1 Introduction

The concept of green entrepreneurship reflects the current development trends, and it appears next to such terms as sustainable development, ecological development, and corporate environmental responsibility (Gray et al., 2014; Cumming et al., 2017; Eisenmenger et al., 2020; Pieloch et al., 2020). Green entrepreneurship determines the effectiveness of achieving economic, social, and environmental goals (Bergquist, 2017). In the literature on the subject and business practice, this term is used interchangeably or alongside such names as sustainable entrepreneurship (Hoogendoorn et al., 2019; Sarango-Lalangui et al., 2018), environmental entrepreneurship (Huggins, 2013), ecological entrepreneurship (Mieszajkina, 2016), ecopreneurship (Gunawan, 2012), enviropreneurship, or sustainopreneurship (Huda, 2016; OECD, 2011; Tharindu & Koggalage, 2020).

Green entrepreneurship is a relatively poorly understood concept due to the complexity of the phenomenon and the problems with its definition and measurement (Melay et al., 2012; Gevrenova, 2015; Ye et al., 2020). Some researchers define it through the prism of using ecological production methods, techniques, and tools in all sectors of the economy (Isaak, 2005; Volery, 2002), while others limit green entrepreneurship to activity in the industry known as environmental (Gibbs & O'Neill, 2012).

In this manuscript, green entrepreneurship is limited to green sectors. More specifically, we focus only on the environmentally relevant sector as recycling, collection, purification and distribution of water, sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation, and similar activities (Grillitsch & Hansen, 2019; Kasztelan, 2017). In their statutory activities, enterprises from the environmental industry have included ecological tasks, and their profits are nearly correlated with ecological effects (Yi et al., 2008; Acharya, 2012; Lavrinenko et al., 2019).

The paper aims to assess the impact of factors on green entrepreneurship (EntGreen) in five emerging markets in the European Union from 2008 to 2020. We focus on factors which are crucial for entrepreneurship (OECD, 2011), including macroeconomic conditions (MacroCon), creation and diffusion of knowledge (CaDKnow), entrepreneurial skills and capabilities (CapEnt), regulations (RegFram), and the expenditure on environmental protection (EnvProt). The research sample covers Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. These countries shared a common history and geographical location and transformed centrally planned to market economies (Rapacki et al., 2020; Smallbone & Welter, 2012). The adopted research period results from the availability of data from Eurostat, OECD, and the Global Economy.

The central hypothesis is as follows: "There is a different strength and direction of the impact of individual factors on the green entrepreneurship in five emerging markets in the EU from 2008 to 2020". These countries differ in the size of their economies (GDP per capita), the level of green sector development, and the diversity of individual factors influencing the economic activity (a different path of fiscal and monetary policy and environmental protection). We also try to find answers to the following research questions: Does green entrepreneurship depend on macroeconomic stabilisation in the analysed country? Should the factors influencing green entrepreneurship be viewed as a whole, or is there one group of factors that has a fundamental impact on green entrepreneurship? Is the development of green entrepreneurship continuous (is there autoregression)?

To verify the primary purpose, we create indicators of green entrepreneurship and its determinants. We use Pearson's linear correlation coefficient, the ordinary least squares method (OLS), and the vector autoregression model (VAR) to verify our research hypothesis (p < 0.05).

The research paper completes the previous analyses, where researchers focus on theoretical aspects, defining the concept (Isaak, 2005; Sangren, 2015; Sharma et al., 2020), its determinants (Lin et al., 2017; Marco-Fondevila et al., 2018; Misztal & Kowalska, 2020), and green entrepreneurship challenges (Kemp & Oltra, 2011; Skordoulis et al., 2017; Volery, 2002; Walsh & Dodds, 2017; Zameer et al., 2020).

A novelty in the article is the drive to identify the green entrepreneurship factors essential for climate policy, market mechanisms and the management of funding resources.

The paper consists of the following parts: the introduction, green entrepreneurship—literature review, research methodology, research results, discussion, and conclusions and future research. We based on the Web of Science, Scopus, Eurostat, OECD and World Bank publications.

2 Green entrepreneurship—literature review

The growing importance of environmental issues and sustainable development shape new business trends and influences modern enterprises' management (Madsen & Ulhøi, 2003; Laurentiu, 2015; Misztal, 2018; Wang & Zhao, 2019). Entrepreneurs notice that environmental protection can be a competitive advantage and a chance for new entrepreneurship development opportunities (Bali Swain & Yang-Wallentin, 2020; Guimarães et al., 2017; Papadas et al., 2019; Walsh & Dodds, 2017; Żelazna et al., 2020).

Green entrepreneurship is a difficult concept to define. Moreover, in the literature on the subject, many terms contain an "ecological", "green", or "sustainable" element (Melay & Kraus, 2012; OECD, 2011; Pathagama Kuruppuge & Koggalage, 2020). In broad terms, green entrepreneurship is all activities undertaken by entrepreneurs from various economic sectors to reduce economic activity's negative impact on the natural environment (Brolinson et al., 2006; Creech et al., 2012; Fan et al., 2019; Isaak, 2005; Wang & Li, 2017).

In words that refer directly to the "green sector" (a narrow sense), which we understand as recycling, collection, purification and distribution of water, sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation, and similar activities (Grillitsch & Hansen, 2019), green entrepreneurship is an ecological activity based on environmental products, services, and cleaner technologies (Allen & Malin, 2008; Shadbegian, 2008; Farinelli et al., 2011; Haldar, 2019). Table 1 shows different approaches and definitions of green entrepreneurship.

Table 1 The selected definitions of green entrepreneurship
Full size table

Green entrepreneurship is implementing environmental management programmes and ecological processes, covering all activities based on natural resources (Isa et al., 2021; Nikolaou et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2019).

The green activities of entrepreneurs in the green sector oscillate around reducing environmental risk and limiting harmful substances to the environment (Ashton et al., 2017; Chen & Wu, 2015). The sale of green products and services has a crucial share of the company's profits. Green entrepreneurship improves citizens' quality of life and impacts the sustainable development of other enterprises (Berger, 2011; de Waard, 1997; Manrai, 2018) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Source based on own research

Definition, measure, and determinants of the green entrepreneurship.

Full size image

Green entrepreneurship aims to reduce the negative impact of economic and social activities on the natural environment (Demuth, 2014; Kouba, 2017; Lotfi et al., 2018). The greater the share of green enterprises in the economy, the greater the level of sustainable development. Green entrepreneurs are essential in creating ecological innovations, technologies, and environmentally friendly solutions (Kemp & Oltra, 2011; Pejman & Seyed, 2017; Rodríguez-García et al., 2019). Thus, through innovation transfer, they influence enterprises from other industries and the population, enabling them to conduct business and live in harmony with nature (Mazzanti, 2018; Yurdakul & Kazan, 2020).

Green entrepreneurship becomes a source of competitive advantage, changes the perception of traditional business, and contributes to creating a sustainable society in which, apart from economic issues, social issues and environmental protection are of crucial importance (Nawaz, 2021; Skordoulis et al., 2017; Ye et al., 2020; Zameer et al., 2020).

The measure of green entrepreneurship depends on the researcher's definition (Lopes & Farinha, 2018; Mansfield & Thomas, 2005; Matzembacher et al., 2019; Parente et al., 2020; Uslu et al., 2015). By identifying green entrepreneurship with the green sector, its measurement can be made based on indicators related to the results achieved by ecological enterprises (Shaaban & Scheffran, 2017; Stam, 2018; Stjepanović et al., 2017). The green entrepreneurship indicator can be calculated in many ways, including the number of green enterprises per 10,000 inhabitants, the share of green enterprises in the entire enterprise sector, the index of change in the number of enterprises, the index of change in the number of employees, financial indicators related to the development of the green industry, and liquidation in years, the rate of growth or decline measured by the value of net sales (OECD, 2011).

Green entrepreneurship depends on economic and non-economic factors (Griffiths et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2019; Valdez & Richardson, 2013). The economic factors include the level of socio-economic development, the situation in the labour market (the story of wages, labour mobility), monetary and fiscal policy, and availability of external financing sources (loan price, support funds) (Kowalska & Misztal, 2020; Comporek et al., 2021). Non-economic ones include human capital (gender, age, health, education, marital status, having children, personality traits: entrepreneurial skills, a risk propensity), geographical and location factors and nationality, and other people's influence, especially family members (Alwakid et al., 2020; Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011; Sambharya & Musteen, 2014).

The key points here should be identifying the factors that substantially impact green entrepreneurship (Čekanavičius et al., 2014; Figge & Hahn, 2020; Yatish & Zillur, 2015). This delimitation is essential for the enterprise's effectiveness, development, and macroeconomic and political decisions. Green entrepreneurship depends on systems of financial and substantive support, promotion of ecological solutions, tax systems (including the importance of environmental taxes), environmental awareness of consumers, level of knowledge development and factors related to the entrepreneur himself, such as the level of his education, ecological attitude, willingness to implement innovative environmental solutions (Lin & Chen, 2017; Marco‐Fondevila et al., 2018; Abdullah et al., 2020).

The other determinants of green entrepreneurship include the company's life cycle, business climate, and expectations of external and internal stakeholders (Abuzeinab & Arif, 2014; Demirel et al., 2019). Innovation, green technologies, expenditure on research and development, and access to external financing sources supporting environmental protection are also significant (Lüdeke‐Freund, 2019; Zhang & Li, 2020; Peng et al., 2020). Moreover, macroeconomic conditions are essential for opening new economic activities and stimulating entrepreneurship (Comporek et al., 2021; Eaton & Zhou, 2019).

3 Research methodology

The study aims to identify the factors influencing green entrepreneurship in emerging markets in the EU from 2008 to 2020. The research sample covers five Eastern European countries, including Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. We chose countries where the economic transformation hugely impacted economic growth. The accession of the analysed countries to the European Union and the reforms and liberalisation carried out greatly impacted the direction of sustainable development. These countries are not in the eurozone and are characterised by a similar energy balance structure, low innovation, and a high level of environmental pollution. The research results can also be applied to other Central and Eastern European countries, as they have similar experiences of economic transformation and a similar level of social and economic development (Pieloch et al., 2021, Comporek et al., 2022). The research sample covered the years after 2008 when the last of these countries joined the EU, and they could take full advantage of EU environmental programmes and funds.

The central research hypothesis (H) is as follows: "There is a different strength and direction of the impact of individual factors on the green entrepreneurship in five emerging markets in the EU from 2008 to 2020". This is because analysed countries are characterised by a different level of green entrepreneurship, a different degree of absorption of EU funds, differentiation in sustainable development, and in entrepreneurial capabilities (Lotfi et al., 2018; Żelazna et al., 2020). Identifying the essential factors that create green entrepreneurship is important for the decision-making and actions of the national and European Union supporting green initiatives.

We also formulated the following research questions:

  • Does green entrepreneurship depend on macroeconomic stabilisation in the analysed country?

  • The answer to this research question complements the research on the impact of macroeconomic stabilisation on sustainable development (Pieloch et al., 2021; Comporek et al., 2022), where strong correlations between the variables were found;

  • Should the factors influencing green entrepreneurship be viewed as a whole, or is there one group of factors that fundamentally impact green entrepreneurship?

  • It is interesting whether any of the factors should be treated specially by the authorities that influence the creation of regulations and conditions for developing green entrepreneurship. The models created so far indicate that social capital (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011; Chitrao et al., 2023) or macroeconomic conditions (Eaton & Zhou, 2019; Valdez & Richardson, 2013), and access to financing sources (Abuzeinab & Arif, 2014; Mazzanti, 2018) are crucial for green entrepreneurship;

  • Is the development of green entrepreneurship continuous (is there autoregression)?

  • The research results indicate the continuity of sustainable development processes (Pieloch et al., 2021), but we want to supplement them with information on the development of green entrepreneurship.

To verify our research hypothesis, we use Pearson's R (variables are measurable and distributed close to normal, and the relationship is rectilinear), the ordinary least squares method (OLS, our models meet the requirements of the method including unit root tests: KPSS test; homoscedasticity: White test; autocorrelation: Durbin–Watson and Breusch–Godfrey tests; normality: Doornik–Hansen test; and collinearity: variance inflation factor) and the vector autoregression model (VAR, the numerical series is stationary and the explanatory variables are the delays of all the variables involved in the study) to verify our research hypothesis (p < 0.05).

We adopt the ranges of correlation strength as follows (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2017): |rxy|= 0—no correlation; 0 <|rxy|≤ 0.19—very weak; 0.20 ≤|rxy|≤ 0.39—weak; 0.40 ≤|rxy|≤ 0.59—moderate; 0.60 ≤|rxy|≤ 0.79—strong; 0.80 ≤|rxy|≤ 1.00—very strong.

We conducted our research in stages. First, we form the indicator of green entrepreneurship (EntGreen). We use the following formula:

$${\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Green}}\,i}} = \frac{{{\text{Sector}}_{{{\text{Green}}\, i}} }}{{\frac{{{\text{Pop}}_{{{\text{ulation}}\, i}} }}{10000}}}$$

where \({\mathrm{Sector}}_{\mathrm{Green\, i}}\mathrm{is\, the\, number\, of\, the\, enterprises\, in\, the\, green\, sector\, in\, the\, }i-\mathrm{year}\) and Populationi is the number of inhabitants in the analysed countries in the i-year.

Then, we create indicators of factors influencing the green entrepreneurship based on selected diagnostic variables presented in Table 2 (OECD, 2011). To calculate the indicators of factors of green entrepreneurship (FIEnt), we use the following formula:

$${\text{FI}}_{{{\text{Ent}}}} = A_{{{\text{Fin}}}} \, + {\text{CaD}}_{{{\text{Know}} + }} {\text{Cap}}_{{{\text{Ent}}}} + {\text{Reg}}_{{{\text{Fram}}}} + {\text{Macro}}_{{{\text{Con}}}} + {\text{Env}}_{{{\text{Prot}}}} = x_{1} \, + \, \ldots \, + \,x_{{26}}$$

where AFin is the access to finance, CaDKnow creation and diffusion of knowledge, CapEn entrepreneurial capabilities, RegFram regulatory framework, MacroCon macroeconomic conditions, and EnvProt environmental protection.

Table 2 Diagnostic variables used in the indicator of factors influencing the green entrepreneurship
Full size table

Then, we transform the explanatory variables into integrated, using the following formulas (Pieloch et al., 2021):

for the stimulants:

$$\begin{array}{*{20}c} {} \\ F \\ \end{array} _{{{\text{ij}}}} = \frac{{x_{{{\text{ij}}}} - \mathop {\min }\limits_{i} \{ x_{{{\text{ij}}}} \} }}{{\mathop {\max }\limits_{i} \left\{ {x_{{{\text{ij}}}} } \right\} - \mathop {\min }\limits_{i} \left\{ {x_{{{\text{ij}}}} } \right\}}},F_{{{\text{ij}}}} \in \left[ {0;1} \right]$$

for the destimulants:

$$F_{{{\text{ij}}}} = \frac{{\mathop {\max }\limits_{i} \{ x_{{{\text{ij}}}} \} - x_{{{\text{ij}}}} }}{{\mathop {\max }\limits_{i} \{ x_{{{\text{ij}}}} \} - \mathop {\min }\limits_{i} \{ x_{{{\text{ij}}}} \} }},F_{{{\text{ij}}}} \in [0;1]$$

where Fij stands for the normalised value of the jth variable in the ith year and xij is the diagnostic variable in i-year.

To calculate the indicators (AFin; CaDKnow; CapEnt; RegFram; MacroCon; EnvProt), we assume the same impact of different indices on the aggregate measure. We use the following formula:

$$FI_{i} = \frac{{\sum\nolimits_{{j = 1}}^{n} {F_{{{\text{ij}}}} } }}{n},\left( {i = 1,2, \ldots ,{\mkern 1mu} n} \right)$$

where FIi is the integrated variable in i-year.

Then, we examine the strength and direction of a linear relationship between the green entrepreneurship indicator (EntGreen) and their factors (AFin; CaDKnow; CapEnt; RegFram; MacroCon; EnvProt). To do this, we use the Pearson’s R given by the formula (Engle, 2009):

$$r_{{{\text{FI}}\;{\text{EntGreen}}}} = \frac{{\sum\nolimits_{{i = 1}}^{n} {\left( {{\text{FI}}_{i} - \overline{{{\text{FI}}}} } \right)} \left( {{\text{EntGreen}}_{i} - \overline{{{\text{EntGreen}}}} } \right)}}{{\sqrt {\sum\nolimits_{{i = 1}}^{n} {\left( {{\text{FI}}_{i} - \overline{{{\text{FI}}}} } \right)^{2} } } \sqrt {\sum\nolimits_{{i = 1}}^{n} {\left( {{\text{EntGreen}}_{i} - \overline{{{\text{EntGreen}}}} } \right)^{2} } } }},\quad r_{{{\text{FI}}\;{\text{EntGreen}}}} \in \left[ { - 1;1} \right]$$

where \({r}_{FI \mathrm{EntGreen}}\) stands for the Pearson's R and \({\mathrm{FI}}_{\mathrm{i}}\) integrated individual factors influencing green entrepreneurship.

The dependency model was written with the following equation (Schmidheiny, 2019):

$${\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Green}}\;i}} = \beta _{0} + \beta _{1} A_{{{\text{Fini}}}} + \beta _{2} {\text{CaD}}_{{{\text{Know}}\;i}} + \beta _{3} {\text{Cap}}_{{{\text{Enti}}}} + \beta _{4} {\text{Reg}}_{{{\text{Frami}}}} + \beta _{5} {\text{Macro}}_{{{\text{Coni}}}} + \beta _{6} {\text{Env}}_{{{\text{Proti}}}} + \varepsilon _{i}$$

where EntGreeni is a dependent variable; AFin, CaDKnow, CapEnt, RegFram, MacroCon, and EnvProt are independent variables; β0 is the intercept; β1 is the slope; εi denotes the ith residual; and i is an observation index.

The estimated model is given by the equation:

$${\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Greeni}}}} = \hat{\beta }_{0} + \hat{\beta }_{1} A_{{{\text{Fini}}}} + \hat{\beta }_{2} {\text{CaD}}_{{{\text{Knowi}}}} + \hat{\beta }_{3} {\text{Cap}}_{{{\text{Enti}}}} + \hat{\beta }_{4} {\text{Reg}}_{{{\text{Frami}}}} + \hat{\beta }_{5} {\text{Macro}}_{{{\text{Coni}}}} + \hat{\beta }_{6} {\text{Env}}_{{{\text{Proti}}}} + e_{i} = \widehat{{{\text{Ent}}}}_{{{\text{Greeni}}}} + e_{i}$$

The residual for each observation is as follows:

$$e_{i} = {\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Greeni}}}} - (\hat{\beta }_{0} + \hat{\beta }_{1} A_{{{\text{Fini}}}} + \hat{\beta }_{2} {\text{CaD}}_{{{\text{Knowi}}}} + \hat{\beta }_{3} {\text{Cap}}_{{{\text{Enti}}}} + \hat{\beta }_{4} {\text{Reg}}_{{{\text{Frami}}}} + \hat{\beta }_{5} {\text{Macro}}_{{{\text{Coni}}}} + \hat{\beta }_{6} {\text{Env}}_{{{\text{Proti}}}} )$$

We use the OLS regression to estimate model (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2017):

$$s\left( {\widehat{{\beta}}_{0} , \ldots ,\widehat{{ \beta}}_{6} } \right) = \sum\limits_{{i = 1}}^{n} {({\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Greeni}}}} - \hat{\beta }_{0} - \hat{\beta }_{1} A_{{{\text{Fini}}}} - \hat{\beta }_{2} {\text{CaD}}_{{{\text{Knowi}}}} - \hat{\beta }_{3} {\text{Cap}}_{{{\text{Enti}}}} - \hat{\beta }_{4} {\text{Reg}}_{{{\text{Frami}}}} - \hat{\beta }_{5} {\text{Macro}}_{{{\text{Coni}}}} - \hat{\beta }_{6} {\text{Env}}_{{{\text{Proti}}}} e_{i} )^{2} } \to \min$$

Solving the minimisation problem results in the following expressions (Yan & Su, 2009):

$$\hat{\beta }_{0} = \overline{{{\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Greeni}}}} }} - \hat{\beta }_{1} \overline{{A_{{{\text{Fini}}}} }} - \hat{\beta }_{2} \overline{{{\text{CaD}}_{{{\text{Know}}}} }} - \hat{\beta }_{3} \overline{{{\text{Cap}}_{{{\text{Ent}}}} }} - \hat{\beta }_{4} \overline{{{\text{Reg}}_{{{\text{Fram}}}} }} - \hat{\beta }_{5} \overline{{{\text{Macro}}_{{{\text{Con}}}} }} - \hat{\beta }_{6} \overline{{{\text{Env}}_{{{\text{Prot}}}} }}$$
$$\hat{\beta }_{{1 \ldots 6}} = \frac{{\sum\nolimits_{{i = 1}}^{n} {({\text{FI}}_{i} - \overline{{{\text{FI}}_{i} }} )} ({\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Greeni}}}} - \overline{{{\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Greeni}}}} }} )}}{{\sum\nolimits_{{i = 1}}^{n} {({\text{FI}}_{i} - \overline{{{\text{FI}}_{{Ii}} }} )} ^{2} }}$$

In the last stage, we built the vector autoregression model (VAR) to assess the impact of the indicator of overall factors of green entrepreneurship (FIEnt) on the indicators of green entrepreneurship (EntGreen), which we describe by the formula (George et al., 2008):

$${\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Greent}}}} = \sum\limits_{{i = 1}}^{{{\text{np}}}} {(A_{i} {\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Green}}}} - i + E_{t} )}$$

where \({\text{Ent}}_{{{\text{Greent}}}}\)is the vector of values of the analysed processes at time t (including all variables in the model), Ai matrix of parameters with delays of variables from vector Ent, and Et vector of stationary random disturbances.

4 The research results

From 2008 to 2020, Poland has the highest number of green enterprises, while Bulgaria has the lowest (Fig. 2). Comparing 2008 and 2020, in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland and Romania, the number of green enterprises increases (an increase by 324 in Bulgaria, by 299 in Croatia, by 3274 in Poland, by 1015 in Romania), while in Hungary it decreases (by -146).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Source Own study based on Eurostat

The green enterprises in the period from 2008 to 2020 in five emerging markets in the EU.

Full size image

Table 3 presents the factors of green entrepreneurship. The values of these indicators are diversified, which results from the fact that in these countries, there is a diversity in the methods and quality of conducting business activity, its legal and regulatory framework, environmental protection and the macroeconomic situation. This variety is also because these countries conduct their own fiscal and monetary policies and encouragements to pursue green entrepreneurship (Grillitsch & Hansen, 2019; Rapacki et al., 2020).

Table 3 Factors of green entrepreneurship (AFin, CaDKnow, CapEnt, RegFram, MacroCon, EnvProt, DetEnt) from 2008 to 2020 the five emerging markets in the EU
Full size table

In most countries, Pearson’s R between the indicators shows a strong or very strong linear relationship (p < 0.05) (Table 4). The exception here is Romania, where it is a weak or very weak linear relationship. Pearson’s R is in the range of −0.09 to 0.95. The highest linear dependence is in Poland (0.95, with MacroCon), while the lowest is in Romania (−0.09 with EnvProt). In more than half cases, the variables show a positive relationship.

Table 4 Pearson's correlation coefficient between the indicator of green entrepreneurship (EntGreen) and factors of green entrepreneurship (AFin, CaDKnow, CapEnt, RegFram, MacroCon, EnvProt, DetEnt) from 2008 to 2020 in the emerging markets in the EU
Full size table

Table 5 presents the results of the Ordinary Least Squares regression. A statistically significant impact of the explanatory variables on the dependent variable is in all countries. In most cases, the variables show a positive relationship. It cannot be unequivocally stated which factors are the key, as individual countries have strong differences. The coefficient determination ranges from 0.902 (Hungary, which means a perfect fit to the model's data) to 0.994 (Poland, which means a perfect fit to the model's data).

Table 5 Results of the OLS from 2008 to 2020 in the emerging markets in the EU: \({{Ent}_{Green}= {\propto }_{0}+ \propto }_{1}{A}_{Fin},+ {\propto }_{2}{CaD}_{Know}+{\propto }_{3}{CaP}_{Ent}+ {\propto }_{4}{Reg}_{Fram}+ {\propto }_{5}{Macro}_{Con}+ {\propto }_{6}{Env}_{Prot}{+ {\propto }_{7}{Ent}_{Green\left(t-1\right)} + \propto }_{8}time+ {\varepsilon }_{i}\)
Full size table

The results of the vector autoregression (VAR) are given in Table 6. A statistically significant impact of the explanatory variables on the dependent variable is in all emerging markets. The results show that green entrepreneurship is a process conditioned by a sequence of events, with the past determining the present values.

Table 6 Results of vector autoregression (VAR) method from 2008 to 2020 in the emerging markets in the EU: \({{Ent}_{Green}= {\propto }_{0}+ \propto }_{1}{FI}_{Ent},+ {\propto }_{2}{FI}_{Ent\left(t-1\right)}+ {\propto }_{3}{Ent}_{Green\left(t-1\right)}+ {\varepsilon }_{i}\)
Full size table

Green entrepreneurship depends on the factors shaping it (including those from the previous period) and its general level from the previous period. The determination coefficient is in the range of 0.621 (Romania, which means a weak fit to the model's data) to 0.962 (Poland, which means a perfect fit to the model's data). The explanatory variables' influence on the explained variable is mostly positive, except for the negative relationship between green entrepreneurship factors from the previous period in Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary, which can be explained by the fact that the determinants of green entrepreneurship in these three countries are used relatively quickly and may not be sufficient to maintain continuity in future periods.

5 Discussion

Green entrepreneurship is essential for sustainable development and the counteract climate change. The issues discussed in this paper are complex and require adopting a specific position and choosing an appropriate approach to define the concept of green entrepreneurship and its measurement. We assumed that green entrepreneurship refers to the green sector (this term also raises several doubts) (Acharya & Sequeira, 2012), and thus, by defining it, we mean economic activity based on environmental protection (Creech et al., 2012; Eaton & Zhou 2019).

Green entrepreneurship depends on several factors, which are extremely difficult to isolate at the sectoral level (Nordin & Hassan, 2019), and the results depend on the research assumptions, adopted definitions (Tharindu & Koggalage, 2020), and indicators (Matzembacher et al., 2019; Parente et al., 2020).

Green entrepreneurship is a complex phenomenon and depends on many determinants (Lin & Chen, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2019; Yatish & Zillur, 2015).

We confirm the central research hypothesis (H) because "there is a different strength and direction of the impact of individual factors on the green entrepreneurship in five emerging markets in the EU from 2008 to 2020". Pearson's R shows a significant relationship between green entrepreneurship and its determinants in all countries except Romania. The results of OLS estimation indicate an extensive diversification of the impact of individual indicators on green entrepreneurship. In Bulgaria, the indicators of entrepreneurial capabilities and environmental protection have a statistically significant impact; in Croatia, environmental protection; in Hungary, entrepreneurial capabilities, regulatory framework, and macroeconomic conditions; in Poland, creation and diffusion of knowledge, macroeconomic conditions; and in Romania creation and diffusion of knowledge and macroeconomic conditions.

We prove that macroeconomic conditions have a statistically significant impact on green entrepreneurship in most countries. Thus, we confirm the research results, which indicate the impact of macroeconomic conditions on ecological activities (Valdez & Richardson, 2013; Eaton & Zhou, 2019; Pieloch et al., 2021, Comporek et al., 2022).

We noticed a divergence in the impact of factors on green entrepreneurship. Therefore, extensive support (financial, legal and organisational) for green economic initiatives requires an institutional approach (Alwakid et al., 2020; Makki et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021).

Moreover, we noticed an autoregression in green entrepreneurship development because the VAR models show that green entrepreneurship is a process conditioned by a sequence of events, with the past determining the present values (Demuth, 2014; Rutkowska et al., 2018).

This research approach has a severe limitation; we only analyse enterprises from the green sector. Moreover, the green entrepreneurship indicator may be determined in many other ways, impacting the results obtained. Undoubtedly, the variables influencing green entrepreneurship play an important role here; we chose the data because of their availability and the subject literature. We assumed that green entrepreneurship would also depend on environmental factors and the determinants of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial attitudes, increased environmental awareness, support in access to financing sources, and knowledge and science are crucial for green entrepreneurship. It is necessary to introduce changes that allow for more significant creation and diffusion of knowledge, ensuring greater financial access.

6 Conclusions and future results

Green entrepreneurship is a significant and current research problem. It is a relatively poorly recognised phenomenon that requires further analysis and research. Due to its multidimensionality and different research perspectives, green entrepreneurship evaluation depends on the adopted research perspective. Therefore, this term must be clarified and defined more in legal acts and the literature on the subject.

Green entrepreneurship strongly correlates with ecological activities to protect the natural environment and climate. It is undertaking economic initiatives in the green sector, the delimitation of which is a separate and vital research problem influencing the definition of green entrepreneurship. Green entrepreneurship aims to generate profits from strictly ecological and environmentally friendly activities.

The research results show that ecological entrepreneurship in five emerging markets is relatively low. Green entrepreneurship shows a positive trend. It depends on some factors, the correct isolation of which is crucial for its development.

It is a significant diversification of the impact of individual determinants on green entrepreneurship in five emerging markets in the European Union. Moreover, green entrepreneurship is continuous; it depends on its development from the previous period and the determinants of the current and previous periods. An active environmental policy and financial and substantive support for environmental protection projects are crucial for the growth of green entrepreneurship.

The research results indicate which factors are important for developing green entrepreneurship in analysed countries. We obtain several results which are important from the point of view of theory, including:

  • A critical review of the literature on the subject and the introduction of a new definition of green entrepreneurship on its basis;

  • Completing a group of information important for determining the critical determinants of green entrepreneurship; moreover, we prove that external factors (including macroeconomic conditions) are essential for green entrepreneurship;

  • We developed the research methodology and, as a consequence, defined the rules for the selection of indicators for analysis and pointed out the possibilities of using statistical methods to assess and change in the area of green entrepreneurship;

  • We indicate the potential directions for future research on green entrepreneurship.

Practical implications supporting green entrepreneurship include:

  • Increased intensity for green entrepreneurship, both at the state, macroeconomic, and microeconomic levels;

  • Introduction of new strategic solutions/factors supporting the development of green initiatives;

  • Increasing the availability of credits and loans for green activities;

  • A campaign to support and promote ecological activities;

  • Implementation of new legal regulations supporting green entrepreneurship;

  • Introducing a system of tax reliefs and solutions to promote green entrepreneurship.

Further analysis will be devoted to a more in-depth analysis of green entrepreneurship in developed countries and comparative analyses between developed and developing economies. Undoubtedly, one should also focus on identifying the differences in choosing methods to build an indicator of green entrepreneurship, assess the financial results achieved in the green economy sector and compare them with other economic sectors. An essential place in the research will also find the external financing sources' availability and assess their effectiveness in developing ecological initiatives.