfaction and pleasure inherent to the activity. However, for individuals with lower SI the likelihood of cultivating G-MFN into GIM is less because their actions are not formed on spiritual values. Hence, their internal drive, i.e., GIM, to execute eco-friendly activities is reduced.

Thus,

Hypotheses 6 (H6).

SI moderates the association between G-MFN and GIM such that the association is more potent at higher levels of SI than at low levels.

2.3.7. Moderated Mediation Model

The above projections suggest a moderated mediation model. As argued above, SI moderates the association between G-MFN and GIM. Hence, this engagement, in turn, predicts GEI. We therefore propose that SI intervenes in the indirect association between G-MFN and GEI through the mediator effect of GIM (Figure 1). Thus,

Hypotheses 7 (H7).

SI moderates the indirect association between G-MFN and GEI through the mediator effect of GIM, such that the association is more potent at higher levels of SI than at lower levels.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and Procedure

The current study employed a “time-lagged” (i.e., “three-wave”) research design (with a time interval of eight weeks) to collect data from university students in Punjab, Pakistan. The target respondents are graduating students studying entrepreneurship, economics, management, and computer science programs in their final years. There is an increasing trend of starting own businesses as an alternative to seeking employment in developing nations [58], to cope with the growing unemployment rate in these countries. Specifically, students pursuing Computer Science and Entrepreneurship careers in Pakistan are more inclined to commence their own businesses. Furthermore, to meet rising environmental pressures and market demands, university students are increasingly focused on initiating environment-friendly business activities [59]. Previous well-cited studies have employed university students to predict entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors [8,31,60]. Therefore, the target respondents of this study are expected to provide appropriate responses to suffice the purpose of this study. Furthermore, by employing a “time-lagged” research design, the authors have tried to address the issues of biases in estimating parameters, which in the cross-sectional design seems quite problematic [61,62]. There is a burgeoning trend of utilizing a time-lagged research design to predict behavior across time [63,64,65].

The authors employed a “face-to-face” mode of data collection using a non-probability, “purposive sampling technique”. The reason for utilizing the “purposive sampling technique” is its ability to yield arbitrary responses [66] to achieve the purpose of the study. The authors contacted the university students to inquire about their consent and availability to participate in the study. The authors distributed questionnaires to the target respondents along with a cover letter specifying the purpose of the study. They were informed that we requested their participation as volunteers across multiple waves, and they could also choose not to participate in the survey at any stage. The cover letter also provided information to generate a key by giving the first letters of their first and last name, ending with the city code. In the first wave started in January 2022, the authors administered 500 questionnaires to obtain responses for G-MFN and SI. Of these, 467 were received. After discarding the 17 incomplete/wrongly filled questionnaires, the remaining 450 questionnaires were distributed in the second wave in March 2022 to seek responses for GIM. A total of 425 questionnaires were received. After eight weeks, in May 2022 the authors collected responses for GEI and GEB and received 395 completely filled questionnaires.

Finally, the authors consolidated all the responses collected in multiple waves using the key generated by the participants and processed 395 responses using SmartPLS SEM (v 4.0). The participants of this study included 55% of male and 45% of female responses, with a mean age of 28.45 (SD: 4.95). In addition, the participants had 33%, 27%, and 40% “undergraduate”, “graduate”, and “postgraduate” students. Concerning education, the participants were enrolled in entrepreneurship (28%), economics (23%), management (20%), and computer science (29%), respectively.

3.2. Measures

The authors adapted established measurement scales to obtain data and examine the hypothesized model in this study. The 6-item scale for measuring G-MFN was adapted from Williams and Seaman [67], with the sample item including “I am encouraged to express different views concerning environmental issues and problems”. The 6-item scale for measuring GIM was adapted from Amabile et al. [68] and modified by Li et al. [10], with the sample item including “I enjoy coming up with new green ideas”. The 6-item scale for measuring GEI was adapted from Liñán and Chen [69] with sample items including “I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur that promotes environmentalism”. One item was eliminated from the scale due to low factor loading (<0.70). The 4-item scale for measuring GEB was adapted from Kautonen et al. [53] with sample item included “started green product/service development”. The 24-item scale for measuring SI was adapted from King and DeCicco [57]. Two items were eliminated from the scale due to low factor loadings (<0.70). All the scale items were tapped on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”) (Appendix A).

3.3. Control Variables

Following the previous studies, individual demographics such as age, gender, education, and income, were taken as controlled variables.

4. Result

4.1. Measurement Model

The authors examined the “reflective measurement model” by employing the criteria of “internal consistency” and “convergent and discriminant validity” [70]. For addressing the issues of “common method biasness” (CMB), the authors measured “multicollinearity” using “variance inflation factor” (VIF). Results reported in

Table 1. Multicollinearity instead of Fornell-Larcker Criterion.

	G-MFN	GIM	GEI	GEB	SI
G-MFN		1.250
GIM			3.577
GEI				1.000
GEB
SI		1.111	3.212

Notes: G-MFN: green mindfulness; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; GEI: green entrepreneurial intention; GEB: green entrepreneurial behavior; SI: spiritual intelligence.

ensure that all the values are below the cutoff value of 5, indicating least impact of predictors on the result interpretation [70].

For measuring “internal consistency”, the authors employed the metrics of “Cronbach’s alpha” and “composite reliability” (CR), considering the minimum threshold value of 0.70 [70]. The analysis results are illustrated in

Table 2. Validity and Reliability for Constructs.

	Loadings	AVE	CR	Cronbach’s Alpha
Green mindfulness		0.557	0.882	0.846
G-MFN1	0.767
G-MFN2	0.792
G-MFN3	0.753
G-MFN4	0.741
G-MFN5	0.689
G-MFN6	0.734
Green intrinsic motivation		0.541	0.912	0.864
GIM1	0.771
GIM2	0.812
GIM3	0.700
GIM4	0.654
GIM5	0.765
GIM6	0.688
Green entrepreneurial intention		0.580	0.890	0.853
GEI1	0.783
GEI2	0.802
GEI3	0.681
GEI4	0.724
GEI5	0.799
Green entrepreneurial behavior		0.514	0.912	0.867
GEB1	0.715
GEB2	0.627
GEB3	0.810
GEB4	0.704
Spiritual intelligence		0.554	0.882	0.840
SI1	0.710
SI2	0.692
SI3	0.774
SI4	0.684
SI5	0.813
SI6	0.753
SI8	0.756
SI9	0.634
SI10	0.788
SI12	0.732
SI13	0.748
SI14	0.705
SI15	0.804
SI16	0.723
SI17	0.699
SI18	0.784
SI19	0.765
SI20	0.724
SI21	0.812
SI22	0.784
SI23	0.734
SI24	0.729

Notes. G-MFN: green mindfulness; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; GEI: green entrepreneurial intention; GEB: green entrepreneurial behavior; SI: spiritual intelligence.

, indicating all the values greater than 0.70. To measure “convergent validity”, the authors assessed the “outer loadings” and “average variance extracted” (AVE), considering the minimum threshold value of 0.50 [71]. All the values presented in Table 2 are greater than 0.50, thus validating the convergent validity of the study.

Moreover, the authors also examined the “discriminant validity” using the criteria of “Fornell–Larcker” and “heterotrait–monotrait” (HTMT) ratio. The Fornell–Larcker measures the square root of AVE in the construct correlation matrix and indicates that all the square root values of AVE are higher for their construct than the related inter-construct correlation [70] (

Table 3. Fornell–Larcker Criterion.

	G-MFN	GIM	GEI	GEB	SI
G-MFN	0.746
GIM	0.542	0.735
GEI	0.245	0.434	0.762
GEB	0.523	0.652	0.452	0.720
SI	0.510	0.534	0.373	0.475	0.744

Notes: G-MFN: green mindfulness; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; GEI: green entrepreneurial intention; GEB: green entrepreneurial behavior; SI: spiritual intelligence.

). Additionally, the authors employed a “bias-corrected and accelerated” (BCa) bootstrapping approach with a resample of 5000 using a one-tailed t-test at a 90% significance level to yield an error probability of 5% [72]. The HTMT ratio presented in

Table 4. HTMT Criterion.

	G-MFN	GIM	GEI	GEB	SI
G-MFN
GIM	0.727 CI.0.900 [0.678; 0.770]
GEI	0.700 CI.0.900 [0.634; 0.767]	0.670 CI.0.900 [0.621; 0.742]
GEB	0.665 CI.0.900 [0.590; 0.712]	0.576 CI.0.900 [0.504; 0.632]	0.627 CI.0.900 [0.560; 0.678]
SI	0.723 CI.0.900 [0.664; 0.788]	0.672 CI.0.900 [0.603; 0.735]	0.576 CI.0.900 [0.498; 0.652]	0.527 CI.0.900 [0.441; 0.592]

Notes. G-MFN: green mindfulness; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; GEI: green entrepreneurial intention; GEB: green entrepreneurial behavior; SI: spiritual intelligence; CI: bootstrapping 90% confidence intervals (n = 5000) (one-tailed).

confirms the discriminant validity of the study as all the values should be lesser than the maximum threshold, i.e., HTMT_.85.

4.2. Structural Model

After validating the measurement model, the authors employed the PLS algorithm to yield the “path coefficients” (β), “coefficient of determination” (R²), “predictive relevance” (Q²), and “effect size” (f²). Furthermore, to obtain the corresponding t- and p-values the authors ran BCa bootstrapping (5000 resamples) at a 95% significance level [70]. Results of the direct effects are presented in

Table 5. Effects on endogenous variables.

Hypotheses	β	CI (5%, 95%)	SE	t-Value	p-Value	Decision	f2	R2	Q2
Age 1	0.052 (n.s.)	(−0.041, 0.094)	0.011	0.421	0.446
Gender 2	0.099 (n.s.)	(−0.030, 0.172)	0.020	0.683	0.741
Education 3	0.051 (n.s.)	(−0.033, 0.087)	0.031	0.338	0.354
Income 4	0.012 (n.s.)	(−0.044, 0.086)	0.028	1.113	0.190
H1 G-MFN → GIM	0.424 ***	(0.354, 0.492)	0.052	7.071	0.001	Supported	0.312	0.524	0.462
H2 GIM → GEI	0.482 ***	(0.423, 0.554)	0.050	10.895	0.000	Supported	0.424	0.499	0.344
H4 GEI → GEB	0.512 ***	(0.451, 0.580)	0.048	8.789	0.000	Supported	0.218	0.570	0.214
H6 G-MFN × SI → GIM	0.468 ***	(0.390, 0.523)	0.072	12.329	0.000	Supported	0.221
H7 G-MFN × SI → GEI	0.386 ***	(0.327, 0.452)	0.042	9.422	0.000	Supported	0.187

Notes. G-MFN: green mindfulness; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; GEI: green entrepreneurial intention; GEB: green entrepreneurial behavior; SI: spiritual intelligence; *** significance p < 0.05 (1.96); n.s.: not significant; ^1,2,3,4 = control variables.

, supporting the proposed hypotheses. The analysis indicates that G-MFN has a significant positive association with GIM (β = 0.424, t = 7.071, p = 0.001, f² = 0.312) (supporting H1). Further, GIM has a significant positive association with GEI (β = 0.482, t = 10.895, p = 0.000, f² = 0.424) (supporting H2). In addition, GEI has a significant positive relationship with GEB (β = 0.512, t = 8.789, p = 0.000, f² = 0.218) (supporting H4).

Moreover, the study also projected the mediating roles of GIM and GEI in the underlying associations. The authors used Zhao et al.’s [73] mediation approach to examine the mediator effects. The authors assessed the BCa on 5000 resamples to yield indirect effects [70]. Results of this analysis are presented in

Table 6. Summary of mediating effect tests.

	Path	t-Value	95% BCCI		Path	t-Value	95% BCCI	Decision	VAF
Direct effect G-MFN → GEI	0.314	5.218	(0.264, 0.370)	Indirect effect G-MFN → GIM → GEI	0.288	4.311	(0.224, 0.338)	Supported	47.84%
G-MFN → GEB	0.428	6.232	(0.372, 0.470)	G-MFN → GIM → GEI → GEB	0.297	3.230	(0.237, 0.352)	Supported	40.96%

Notes. G-MFN: green mindfulness; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; GEI: green entrepreneurial intention; GEB: green entrepreneurial behavior; SI: spiritual intelligence; VAF: variance accounted for (indirect effect/total effect *) * total effect: direct effect + indirect effect).

, which shows that both the direct effects for G-MFN → GIM (β = 0.314, CI = 0.264, 0.370) and G-MFN → GEB (β = 0.428, CI = 0.372, 0.470) and indirect effects for G-MFN → GIM → GEI (β = 0.288, CI = 0.224, 0.338) and G-MFN → GIM → GEI → GEB (β = 0.297, CI = 0.237, 0.352) are significant, indicating “complementary mediation” [70]. The authors also assessed the “variance accounted for” (VAF) to determine the mediation analysis. The VAF values for H3 (47.84%) and H5 (40.96%) illustrated in Table 6 confirm the mediation of GIM between G-MFN and serial mediation of GIM and GEI between G-MFN and GEB.

To measure the moderation effect of SI, the authors used a “two-stage approach” to yield the effect sizes and CIs in line with the recommendations of Hair et al. [70]. Further, Henseler and Fassott [74] argue that the “two-stage approach” has superior statistical power than the “product indicator” and “orthogonal” approaches. The interaction effects are presented in Table 5. The analysis confirms the interaction effects between G-MFN*SI on GIM (β = 0.468, CI = 0.390, 0.523) and G-MFN*SI on GEI through the mediator effect of GIM (β = 0.386, CI = 0.327, 0.452) are significant and support H6 and H7. In addition, f² indicates the medium effect sizes.

The authors also assessed the “simple slope analysis”, as Dawson [75] recommended. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The slopes indicate that at high levels of SI, the associations between (1) G-MFN and GIM and (2) G-MFN and GEI, mediated by GIM, are more pronounced than at low levels of SI, rendering support to H6 and H7.

Furthermore, the authors also evaluated the “goodness-of-fit” index (GFI) by employing the Tenenhaus et al. [76] diagnostic tool. GFI refers to “the geometric mean of the average communality and average R²”. The results of this analysis are shown in

Table 7. Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI).

Constructs	AVE	R2
G-MFN	0.557
GIM	0.541
GEI	0.580	0.524
GEB	0.514	0.499
SI	0.554	0.570
Average scores	0.549	0.531
(GFI = $\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{AVE}}\times \overline{{\mathrm{R}}^2}}$ )	0.539

Notes. AVE: average variance extracted; G-MFN: green mindfulness; GIM: green intrinsic motivation; GEI: green entrepreneurial intention; GEB: green entrepreneurial behavior; SI: spiritual intelligence.

. The GFI value of 0.539 is greater than the cutoff value of 0.36 to ensure the large effect size of R², ensuring a good model fit [77].

Lastly, for estimating the “predictive relevance”, the authors utilized Stone–Geisser’s Q² with an “omission distance” of 7 to obtain the “cross-validated redundancy” (Q²), and the values above 0 ensure the predictive relevance of the hypothesized model.

5. Discussion

Given the critical role of university students in contributing to a nation’s environmentalism and economic prosperity, there is an increased academic and practical interest in exploring factors that translate university students’ GEI and GEB. Therefore, the main contribution of this research is the theorization and examination of a hitherto unexplored moderated mediation model that helps shape university students’ GEI and GEB. The authors anchor on the SDT to propose that G-MFN has the potential to influence the GEI and GEB of university students through the mediator effect of GIM and the moderator effect of SI. The authors assessed the proposed theoretical framework on a sample of university students obtained in three waves. The findings support our theoretical assumptions that G-MFN has a significant positive influence on GIM. Further, GIM positively influences GEI and significantly mediates the indirect association between G-MFN and GEI. The study finds a positive correlation between GEI and GEB, and also that GIM and GEI serially mediate the association between G-MFN and GEB. The study also finds the significant moderating role of SI in the underlying linkages such that at high levels of SI, the associations between G-MFN and GIM and G-MFN and GEI through GIM are more potent than at levels of SI.

5.1. Implications for Theory

Despite popular press articles that stress the importance of GEI as a crucial recipe translating into GEB [7,18,78], entrepreneurship research is still trying to explore the factors that might cultivate GEI into GEB [11]. Extant research has employed theoretical perspectives such as TPB [10], TRA [8], social cognitive theory [10], generational theory [8], resource-based theory [11], theory of social cognitive [8], person-entrepreneur fit theory [79], and entrepreneurial event and cultural values theory [60]. There are repeated calls to investigate the boundary conditions of the GEI–GEB link [7,10,11]. Most prior research has investigated contextual factors contributing to the GEI [11,17], although theoretical and empirical work on GEI has emphasized that GEI may turn into GEB, a central aspect of the GEI concept. However, extant work on GEI–GEB has yet to utilize strong theory to explain more propelling antecedents of GEI–GEB, particularly at an individual level. Thus, we contribute to the GEI–GEB literature by utilizing the SDT [22,23] to extend the theoretical tenets of the GEI–GEB relation. The SDT posits that individuals drawing on their self-determination or autonomous behaviors strive to fulfill their basic needs and execute behaviors that culminate into goal accomplishments such as GEI. We suggest that the theory provides a theoretical platform for understanding how university students’ GEI might transform into GEB. The self-determined and autonomous behaviors engender intrinsic motivation, leveraging support to our theoretical framework. Therefore, we suggest that individual factors are of utmost importance for turning GEI into GEB.

In this milieu, G-MFN serves as a theoretical basis for inculcating passion and allure in performing activities that contribute to environmentalism. Nevertheless, its omission in the academic and empirical literature fades the link between GEI and GEB. This is because G-MFN triggers an individual’s cognitive mechanism wherein the environment-related emphasis upsurges, translating devotion into motivation which is a strong predictor of intention [80]. People with high levels of G-MFN are more likely to exhibit behaviors that favor the environment [81]. The motivation to protect the environment compels them to invest their time, energy, and other resources (e.g., business ideas, finance, etc.) intended to commence a business. Therefore, we expect positive associations between G-MFN and GIM and GIM and GEI. Our findings are consistent with prior studies that highlight the role of G-MFN in fostering green behaviors. For instance, Kalyar et al. [81] investigate the impact of G-MFN in predicting green creativity in the hospitality industry. The authors found that G-MFN significantly influences green creativity through green creative process engagement. Similarly, Arslan et al. [82] found a significant impact of G-MFN on energy efficiency and green creativity. Hence, our study extends and distinguishes previous studies by projecting G-MFN as a stimulator of GEB.

We also project a hitherto unexplored causal mediation in that GIM mediates the link between G-MFN and GEI. In addition, we also project the serial mediation role of GIM and GEI between G-MFN and GEB. The findings extend empirical support to the proposed relationships. Further, our findings contribute to the extant literature by hypothesizing relationships which, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, have not been studied earlier. The mediating role of GIM has been verified in several preliminary studies in various contexts. For instance, Ali et al. [83] conducted a study to investigate the green purchase intention of buyers from the electronics industry in China. The authors found the significant mediating role of GIM between green thinking, green altruism, and green purchasing intention. Similarly, Li et al. [10] found a significant mediating role of GIM between green transformational leadership and green creativity in workplace settings. Hence, our findings offer unique and meaningful insights for practice (discussed in the subsequent section).

Last but not least, our study expands the boundary conditions of the GEI–GEB relationship by exploring the boundary effects of SI such that under what conditions the influence of G-MFN and GIM is more potent. By investigating the boundary effects of SI, this study answers the calls of Amankwah and Sesen [7], Li et al. [10], and Yi [11], and contributes to the extant literature on GEI–GEB nexus. As projected, the findings of this study reveal that the relationships between G-MFN and GIM and G-MFN and GEI through GIM are more pronounced at high levels of SI. Therefore, SI serves as a catalyst that enhances individuals’ mindful experiences concerning the environment and turns into enhanced GIM and GEI. Our results are in harmony with the prior research on the link between SI, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial passion [16], thus extending the theoretical and empirical implications of the SI literature. By investigating the promising role of SI in the relationship between G-MFN and GIM, and then G-MGN and GEI through GIM, we expect that SI may be of great interest to researchers in the workplace setting. For instance, we project that employees with higher levels of SI may exhibit superior extra-role behaviors, i.e., organizational citizenship behaviors [84], and manifest enhanced workplace ethics [85]. Thus, we recommend future studies examining SI’s implications across different contexts.

5.2. Implications for Practice

Practically, the factors contributing to pro-environmental business activities have seized an escalated gravity of interest from practitioners and policymakers in developing nations. Predominantly, the role of university students in extending hands to their countries by offering employment opportunities through their business start-ups is critical, wherein going green has become a hotspot concern for them. In compliance with the UN’s sustainable development goals, Pakistan’s regulatory institutions are putting increased pressure on firms to take environment-friendly initiatives by embedding green practices in business strategies, processes, and products. The current theorized model holds significant implications in this regard, such as commencing business by embarking upon green practices and/or products that will help the nation to achieve sustainable development goals. The findings of this study reveal that G-MFN serves as the basis for inculcating environmental concerns among individuals. This is because mindfully green individuals are more inclined towards engaging in eco-friendly activities that foster GEI–GEB. Therefore, the role of universities is paramount in this regard. We propose that universities should take appropriate interventions to promote green mindfulness in their students, which may ultimately transform into GEI–GEB. Universities should provide their students with training, workshops, and environmental awareness sessions to elevate G-MFN. Further, these institutions should practice eco-friendly activities so that they may become a role model for their students. Several work context studies have reported that organizations can nurture G-MFN in their employees by inculcating a sense of green shared vision [15]. Hence, these predictions are amiable to be applicable in the entrepreneurship context. Universities should embrace the green vision that should not only be shared with their stakeholders but also must be reflected in practice. Ultimately, enhanced levels of green shared vision will transform into higher levels of G-MFN among students, which in turn will translate into GEI and GEB.

Further, our results reveal that GIM mediates the link between G-MFN and GEI. The SDT [22,23] supports our theoretical deduction that individuals with high levels of self-determination and automation have higher levels of intrinsic motivation. In the environmental context, GIM functions autonomously towards performing eco-friendly activities based on an individual’s internal drive [83]. Hence, GIM is an essential factor to be considered in playing a crucial role in developing GEI and turning it into GEB. Although external factors hold considerable eminence in influencing behaviors of individuals, nevertheless, our study suggests that institutions should encourage GIM of their students by building environments that promote the “autonomy”, “relatedness”, and “competence” needs. Individuals who are internally driven rather than externally influenced are more likely to be transformed into manifesting the desired behaviors. Rewards such as appreciation certificates or monetary benefits may be provided to students engaged in pro-environmental behaviors. Although intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are opposite, the proponents of motivation endorse that both types of incentives may be complementary and reinforce each other [86]. For instance, Amabile [87] studied the roles of both types of motivation on entrepreneurial behaviors and found that the synergy between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation enhances entrepreneurial creativity, wherein intrinsic motivation plays a stronger role. Hence, the role of universities in prompting GIM is of paramount importance for students’ green entrepreneurial behaviors. Conclusively, our study suggests that GIM enhances the likelihood of commencing a green business and translates G-MFN into enhanced GEI and GEB.

Last but not least, our study finds that SI significantly moderates the direct relationship between G-MFN and GIM, and the indirect relationship between G-MFN and GEI, mediated by GIM. Universities should play a critical role in defining and instilling a purpose in their students. Universities should offer a platform to their students through which they can take part in social activities. Numerous societies should be established in the universities (e.g., welfare society, community services, women’s and children’s health and protection, etc.), and students should be encouraged to take an active part and give their best to promote social interest at large. Our findings suggest that individuals with a meaning of life possess higher levels of SI, which ultimately underpins the association between G-MFN and GIM and GEI through GIM.

5.3. Limitations of the Study

Although the current study presents unique and meaningful insights, our findings should be studied with limitations. First, the study employs a time-lagged research design to minimize the issues of biases in the parameter estimation [61,62]. Despite this, all the study variables were not tapped at all periods; therefore, future studies should utilize a longitudinal design to test the hypothesized model. Second, the study outstretches the boundary conditions of the GEI–GEB nexus by proposing GIM as a mediating variable between G-MFN and GEI–GEB. The study finds that GIM partially mediates the association between G-MFN and GEI. Therefore, future studies may examine other mediating variables, such as green self-efficacy [88] and environmental identity [89] (Schmitt et al., 2019), to explore the underlying causal mechanism. Third, future studies should extend the boundary conditions of the GEI–GEB linkage by investigating other moderators to understand under what conditions the associations are more or less likely to be pronounced. Last but not least, the findings of this study reflect insights of university students in a non-Western cultural context; therefore, the findings of this study should not be generalized to Western countries. Therefore, we invite future studies to test the hypothesized relationships in Western contexts.

6. Conclusions

The study draws on the SDT and proposes a serially moderated mediated model of G-MFN and GEB through the mediator effects of GIM and GEI and the moderator effect of SI. The study analyzes time-lagged data from university students to predict their GEI and GEB. The study confirms that G-MFN significantly and positively influences university students’ GEB through the serial mediating roles of GIM and GEI. Therefore, we strongly recommend that policymakers and universities should cultivate students’ GEI by fostering G-MFN and GIM. MFN-based trainings should be organized to facilitate students’ G-MFN and ultimately leverage GIM. Further, SI is an important intervening variable playing a crucial role in strengthening the associations between G-MFN and GIM and G-MFN and GEI through GIM. Thus, universities should invest efforts in inculcating a sense of social obligation in their students to foster SI.