Green Entrepreneurship: Knowledge and Perception of Students and Professionals from Poland and Slovakia

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review the understanding of the term “green entrepreneurship” in contemporary management sciences and its interpretation by people who are or soon will be professionally active. Investigating the phenomenon from a historical perspective will allow an evolutionary approach to the category to indicate contemporary challenges. Apart from a review of the literature on the subject, the interpretations of the term by the target group are recognized in the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) context. The research methods used in the article include a critical analysis of the literature on the subject and field research presented in the empirical part. Primary research was carried out in two countries: Poland and Slovakia, among students and professionals working, as well as those professionally active in the private and public sectors. The study aimed to generally identify the knowledge of the concept of “green entrepreneurship”. Based on the results, the responses were delimited and those indicated by less than 5% of the respondents were considered irrelevant. Based on the remaining answers, a new survey questionnaire was created, which was used to conduct the second stage of the research. To simplify the research tool, it was assumed that the questions would be binary (“yes” or “no” answers), and the resulting survey would consist of 22 phrases (marked with alphanumeric symbols) and a form. The respondents’ answers from the second stage of the study allowed us to identify characteristic groups of variables with which the respondents associated the term “green entrepreneurship” and the groups of respondents who indicated an understanding of green entrepreneurship in a specific aspect. It also allowed for the identification the determinants of these indications, as well as similarities and differences between Poles and Slovaks in this respect. For this purpose, the classification and regression tree method (C&RT) was used. For the purposes of this study, JASP 0.18.1 software was used to create the tree. The results show that perceptions and knowledge of green entrepreneurship differ in both surveyed countries.

1. Introduction

“Is green the new gold?” [1]. The popularity of the “green entrepreneurship” concept in the recent environmental management and entrepreneurship literature is related to a global trend on the one hand and to legislative, market, and social necessity on the other. Studying the perception of this issue among students seems to be important, considering the multiple understandings of this topic in the literature on the subject. Also in business practice, being a “green entrepreneur” means a number of different activities and processes.

The aim of the work is to review the understanding of the term “green entrepreneurship” in management sciences, along with its current interpretation by the subject group. Looking at the phenomenon from a historical perspective will allow for an evolutionary approach to the category and the identification of current challenges in this area. The reason for taking up this topic, including its contemporary orientation, is the dynamically and turbulently changing business environment. Changes, primarily climatic but also legislative, institutional, economic, and social, have created a strong orientation towards green entrepreneurship. How do students and professionally active people perceive this term? Is it through the prism of environmental, social, or institutional aspects? What is the state of their knowledge of green entrepreneurship in the context of the mentioned aspects? The answers to such research questions contribute to the corporate and academic response in terms of modeling attitudes that favor sustainable development among the young generation, both in education and in the workplace.

Entrepreneurship is not only an area of economics or business. It is first and foremost about preparing a future active citizen of the local community, the country, and the world for life and functioning in a knowledge-based world. When it comes to green entrepreneurship, it depends on a number of factors. These include entrepreneurial attitudes, the level of economic activity of the population, environmental awareness, the ability to implement and adapt green technologies, informational development, the level of knowledge, and the development of scientific research [1,2,3].

A special category of stakeholders in green entrepreneurship is the academic community, especially students. It is they who, as future entrepreneurs, must be able to answer the question of how one’s enterprise helps solve environmental and social problems.

Critical analysis of the subject literature and the diagnostic survey method were used to achieve the goal and answer the research questions. Empirical data were obtained from field research conducted in two countries: Poland and Slovakia, among students and professionals working in the private and public sectors. The choice of Slovakia and Poland was dictated by the following considerations:

• The two countries cooperate closely within the framework of the European Territorial Cooperation Programs.
• As neighboring countries, they contribute to strengthening EU regional development by disseminating good practices and expertise, as well as promoting the exchange of experience.
• Cross-border cooperation is an important element of integration processes in Europe. Therefore, it is crucial to recognize the level of knowledge and awareness of young, active professionals in the field of green entrepreneurship.

The decision tree method was used in statistical analyses. It allowed for identifying the determinants for the interpretation of green entrepreneurship while at the same time revealing differences and similarities in this area between the representatives of the two studied countries. In this context, a research hypothesis was formulated as follows: knowledge and perception of green entrepreneurship differentiates the professional activity of the surveyed Poles and Slovaks.

Our study fills a research gap in terms of recognizing how students and active professionals perceive, identify, and understand the category that is “green entrepreneurship”. Previous research addresses the issue of environmentally responsible entrepreneurship from the perspective of just business or systemic instruments that create a framework for green entrepreneurship development.

The legitimacy of the research lies in the creation of an educational strategy aimed at worldly environmental decision making through entrepreneurial activity undertaken by young adults. The above study has a number of political and practical implications, as it provides guidance to local, regional, and national authorities who are responsible for developing/updating strategies for entrepreneurial education.

The structure of the paper is based on the above objectives. The first part comprises a literature review. The second part discusses the research methodology, and the last part presents the results, answering the research question. The study concludes with the most important inferences from the analysis and indicates the potential directions for further research.

2. Literature Review

Green entrepreneurship is a term based on the concept of sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, the triple-bottom-line concept, the environment, social governance (ESG) concept, as well as ecological, social, and economic development. The literature on the subject mentions the following categories either interchangeably or synonymously: Environmentally friendly entrepreneurship, environmental entrepreneurship, sustainable business, green economy, green business, greening business, eco-industries, sustainable activities, green jobs, resource efficiency, green markets, eco-innovation, green technologies, green labels, green brands, or green consumer preferences. The synonyms listed served as the keywords for the conducted literature review.

Upon analyzing the broad range of the concept, it can be seen that the idea is associated with practical activity. This, in turn, is strongly related to sustainable development. Sustainable (permanent) development is a theoretical macroeconomic concept recognized more and more widely every year in the socio-economic development programs of state and international organizations [2,3]. Macroeconomic policy creates conditions for the functioning and transformation of cities and villages into sustainable, green spaces in which both infrastructure, society, and entrepreneurs can act and interact in a sustainable manner [4,5,6]. This means, therefore, that the values and practical elements of sustainable development are also implemented in business. Entrepreneurship is, after all, an expected attitude in economic development. Therefore, activities aimed at sustainable development, improving the quality of life, saving natural resources, and implementing a low-carbon economy will be its indicators [7,8]. These directions of entrepreneurship development, taking into account environmental aspects, in particular the so-called low-emission technologies, alternative energy sources, circular economy, zero waste, green housing, and emissions trading, especially those supported by the state (the so-called European Trading Scheme), are gaining more and more importance [4,9,10,11].

In the research on terminology with regard to green entrepreneurship, several literature reviews have been carried out to date: In 2011, by Schaltegger and Wagner [12], in 2017 by Jones [13], in 2018 by Muñoz and Cohen [14], or by Muo and Azeez in 2019 [15]. This work is a continuation of these considerations. And so, many definitions emphasize the purpose of a green enterprise, which is to care for the natural environment. Green enterprises are “entities that produce ecological goods or provide services without a negative impact on the environment” [16]. Therefore, it should be understood that their goal is, on the one hand, to limit ecological threats and stop the depletion of natural resources, and on the other, to ensure the growth of prosperity and social equality and to improve the quality of life of members of societies of a given generation in a global sense. Please note that sustainable entrepreneurship aims at balancing the triple bottom line of economic, social, and ecological goals [17,18,19], as opposed to traditional entrepreneurship, which mainly focuses on economic development [20,21]. It was the aforementioned Schumpeter [22,23], the author of the classical theory of innovation, who also pointed to the original vision of economic development driven by innovation, constituting an important foundation for the development of new research fields. He showed entrepreneurial activities as a creative destruction. Is not the introduction of new, ecological solutions allowing for the sustainable functioning of enterprises in the environmental, social, and corporate aspects just that? The very etymology of the word “entrepreneur”, first recorded in 1875–80 and derived from French, means literally, “one who undertakes (some task)”, equivalent to entrepren (dre) “to undertake” (from Latin inter + prendere “to take”, a variant of prehendere) [24]. Not only some tasks but also a risk should be added. Therefore, acting, trying, and initiating new, innovative ventures are included in this definition. The point is how to find eco-niches and how to provide access to green innovation for specific market segments, including deprived, capital-intensive, or less popular [25]. Sustainable innovative solutions, new products, or business models often start functioning on the market as start-ups, funded by venture capital [1,18,26].

The concept of green entrepreneurship has evolved with the development of markets, industry, and civilization. It is difficult to pinpoint which of the terms is the most common, but it can be observed how its perception has changed over time. Jones [13] made an in-depth chronological analysis of the term in his work: Profits and Sustainability: A History of Green Entrepreneurship. The author’s literary studies point to the beginnings of “green thought” in 19th-century management, what he called “green capitalism”. In his opinion, the second part of “green story” considers the period from 1980 until now, when environmental concerns have become way more prominent throughout society [27,28]. The provision of the Canadian Environmental Protection Commission, which already in 1915 alerted that societies do have the right to use natural resources but are also obliged to pass some of them intact to future generations, is considered to be the first definitional attempt to green the economy [29]. Another important document, discussing the topic chronologically, was the 1972 Report for the Club of Rome entitled Limits of Growth. It was then that the prospects for the depletion of basic mineral resources were identified for the first time, and the concept of sustainable development was formulated [30]. The definition was refined in 1987 as an entry in a report of the International Commission for Environment and Development, established on the initiative of the Secretary General of the United Nations. The necessity to take care of the state of natural resources for future generations was emphasized once again, with simultaneous, long-term, continuous, and sustainable development thanks to the use of the current ones [31]. In 1987, following the analysis of the results of Barbier’s research [32], the concept of triple sustainable development, the so-called aforementioned “triple-bottom-line”, was adopted, indicating the need to combine the environmental, economic, and social components. In turn, the term “green economy”, although initiated in the USA, was popularized thanks to a 1989 report for the British government by Pearce, Markandy, and Barbier entitled: Blueprint for a Green Economy [2]. Since then, work on the directions for the development of the idea and the implementation of the practice of green postulates in the economy and management has intensified. During the 1992 UN World Forum on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, the concept of sustainable development became perceived as a global problem and was included in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. This topic has become an important subject of ongoing international discussions, findings, and guidelines, including subsequent UN summits “Rio + 10”, “Rio + 20” (Declaration Environment for Europe) [33], OECD forum, UN agencies, the UN Environment-led Green Economy Initiative, launched in late 2008 [34], UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Agenda for the 21st Century [35], and finally the Lisbon Strategy. Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals were adopted unanimously by all UN member states in 2015 in a resolution: We are transforming our world with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United Nations 2015 [36]. Business has a huge impact on the implementation of all sustainable development goals. It should measure and report it to effectively and transparently act for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. After all, it is not about creating documents but about real activities in economic reality. These works shifted the focus of environmental protection policy to social participation, both on the supply side (entrepreneurs, business organizations, local government, and non-governmental organizations) and the demand side (consumers, citizens, and residents).

The evolution of the term in question makes it clear that in periods of increased economic crisis in the world, this idea comes to the fore as the most important aspect of the functioning and management of organizations in the modern economy. One example is US President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal to combat the 1930s crisis, and the other is President Barack Obama’s “American Recovery Reinvestment Plan”, the so-called Green New Deal [37]. In Europe, the EU’s plan for a green transition includes the European Green Deal, which assumes Europe’s climate neutrality by 2050, or, for example, the EU climate package “Fit for 55” [38,39]. It is significant that many countries in the world on all continents have policies and programs related to green deals [40,41].

Upon making a literature review, it is clear that authors understand this issue differently and emphasize its different aspects. And as Schaltegger and Wagner [12] point out in their query, “earlier authors addressing sustainability and entrepreneurship have dealt exclusively with environmentally oriented entrepreneurship, often called ecopreneurship” [12,42,43,44,45]. This is directly related to the emergence of ecological, or environmental economics (EE), which is part of the framework of the neoclassical school [46]. Concern for the natural environment is not only a fad these days, but, judging by the degradation of natural resources, it is a necessity. Despite the fact that the initial results of the research mentioned the ecological threat already in the 1960s [47,48], it is only nowadays that efforts to fight for survival have intensified, making the concept of sustainability in managing an upward trend [49,50]. Specifically, based on institutional theory [51], we developed a corporate green entrepreneurship framework with three dimensions: “green initiatives (i.e., a company’s active adoption of green practices), received governmental green support (benefits that a company gains from the state budget by adapting to governmental incentives, programs, and policies related to green practices), and green political influence (a company’s attempts to influence legislation that enacts laws, rules, and regulations related to green practices). Please note that analyzing green entrepreneurship in relation to ecology and environmental care seems to be the most popular. It is impossible not to see the socio-economic challenges in the context of environmental threats. These definitions emphasize taking care (responsibility) for the environment, environmental protection, and ecological standards. Running a green business should be environmentally friendly, safe for nature, and economically oriented towards the environmental ecosystem. This responsibility is expressed in a rational use of non-renewable natural resources, in a commitment to environmental activities such as planting trees, setting up greeneries, creating biologically active surfaces, e.g., on roofs, as well as investing in the ecological industry and agriculture, green engineering, or in the concept of nature-based solutions in management (NBS) [52,53,54]. Among green strategies focused on ecology, emphasis is placed on the rational use of natural, non-renewable resources, saving energy, water, and raw materials, using alternative energy sources, generating energy, or responding to climate change and preventing it [4,10,41,53,55]. Considering the depletion of raw materials, green projects are shifting towards a circular economy and the zero-waste concept, i.e., waste management and sorting, using recycled materials, reducing plastic consumption, and creating biodegradable products [8,56,57,58].

Furthermore, in terms of terminology, Schaltegger and Wagner [18] noticed that some authors have focused exclusively on social entrepreneurship [25,59,60,61]. In this sense, relations with stakeholders are to be sustainable, and local communities—to receive support. Employees are to be socially engaged, and profit or material goods are to be strategically shared with the environment. The theory of stakeholders, introduced by Freeman [62], defines stakeholders as groups or individuals that materially affect or are affected by a company’s activities. The social aspects of running a business have been transformed from competition to cooperation and corporate social responsibility (CSR), creating shared value (CSV) [63]. The very concept of CSR indicates the organization’s responsibility for the impacts left on the environment (natural and social) as a result of its economic activity. So, it is clear that these are the points of contact with the concept of ESG and a triple bottom line from the process perspective of entrepreneurship [64].

Running a sustainable business means using new, innovative business models, introducing new, innovative products to the market, and sustainable communication with clients, i.e., green marketing [1,65,66,67,68,69,70]. Extensive literature widely describes the creation of economic models that will allow effective green business. In such an analysis, planning the supply chain in a sustainable manner is significant, which is a key issue in achieving economic, social, and environmental goals [8,49,71,72]. Based on four case studies, Belz and Binder [49] developed a model that describes the process of sustainable entrepreneurship, including six phases: (1) recognizing a social or ecological problem; (2) recognizing a social or ecological opportunity; (3) developing a double bottom line solution; (4) developing a triple bottom line solution; (5) funding and formation of a sustainable enterprise; and (6) creating or entering a sustainable market.

Changes on the demand side [50,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80]. “Raising eco-consciousness has created a growing segment of environmentally responsible consumers, and accordingly, many companies have incorporated the principle of sustainability into their business strategies. Green consumption is a controversial term because green refers to the conservation of natural resources, while consumption usually causes their destruction” [50]. Moreover, green is dubbed the “new gold”, so the status of a “green enterprise” becomes one of the factors of competitive advantage. A number of studies show that a green strategy positively correlates with the financial results of the company, taking corporate sustainability beyond the business case (eco-efficiency) towards an integrated approach in management [81]. Another, equally extensive literature review was made by Muñoz and Cohen [14]. They noticed two different currents supporting the development of green entrepreneurship, either bringing sustainability into entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship into sustainability. Regardless of the approach to the issue of green entrepreneurship, its ultimate execution in the organization will always be determined by corporate principles of sustainable development, the internal conditions of the company, and governance factors. In fact, Schaltegger and Wagner [18] characterize different kinds of sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship, i.e., ecopreneurship, in which social entrepreneurship, institutional entrepreneurship, and sustainable entrepreneurship could be distinguished. They continue that authors of some definitions attribute more value to the idea of sustainable development and the triple bottom, and entrepreneurship is to serve these goals [81,82,83,84].

Following the ESG concept in this overview of definitions, the governance aspect should be discussed after the environmental and social. The concept of green entrepreneurship also includes conducting business in an honest, transparent, and ethical manner. These are the aspects listed as the foundation of the so-called Caroll’s pyramids of responsibility [85]. Sustainable development means exposing the economic, spatial, ecological, social, and even axiological or political order. There is also talk about sustainable financial management and responsible investing in projects verified as “green” [13,18,86]. Work is underway to implement the system of uniform classification of activities for sustainable development, the so-called EU taxonomy, which applies to entrepreneurs, investors, and intermediaries [87]. Institutionally, green entrepreneurship should be considered in light of macroeconomic and political conditions, instruments for financing and supporting eco-business, facilities and infrastructure, and the operation and use of regional, state, and European programs.

In conclusion, the most successful green businesses are system-transforming, socially committed ventures [88], responsible for their environmental impact (CSR), socially engaged, and creating corporate share value (CSV). Entrepreneurs who are innovative and green are the first to recognize, develop, and exploit opportunities to develop future goods and services. In essence, sustainable entrepreneurship provides benefits and values to various groups of stakeholders by introducing innovative business, production, marketing, and engineering solutions to the mass market. Sustainable “ecopreneurs” often address the unmet demand of a larger part of society. Reaping economic, social, and ecological gains from green business [89].

3. Materials and Methods

Primary research, conducted in two stages, was used to achieve the research goal and verify the research hypothesis.

The first was carried out from January to February 2022 among 124 Polish residents using the following techniques:

• PAPI (paper and pen personal interview) is a direct questionnaire in which the interviewer reads the questions to the respondent one by one and then enters the respondent’s selected answers into the form. CAWI (computer-assisted web interview) is a digital survey research involving the completion of an online survey questionnaire with respondents. The respondent gains a sense of anonymity, thereby increasing their willingness to give honest answers.
  The research tool was an original survey questionnaire. In the main part, it included open questions (regarding the perception of green entrepreneurship). In the detailed part, the questions were closed and described the socio-demographic profile of the respondent. The questionnaire used a nominal scale (e.g., gender) and an ordinal scale (e.g., professional status, place of residence). The group of respondents was dominated by:
• women (70.3%);
• people aged 19–28 (80.1%);
• residents of large cities (population over 500,000)—42.1%;
• high-school graduates (82.8%);
• working students (in the private sector the percentage was 76.19%);
• financially confident (54.6%).

The respondents’ associations regarding green entrepreneurship were grouped. The foundation for the split was a triple-bottom line: Environmental, social, and governance (ESG), in accordance with the argumentation described in the theoretical part. This allowed separating groups of associations as follows:

Ecological aspect—environmental protection in general:

• ecology; taking care of the environment; environmentally safe; ecologically oriented; ecosystem; nature; small environmental activities; investing in green areas; establishing biologically active areas; nature-based solutions; green industry/green engineering.

Ecological aspect—rational use of the Earth:

• rational use of non-renewable resources; generating own energy; using alternative energy sources; saving energy, water, and raw materials.

Ecological aspect—adaptation to climate change

• climate change adaptation/CO₂ reduction.

Ecological aspect—waste management

• using recycled materials; reducing plastic consumption; zero-waste concept; circular economy.

Ecological aspect—agriculture

• agricultural business development; certified organic crops.

Social aspect—general:

• corporate social responsibility; green corporate social engagement activities; participation in environmental campaigns; promoting eco-friendly behavior.

Social aspect—marketing, business model, jobs:

• more complex and longer production process; process optimization; implementation of ecological solutions; implementation of digital documents; quick adaptation to a changing environment; expensive products; introducing new eco-products; lack of competitiveness; ecological packaging; locality (minimizing long transport); not tested on animals; trends; entrepreneurship for beginners; sustainable, healthy workplace.

Governance aspect—institutional aspect, corporate governance:

• integrity, reliability; compliance; implementation of EU guidelines; financial savings; grants; supporting environmental organizations; establishing and supporting ecological companies; eco-friendly approach to business.

Negative associations with the term “green entrepreneurship”:

• low company awareness; need for environmental education; green marketing; greenwashing.

The study aimed to generally identify the knowledge of the concept of “green entrepreneurship”. Based on the results of PAPI and CAWI research, the answers were delimited, and those indicated by less than 5% of respondents were considered irrelevant. Based on the remaining answers, a new survey questionnaire was created, which was used to conduct the second stage of the research. To simplify the research tool, it was assumed that the questions would be binary (“yes” or “no” answers), and the resulting survey would consist of 22 phrases (marked with alphanumeric symbols) and a form (

Table 1. Questions used in the second stage of the research.

Aspect Variable	Environmental Protection—General|Environment
V1	Green entrepreneurship is associated with “going green”, ecology, environmental protection and responsibility, and ecological standards.
V2	Green entrepreneurship is associated with environmental safety, it contributes to environmental protection.
V3	Green entrepreneurship is associated with the ecosystem and nature.
V4	Green entrepreneurship supports minor ecological activities, e.g., tree planting campaigns.
Aspect variable	Rational use of land resources|environment
V5	Green entrepreneurship depends on natural resources and rationally uses nonrenewable resources.
V6	Green entrepreneurship generates its own power supply.
V7	Green entrepreneurship uses alternative energy sources.
Aspect variable	Adaptation to climate change|environment
V8	Green entrepreneurship adapts to climate change and reduces CO2 emissions.
Aspect variable	Waste management|environment
V9	Green entrepreneurship uses recycled materials.
V10	Green entrepreneurship reduces the use of plastic and microplastics.
V11	Green entrepreneurship is a zero-waste concept (waste management and separation, biodegradable products).
Aspect variable	Relationship with agriculture|environment
V12	Green entrepreneurship is the development of agricultural activities.
Aspect variable	The social aspect in general
V13	Green entrepreneurship is associated with corporate social responsibility (CSR), which impacts the environment through its operations.
V14	Green entrepreneurship is related to green corporate social activities.
Aspect variable	Marketing, product, business model, supply chains/fashion and trends|social
V15	Green entrepreneurship makes the manufacturing process more difficult and longer, since it uses ecological materials.
V16	Green entrepreneurship supports the development of know-how and innovation and is associated with the implementation of ecological solutions and technologies.
V17	Green entrepreneurship introduces new and eco-friendly products.
V18	Green entrepreneurship is a new, future-oriented type of activity.
Aspect variable	Corporate governance/green finance/institutional aspect|governance
V19	Green entrepreneurship is run in accordance with the law/fair play principles/is associated with work ethics/allows for discounts for ecological companies
V20	Green entrepreneurship enables funding acquisition
Aspect variable	Negative connotations
V21	Green entrepreneurship is associated with profiting from ecology (negative connotations)
V22	Green entrepreneurship is associated with green marketing, greenwashing and malpractice

Source: own research.

).

The new questionnaire contained the same form as in the first study. This study was conducted from May to June 2023 among Poles and from October to November 2023 among Slovaks. One hundred and twenty-four and 119 responses were received, respectively. The group of respondents (residents of Poland and Slovakia) was dominated by:

• women (58.3% in Poland and 62.4% in Slovakia);
• people aged 19–28 (66.6% in Poland and 62.4% in Slovakia);
• in Poland—residents of large cities (over 500,000 residents)—37.9%, and in Slovakia—residents of smaller cities (20–100,000 residents)—44.6%;
• high-school graduates (37.9% in Poland and 52.5% in Slovakia);
• Students—in Slovakia 31.2%, and in Poland—students working in the private sector—36.36%;
• financially confident (52.3% in Poland and 39.0% in Slovakia).

The respondents’ answers from the second stage of the study allowed us to identify characteristic groups of variables with which the respondents associated the term “green entrepreneurship” and the groups of respondents who indicated an understanding of green entrepreneurship in a specific aspect. It also allowed for the identification of the determinants of these indications, as well as similarities and differences between Poles and Slovaks in this respect. For this purpose, the classification and regression trees method (C&RT) was used [90]. For the purposes of this study, JASP 0.18.1 software was used to create the tree. The dependent variable was the socio-professional status of the respondents specified in the research tool (survey).

Using the decision tree method, a graph is created which consists of vertices defined as nodes, edges as branches, and leaves as vertices without descendants [91]. Decision trees are simple and intuitive in their structure. This means that the obtained classification can be easily presented in the form of decision rules [92]. The decision tree method allows for the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data [93].

A classification tree can be obtained by using the C&RT algorithm, which performs steps in each node, such as:

• finding the cut point for each predictor,
• finding the best criterion for splitting a node,
• splitting a node using the best split from the previous step (unless the stop split rule is met).

The probabilities p(j,t), p(t) and p(j|t) at node t are estimated by:

pj,t = π(j)Nw,j(t)Nw,j

(1)

pt = jp(j,t)

(2)

pj|t = p(j,t)jp(j,t)

(3)

where:

• p(j,t), j = 1, …, j—probability of a case in node t of class j,
• p(t)—probability of a case in node t;
• p(j|t), j = 1, …, j—probability of a case in class j considering that it is assigned to node t;
• π(j), j = 1, …, j—initial probability Y = j;

where:

Nw, j = n∈hwnfnI(yn = j)

(4)

Nw, j(t) = n∈h(t)wnfnI(yn = j)

(5)

where:

• n—chance,
• Inn—case prominence associated with case n;
• fn—frequency prominence associated with case n;
• h—entire training sample;
• t—node;
• j—class;
• Y—dependent variable, if it is categorical with J classes, it takes values in C = {1, …, J}.
• I (a = b) an indicator function that takes the value 1 if a = b, otherwise 0.

The best split is obtained by maximizing the split criterion ∆i(s,t). If the dependent variable Y is categorical, the decrease in the impurity of the Gini measure is taken as the split criterion.

it = i,jC(i|j) p t p(j|t)

(6)

∆is,t = it-pLitL − pRitR

(7)

where:

C(i|j)—cost of misclassifying a case of class j as a case of class i;

pL and pR are the probabilities of assigning a case to the left node tL and to the right node tL, accordingly. They are estimated as: pL = p(tL)/p(t) ipR = p(tR)/p(t),

s—split,

s*—best split.

The development of the classification tree ends when at least one of the stopping rules is applied, such as:

• the same values of the dependent variable are assigned to all cases;
• all cases in a node have the same values for each predictor;
• the tree reaches its maximum depth (limit value set by the researcher);
• fragmentation will create a child node, smaller than the minimum size;
• for the best split s* of node t, the split determinant ∆I(s*,t) = p(t)∆i(s*,t) is below the minimum criterion specified by the researcher.

4. Results

4.1. Results of a Study among Respondents from Poland

Using the classification tree method, observations were divided into nodes (Figure 1). The classification tree was created using JASP.

Eighty percent of the data was used for training, and 20% was used for testing. The analysis results indicated that the model’s testing accuracy was 0.778. One hundred observations were classified as training, and 24 as testing. Based on the observations of the error matrix, it can be concluded that observations regarding professionals and working students were predicted more accurately (

Table 2. Error matrix for researching the respondents from Poland.

		Predicted
		Professionals	Working Students	Students
Observed	Professionals	3	2	0
	Working students	0	10	1
	Students	2	3	3

Source: own development, JASP, 2023.

).

Table 3. Model fit indexes for the study of respondents from Poland.

Support	24
Accuracy	0.778
F1 Score	0.644
Matthew’s correlation coefficient	0.477
Area under curve (AUC)	0.655

Source: own development, JASP, 2023.

presents the obtained fitting parameters, such as accuracy index, Matthew’s correlation coefficient, F1 value, and area under the curve (AUC). They achieved acceptable values.

Study of the strength of individual predictors in differentiating respondent segments showed that the variable “green entrepreneurship is a new, future-oriented type of activity” (V18) had the greatest impact on professional status. The variable with a high predictive value was: “green entrepreneurship uses natural resources and rationally uses non-renewable resources” (V5). The following variables had a lower importance for changes in professional status: “green entrepreneurship supports minor ecological activities, e.g., tree planting campaigns”, “green entrepreneurship uses alternative energy sources”, and “green entrepreneurship is the development of agricultural activities” (

Table 4. The importance of discriminatory variables at the stage of creating a classification tree for concepts related to the term “green entrepreneurship” in a group of respondents from Poland.

Variable	Relative Importance
V18	21.663
V5	10.749
V4	10.661
V7	10.025
V12	7.913
V13	6.570
V1	5.314
V10	5.261
V20	5.261
V3	3.167
V22	2.559
V17	2.190
V16	2.132
V19	2.132
V8	1.643
V21	1.391
V9	1.369

Source: own development, JASP, 2023.

).

Based on the results, it is concluded that 24 observations were grouped in node 1, which concerned respondents studying and working at the same time. For them, the term green entrepreneurship was associated mainly with supporting minor ecological activities (V4) and with corporate social responsibility (CSR), which impacts the environment (V13).

Working student respondents grouped in nodes 2–17 are most likely to understand green entrepreneurship as supporting minor ecological activities (V4) and the use of natural resources and rational use of non-renewable resources (V5). At the same time, for these respondents, the term “green entrepreneurship” will not be associated with corporate social responsibility (CSR), which impacts the environment (V13).

Node 3 included 9 observations that concerned students. They indicated that they associate green entrepreneurship with supporting minor ecological activities (V4) but do not relate it to the use of natural resources and rational use of non-renewable resources (V5) or corporate social responsibility (CSR), which impacts the environment (V13).

In nodes 4 and 23, observations of professionals were grouped together. For them, the term “green entrepreneurship” was related to the use of alternative energy sources in business operations (V7). Additionally, the respondents did not associate the concept in question with supporting minor ecological activities (V4). Neither did they think that green entrepreneurship is a new, future-oriented type of activity (V18).

Node 5 consisted of 11 observations and included working professionals. They understood green entrepreneurship as a new, future-oriented type of activity (V18) and as an activity that uses alternative energy sources (V7). At the same time, the respondents did not associate green entrepreneurship with supporting minor ecological activities (V4).

If the respondents are working students (node no. 6–8 observations), they will probably not associate green entrepreneurship with supporting minor ecological activities (V4); a new, future type of activity (V18); and an activity that uses alternative energy sources (V7).

In node 7 (8 observations), respondents studying green entrepreneurship did not associate green entrepreneurship with supporting minor ecological activities (V4) or activities that use alternative energy sources (V7). At the same time, these respondents associated the term green entrepreneurship with a new, future-oriented type of activity (V18).

A study of Polish respondents conducted using the decision tree method showed that in the group of working students, there were the greatest discrepancies in the level of knowledge and perception of the term “green entrepreneurship”. The basic feature of the division was the knowledge variable, such as green entrepreneurship supports minor ecological activities, e.g., tree planting campaigns (V4). Variable V7 (from the knowledge group), “green entrepreneurship uses alternative energy sources”, also influenced assignment to individual nodes. In addition, the working student respondents perceived entrepreneurship in different ways. Their perception of green entrepreneurship in terms of variables V13 (green entrepreneurship is associated with corporate social responsibility (CSR), which impacts the environment) and V18 (green entrepreneurship is a new, future-oriented type of activity) was different.

Very similar research results were obtained in the group of students who did not work, in which the same variables differentiated their affiliation to particular nodes. However, the group of professionals was relatively coherent, with similar knowledge and perception of the phenomenon of green entrepreneurship.

The high diversity in the student group is emphasized by the fact that student responses were grouped using variables from many aspects, such as environmental protection in general, social aspects in general, rational use of land, marketing, product, business model, supply chains, fashion, and trends. However, the answers of professionals were classified using variables related only to the following aspects: environmental protection, rational use of land resources and marketing, product, business model, and supply chain.

4.2. Results of a Study among Respondents from Slovakia

For this study, observations were divided into nodes using the classification tree method (Figure 2). The classification tree was created using JASP.

Eighty percent of the data was used for training, and 20% was used for testing. The analysis results indicated that the model’s testing accuracy was 0.739. Ninety-six observations were classified as training, and 23 as testing. Based on the observations in the error matrix, it can be concluded that observations regarding professionals and working students were predicted more accurately (

Table 5. Error matrix for researching the respondents from Slovakia.

		Predicted
		Professionals	Working Students	Students
Observed	Professionals	4	1	2
	Working students	1	6	4
	Students	0	1	4

Source: own development, JASP, 2023.

).

Table 6. Model fit indexes for the study of respondents from Slovakia.

Support	23
Accuracy	0.739
F1 score	0.621
Matthew’s correlation coefficient	0.451
Area under curve (AUC)	0.518

Source: own development, JASP, 2023.

presents the obtained fitting parameters, such as accuracy index, Matthew’s correlation coefficient, F1 value, and area under the curve (AUC). They achieved acceptable values.

The variable with the greatest impact on professional status was: “green entrepreneurship affects the development of know-how and innovation and is associated with the implementation of ecological solutions and technologies” (V16). The variables with a high predictive value were: “green entrepreneurship generates own energy” and “green entrepreneurship uses natural resources and rationally uses non-renewable resources” (V5). The following variables had a lower importance for changes in professional status: “green entrepreneurship is the zero-waste concept (waste management, segregation, biodegradable products)” and “green entrepreneurship uses recycled materials” (

Table 7. The importance of discriminatory variables at the stage of creating a classification tree for concepts related to the term “green entrepreneurship” in the group of respondents from Slovakia.

Variable	Relative Importance
V16	16.921
V6	9.614
V5	9.054
V11	8.427
V9	8.280
V7	7.081
V10	7.018
V13	5.322
V2	5.271
V12	3.924
V18	3.657
V3	3.128
V1	2.481
V4	2.481
V20	2.123
V17	2.101
V14	1.059

Source: own development, JASP, 2023.

).

Node 1 consisted of 15 observations that concerned working students. They associated the term “green entrepreneurship” with the concept of zero-waste (waste management, segregation, biodegradable products) (V11) and the fact that it is environmentally safe/friendly or contributes to environmental protection (V2). Additionally, the dominant view in the group was “green entrepreneurship uses natural resources and rationally uses non-renewable resources” (V5). However, it does not affect the development of know-how and innovation and is not related to the implementation of ecological solutions and technologies (V16).

Nodes 2 (nine observations) and 3 (eight observations), which classified the answers of working students and professionals, were similar to group 1, but among the respondents of node 2, the dominant view was that green entrepreneurship does not generate its own energy (V6). At the same time, the group of working students (node no. 3) recognized that green entrepreneurship generates its own power supply (V6).

Based on the results, node 4 was found in group 7 observations of working students for whom the term “green entrepreneurship” was associated with the concept of zero-waste (V11) and the fact that it is environmentally safe/friendly and contributes to environmental protection (V2). They also concluded that green entrepreneurship does not affect the development of know-how and innovation and is not associated with the implementation of ecological solutions and technologies” (V16).

The student respondents classified in node 5 (12 observations) believed that green entrepreneurship is related to the concept of zero waste (V11), influences the development of know-how and innovation, and is associated with the implementation of ecological solutions and technologies (V16).

Node 6 included eight observations that concern students. They noted that green entrepreneurship is not a zero-waste concept (11). At the same time, they associated this term with the use of alternative energy sources (V7), the generation of their own energy (V6), and the limitation of the use of plastics and microplastics (V10).

Node 7 consisted of seven observations and included working professionals. It was similar to node 6 but differed in the perception of the term “green entrepreneurship” in terms of variable V10. The respondents concluded that green entrepreneurship does not reduce the use of plastics and microplastics.

Node 8 included professionals who concluded that “green entrepreneurship affects the development of know-how and innovation and is associated with the implementation of ecological solutions and technologies” (V16). At the same time, they concluded that it did not generate its own energy (V6) and was not a zero-waste concept (V11), but used alternative energy sources (V7).

Node 9 (nine observations) grouped the students. It was a group similar to group no. 8, but the difference was that the respondents concluded that green entrepreneurship did not affect the development of know-how and innovation and was associated with the implementation of ecological solutions and technologies” (V16).

Node 10 (13 observations) included students who concluded that green entrepreneurship was not a zero-waste concept (waste management, segregation, biodegradable products) (V11) and that it did not use alternative energy sources (V7).

A study of Slovak respondents, based on decision trees, showed large differences in the level of knowledge and perception of the term “green entrepreneurship” in all groups. Virtually every identified community was assigned a characteristic variable. Therefore, it was not possible to identify typical characteristics for specific groups of respondents within the scope of the analysis.

The division of nodes showed that there are differences in the understanding of green entrepreneurship among the surveyed groups. Therefore, it was decided to divide the respondents’ answers according to a specific criterion (the socio-professional status). This was possible because the survey contained extensive information. The research aggregates were also divided into variables related to perception and knowledge of green entrepreneurship. Based on the above,

Table 8. Average responses of respondents in terms of their detailed socio-professional status.

				Perception of Respondents from Poland
Variable				V1		V2	V3		V13	V14	V18		V21	V22
Professionals working in the private sector				0.7		0.5	0.4		0.5	0.2	0.3		0.2	0.3
Professionals working in the public sector				0.9		0.5	0.5		0.6	0.2	0.2		0.2	0.2
Students working in the private sector				0.9		0.8	0.4		0.6	0.3	0.3		0.2	0.2
Students working in the public sector				0.9		0.6	0.7		0.3	0.5	0.2		0.3	0.3
Students				0.8		0.8	0.5		0.3	0.4	0.4		0.2	0.3
				Perception of respondents from Slovakia
				V1		V2	V3		V13	V14	V18		V21	V22
Professionals working in the private sector				0.6		0.9	0.8		0.5	0.3	0.3		0.2	0.1
Professionals working in the public sector				0.5		0.8	0.6		0.5	0.4	0.6		0.1	0.2
Students working in the private sector				0.7		0.6	0.8		0.4	0.2	0.4		0.1	0.2
Students working in the public sector				0.6		0.7	0.5		0.4	0.3	0.2		0.3	0.2
Students				0.5		0.6	0.7		0.4	0.3	0.4		0.3	0.3
	Knowledge of respondents from Poland
Variable	V4	V5	V6	V7	V8	V9	V10	V11	V12	V15	V16	V17	V19	V20
Professionals working in the private sector	0.4	0.7	0.5	0.9	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.7	0.1	0.1	0.5	0.3	0.4	0.3
Professionals working in the public sector	0.5	0.7	0.4	0.6	0.8	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.0	0.4	0.7	0.1	0.4	0.5
Students working in the private sector	0.7	0.6	0.4	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.7	0.1	0.1	0.5	0.4	0.2	0.3
Students working in the public sector	0.5	0.8	0.2	0.4	0.8	0.6	0.5	0.6	0.2	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.2
Students	0.3	0.5	0.2	0.5	0.7	0.8	0.6	0.7	0.2	0.2	0.5	0.5	0.3	0.3
	Knowledge of respondents from Slovakia
Professionals working in the private sector	0.6	0.4	0.5	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.1	0.2
Professionals working in the public sector	0.5	0.4	0.2	0.5	0.9	0.8	0.3	0.5	0.2	0.3	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.1
Students working in the private sector	0.7	0.5	0.5	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.7	0.5	0.1	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.1
Students working in the public sector	0.6	0.7	0.4	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.5	0.7	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.1
Students	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.8	0.6	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.5	0.5	0.1	0.2

Source: own study, 2023.

was created, which contained the average answers of respondents.

This comparison is particularly important for highlighting the differences in responses between Polish and Slovak respondents.

In Poland, in the following surveyed groups: professionals working in the public sector; students working in the private sector; students working in the public sector; and students, green entrepreneurship was overwhelmingly perceived as related to ecology and environmental protection (V1). At the same time, such intensity was not observed among the studied groups in Slovakia.

Professionals and working students in Slovakia perceived green entrepreneurship as safe and environmentally friendly (V2). However, in Poland, this phenomenon was perceived similarly only among the groups of working students and professionals employed in the private sector and students.

Differences in the perception of the phenomenon of green entrepreneurship in Poland and Slovakia are also visible in the group of respondents working in the private sector and working students employed in the private sector. Among the respondents from Slovakia, green entrepreneurship was perceived as a concept related to the ecosystem and nature (V3). However, in Poland, the phenomenon was not that intensive among the studied groups.

In terms of knowledge of green entrepreneurship, respondents studying and working in Poland agreed that green entrepreneurship supports minor ecological activities, e.g., tree planting campaigns (V4), but this was only one group of respondents in the entire community (Poles and Slovaks), who expressed their strong opinion on this matter.

According to professionals from Poland working in the private and public sectors and working students employed in the public sector, green entrepreneurship uses natural resources and rationally uses non-renewable resources (V5). However, among the surveyed groups from Slovakia, no clear tendency to confirm this statement was observed.

There was agreement among respondents from Poland (professionals employed in the private sector) and Slovakia (professionals employed in the private sector and students working in the private sector) regarding the use of alternative energy sources by green entrepreneurship (V5).

A similar situation concerned the V8 variable—green entrepreneurship adapts to climate change and reduces CO₂ emissions. Respondents from almost all groups, regardless of their country of origin, agreed with this statement.

Working students and professionals from Poland and working students employed in the public sector in Slovakia mostly indicated that green entrepreneurship is a zero-waste concept (waste management, segregation, biodegradable products) (V11). However, only professionals working in the public sector in Poland unequivocally concluded that “green entrepreneurship affects the development of know-how and innovation and is associated with the implementation of ecological solutions and technologies” (V16).

The study showed that there are clear differences in the perception and knowledge of green entrepreneurship in the two countries studied. In Poland, in terms of the perception and knowledge of individual groups, the ecological aspect dominated respondents’ answers. At the same time, the analysis of the feedback from Slovak respondents showed that the importance of this aspect was lower than in Poland.

Another feature that was not observed in the Slovak studies was the clear social aspect of green entrepreneurship, which became visible in the group of professionals working in the public sector in Poland.

To sum up, it can be concluded that the perception and knowledge of green entrepreneurship are significantly different in both countries. Poor perception and knowledge of aspects related to green entrepreneurship in the social and governmental spheres and its connections with agriculture is disturbing. However, a positive phenomenon is the lack of negative connotations with green entrepreneurship, regardless of the country or socio-professional status.

5. Discussion

The rise in green entrepreneurship is a direct response to the growing demand for sustainable development [68,94]. As it is emphasized in the literature on the subject, nowadays entrepreneurship is, after all, an expected attitude in economic development. Therefore, it can be assumed that sustainable development activities are related to the knowledge and perception of people who undertake them or would undertake them in the future in a workplace, or at least actively participate in them. It is believed that improving the quality of life, saving natural resources, and implementing a low-carbon economy will be the indicators of such activities [7,8]. This is important considering that the green economy is seen as a way to achieve long-term prosperity and a higher standard of living. Numerous studies have shown that a person’s attitude is an important factor motivating their entrepreneurial drive, which influences their intention to adopt green innovations [95,96,97,98].

In this article, in accordance with the theoretical approach, the perception of green entrepreneurship refers to the environmental, social, and corporate aspects (ESG). There is a well-known view that attitude is an important factor influencing environmental intentions and commitment to sustainable development. An individual’s positive or negative attitude can influence their motivation to take sustainable actions leading to ecological economic stability [99,100]. Environmental issues are also noticed by the surveyed respondents. In terms of the perception and knowledge of individual socio-professional groups in Poland, the respondents’ answers were dominated by those indicated as and associated with the ecological aspect of green entrepreneurship. At the same time, the analysis of the feedback from Slovak respondents showed that the importance of this aspect was lower than in Poland. It was noted that the perception of the second dimension of sustainable development, i.e., the social aspect, differed among the surveyed group of respondents, i.e., a clear social aspect of green entrepreneurship, which became visible in the group of professionals working in the public sector in Poland, was not observed among the Slovak respondents.

Moreover, it seems interesting to compare the results of exemplary associations or ways of understanding green entrepreneurship presented in the study by Polish and Slovak respondents, mainly students, with the practices of young green entrepreneurs around the world. According to Youth Business International’s (YBI’s) Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award 2022 [101], the best eco-entrepreneurs deal with: Beekeeping technologies (Turkey), transforming plastic waste from the ocean into comfortable, affordable prosthetics (Mozambique), the enablement of young women from rural areas in sustainable management career strategies, and the efficient use of natural resources in production (Paraguay). Meanwhile, in the research in question, working students in Slovakia did not relate the consumption of plastic and microplastics to the concept of green entrepreneurship. The YBI runs the Social and Green Impact Accelerator to support building the next generation of responsible businesses, leaders, and pioneers in this field. In these cases, young people perceive green entrepreneurship as a personal mission. It can also be seen in the zero-waste trend, which is also visible in the discussed research. It is associated with green entrepreneurship by Slovak working students, although it is not indicated by professionals.

The third of the above-mentioned dimensions of sustainable development (the corporate aspect) refers, among others, to green business models that have a positive impact on the financial results of enterprises [12,13,81,86,87,102]. The “Impact Report 2021: Empowering young entrepreneurs as a force for recovery” [103] offers the practice of introducing financial services designed for green and eco-friendly projects to increase the percentage of people they help by 10% by the end of 2021. The perception of green entrepreneurship by young people determines the green economy they co-create, which adds value to a high-tech, circular economy of the future. For example, Yin et al. [104] analyzed companies in China from 2010 to 2019, differentiating them according to their market life. Empirical results suggest that younger firms benefit less from innovation in green inventions and green utility models than older firms. The opposite is suggested by the results of the study by Vasilescu et al. [105], which involved 7326 companies from 36 European countries. “Younger companies are more likely to adopt a green behavior. Younger companies usually employ younger people, who are more sensitive to societal problems, and more aware of the importance of environmental protection”. Regarding the research presented in this article, in which most of the respondents were young people, it was noticed that professionally active Poles did not think that green entrepreneurship is a new, future-oriented type of activity. On the other hand, Slovak students and young professionals declared that the implementation of green entrepreneurship does not affect the development of know-how and innovation and is not related to ecological solutions and technologies. This is puzzling, considering the previously cited research promoting the importance of green entrepreneurship in creating a higher standard of living, prosperity, and a stable economy.

When it comes to students and young professionals, it is worth considering to what extent their knowledge and perception of the issue of green entrepreneurship comes from the educational process and to what extent it is the result of communicating sustainable development in the workplace. The first of these issues is raised in the literature on the subject, pointing to a positive correlation between the knowledge of “green” business practices that students obtain in the course of their studies and a positive attitude towards this issue. Comparatively, research conducted among Romanian students [106] showed that the increase in interest in green entrepreneurship is influenced by knowledge about the possibilities of creating a green business and the level of entrepreneurial competence of young people. The researchers assumed that interest in ecological entrepreneurship is influenced by age and that education in green entrepreneurship influences the identification and recognition of “green” business ideas. Research conducted in Bulgaria by Tihomirova and Atanasova [107] highlights that educational systems are lagging behind in providing interactive modern content related to this topic. Referring to the latter, which is related to the effect of communicating sustainable development in the workplace, Adler’s [108] research analyzes the communication of green strategies by employers towards employees. The analysis includes, among others: content, channels, frequency, and clarity of messages in companies’ information policies, in the opinion of staff. The cited knowledge sources certainly expand the research area, which could become an inspiration in subsequent studies of respondents of various nationalities. The educational aspect of green entrepreneurship has been shown to be important from both an academic and corporate perspective.

6. Conclusions

An honest examination of the results, viewed as a message to the economy, prompts us to consider how green entrepreneurship is perceived in educational and organizational contexts. As indicated, the term has stemmed from many theories in economics and management. As a result, it is understood in many ways. It can be assumed that multi-channel information in organizations brings beneficial results in terms of sustainable development [108,109]. Despite the colloquial statements of “being eco” and “going green”, etc., education on green entrepreneurship is always profitable. After all, it is about creating sustainable cities and the communities that create them, which is becoming more and more important in the difficult 2020s—times of energy and climate crises and political turmoil. Therefore, taking up this topic with scientific considerations always seems justified. This conclusion is reinforced by the discussion above, which considers further clarification of research in this area.

The analysis confirmed the usefulness of classification trees in segmenting respondents according to their level of knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon of green entrepreneurship. The advantages of this method were the possibility of a graphical presentation of data and the ease of interpretation of the obtained model.

7. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study obviously has some limitations. The authors are aware of the weaknesses of the model in question, which are revealed in the instability of the classification tree model, because in extreme cases, even small changes in the set of empirical data in subsequent studies could lead to different divisions of the respondent population. Nevertheless, classification trees are a statistical method commonly used in social research. On the other hand, the authors are prepared to expand the subjective and spatial spectrum of the research. Although conducting them in two countries (Poland and Slovakia) adds a certain international dimension to the perception of green entrepreneurship, extending it to other countries seems to recognize many more differences and similarities in the subject. Meanwhile, the research allowed us to confirm the hypothesis formulated in this work: Knowledge and perception of green entrepreneurship differ in the professional activities of the surveyed Poles and Slovaks. The above results are of key importance and should be used in the formulation of assumptions, regulations, and guidelines for educational programs in both formal and non-formal education. What is of particular importance in the face of changes in the basic curriculum of secondary school education? The results presented can provide an important argument for actions taken towards the practical learning of environmentally responsible entrepreneurship, which fits into the assumptions of the European Green Deal and national environmental policies. Within the framework of the research laboratory, the authors conduct research extended to EU countries, associated countries, and third countries—because, after all, responsible entrepreneurship has no borders.