Entrepreneurship education is widely present in European curricula, but its structure and support vary considerably. The latest European review covered 36 countries and 38 education systems, while OECD and World Bank evidence connects education, entrepreneurial capability, business intentions, and program outcomes across different age groups and settings.
Contents
- European coverage and policy
- How schools teach entrepreneurship
- Teacher preparation and resources
- Youth aspirations and entrepreneurial capability
- From intention to early-stage activity
- What evaluated programs show
European coverage and policy
The 2025 Eurydice report on entrepreneurship education covered 36 European countries. That total included all 27 European Union Member States and nine non-EU countries. The analysis covered 38 education systems, so the number of systems was higher than the number of countries. These figures describe the scope of the report, not a measure of participation in entrepreneurship classes. (Source: European Commission Eurydice 2025)
Entrepreneurship education appeared in the curriculum in all 38 education systems reviewed in the 2025 summary. However, national strategies often placed it within a broader policy agenda. Twenty of the 38 systems had top-level strategies extending beyond entrepreneurship education to goals such as school education, 21st-century skills, economic growth, or youth empowerment. Only five systems had strategies focused exclusively on entrepreneurship education in schools. (Source: European School Education Platform 2025)
That pattern matters for interpreting the phrase “entrepreneurship education.” A curriculum may include entrepreneurial skills while the governing strategy is primarily about wider competence development or economic policy. The presence of curriculum coverage therefore does not by itself show that every learner receives the same course, number of hours, teaching method, or assessment.
The longer historical view also shows continuity. The 2016 Eurydice report covered 33 countries and used data from the 2014/15 school year. It reported entrepreneurship education in school curricula at primary, lower-secondary, and upper-secondary levels, as well as in school-based initial vocational education and training, across the countries reviewed. (Source: Eurydice 2016)
| Policy measure | Reported systems or countries | Measurement period |
|---|---|---|
| Systems in the 2025 Eurydice review | 38 | 2025 report |
| Systems with broader top-level strategies | 20 of 38 | 2025 report |
| Systems with entrepreneurship-only school strategies | 5 of 38 | 2025 report |
| Systems including entrepreneurship in curricula | 38 of 38 | 2025 report |
| Countries in the earlier Eurydice review | 33 | 2014/15 school year data |
How schools teach entrepreneurship
The 2022 European School Education Platform survey offers a view from people working in education. It collected responses from 121 respondents in 33 countries, and 79% of respondents were teachers or school leaders. The findings are therefore survey responses, not a census of schools or students. (Source: European School Education Platform survey 2022)
Respondents most often described innovation and entrepreneurship competences as cross-curricular. Fifty-five percent said the competences were integrated mainly through a cross-curricular approach, while 36% said they were integrated as a separate subject. These categories describe reported approaches and should not be treated as mutually exhaustive measures of every school’s provision.
School activities were present, but not universal in the survey responses. Fifty-six percent agreed or strongly agreed that their school offered activities for developing both innovation and entrepreneurship competences. Forty-one percent said a nominated teacher was responsible for work related to those competences.
The perceived need for stronger school provision was substantial. Seventy-nine percent said innovation and entrepreneurship competences should receive more emphasis at school level. At the same time, 68% said the competences should not be acquired mainly outside school. Together, the responses point to a view that school-based learning has a central role, even where delivery is spread across subjects rather than placed in one standalone class.
These percentages should be read alongside the 2025 system-level finding that all reviewed systems included entrepreneurship education in their curricula. Curriculum inclusion can coexist with different classroom models: cross-curricular work, separate subjects, activities, or designated responsibility. The survey does not provide a single European average for lesson time or student reach.
Teacher preparation and resources
Teacher capacity is one of the clearest implementation measures in the 2025 Eurydice summary. Nineteen of the 38 education systems offered regulations or support schemes for in-service teacher training in entrepreneurship education. Fifteen systems outlined specific learning objectives for that in-service training. The two counts are not equivalent: support for training was more common than explicitly stated training objectives. (Source: European School Education Platform 2025)
The 2022 survey also identified which resources respondents considered accessible. Printed or online teaching materials were selected by 52% of respondents. Teacher networks were selected by 44%, while 41% selected short online courses and workshops for teachers. These results describe perceived accessibility, not the quality, frequency, or effectiveness of the resources.
The difference between policy coverage and delivery support is useful when reading the statistics together. All 38 systems reported curriculum inclusion, but only 19 reported regulations or support schemes for in-service training, and 15 reported specific learning objectives for that training. This does not prove that the other systems lack teacher development entirely; it shows that the 2025 summary did not identify the same formal arrangements there.
The earlier 2016 review provides a baseline for curriculum location across education stages, while the 2022 survey describes how respondents experienced implementation and resources. Neither source supplies a common measure of teacher participation, course duration, or student outcomes across all countries.
Youth aspirations and entrepreneurial capability
OECD evidence shows a large gap between interest in entrepreneurship and actual business activity. The OECD estimated that about 40% to 45% of young people were interested in pursuing entrepreneurship. It also reported that nearly half of young people preferred to be an entrepreneur rather than an employee, and that more than 40% of university students planned to become entrepreneurs within five years of graduation. (Source: OECD, The Missing Entrepreneurs 2021)
Student intentions were also measured in the GUESSS study cited by the OECD. The study surveyed 208,000 students across 54 countries. Nine percent wanted to become entrepreneurs immediately after their studies, and another 35% planned to become entrepreneurs within five years after their studies. The immediate and later intentions are separate timing categories in the cited study and should not be added to other OECD estimates without knowing the definitions and sample overlap.
Knowledge and skills were less common than interest. During 2016–2020, 38% of EU youth aged 18–30 said they had the knowledge and skills for entrepreneurship, compared with 44% of adults in the EU. In OECD economies, 44% of youth reported those knowledge and skills, compared with 49% of adults. These are self-reported measures, not tests of entrepreneurial competence.
| Indicator | EU youth or students | Comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge and skills for entrepreneurship, 2016–2020 | 38% of EU youth aged 18–30 | 44% of EU adults |
| Early-stage entrepreneurship, 2016–2020 | About 5% of EU youth aged 18–30 | 4% of the overall population |
| University students planning entrepreneurship within five years | More than 40% | OECD-reported student measure |
| GUESSS immediate post-study intention | 9% | 208,000 students in 54 countries |
| GUESSS intention within five years | 35% | Same cited study |
The OECD reported that fewer than 5% of EU youth aged 18–30 were involved in early-stage entrepreneurship. It gave a more specific estimate of about 5% actively working on setting up a business during 2016–2020, compared with 4% for the overall population. In OECD countries, youth involvement in business creation was 8% over the same period.
The policy environment was also uneven. Only one EU Member State reported not having a clear youth entrepreneurship policy at national level. Nearly two-thirds of EU Member States had a specific youth entrepreneurship strategy, but only about half of those strategies had clear targets and objectives. This is a policy-design measure, not evidence that a strategy reached a particular number of learners.
From intention to early-stage activity
Youth participation in self-employment remained limited relative to interest. Youth aged 20–29 had a self-employment rate of about 7% in the EU for the past 20 years, according to the OECD. The share of self-employed youth who employed others declined by four percentage points since 2004. The proportion of self-employed youth with a tertiary education had stabilized at 35% since 2018.
Innovation among young entrepreneurs varied by geography. Early-stage youth entrepreneurs in the EU were slightly more likely than all early-stage entrepreneurs to introduce new products or services: 35% compared with 31%. Across OECD countries, the corresponding figures were 35% for youth entrepreneurs and 34% for all entrepreneurs. Across EU Member States, the youth share ranged from about 20% in Bulgaria to more than 60% in Luxembourg. These ranges are country comparisons, not a causal estimate of what education produced.
The OECD also estimated a potential participation gap. If young people aged 18–30 were as active as core-age men, the European Union would have an additional 1 million youth entrepreneurs. Youth accounted for 11% of the EU’s missing entrepreneurs. “Missing entrepreneurs” is an OECD estimate of unrealized entrepreneurial participation, so it should not be read as a count of people who would necessarily start firms after receiving a course.
Taken together, the figures distinguish four different concepts: interest in entrepreneurship, confidence in relevant knowledge and skills, early-stage business activity, and self-employment. Entrepreneurship education can be discussed against all four, but a percentage for one should not be substituted for another.
What evaluated programs show
The World Bank review Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programs around the World examined 230 program evaluations worldwide. The review included evidence from individual studies rather than one universal program model. (Source: World Bank, Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programs around the World)
One randomized field experiment cited in the review received 651 applications. Two hundred participants were assigned to receive training immediately, while 200 were placed in a waiting control group. The training increased the likelihood of starting a business by 50% versus the control group. Relative to the training group’s initial status, the same training increased the likelihood of starting a business by 219%. These are study-specific effects and should not be generalized to every entrepreneurship course.
The review also described programs with large participant groups. The Nigerian APSB study used 300 final-year tertiary students. Liberia’s EPAG program accepted approximately 2,500 young women. These participant counts indicate program scale, not measured impact by themselves.
An OECD-described Korea study included 1,924 students in entrepreneurship education programs. Entship School used a one-day, three-hour workshop for middle-school students and six two-hour sessions for high-school students. The Hero School program used ten two-hour classes for both middle-school and high-school students.
The Korea table reported program-specific scores for several outcomes. For opportunity discovery, the values were 0.14 for middle-school Entship and 21.2*** for middle-school Hero; the high-school values were 89.3*** for Entship and 46.3*** for Hero. For opportunity exploitation, the corresponding values were 1.51 and 15.8*** in middle school, and 55.0*** and 39.2*** in high school. The asterisks are retained as reported in the source; the supplied figures do not define a common scale in the article data.
For entrepreneurial orientation, the table reported 1.09 for middle-school Entship, 60.7*** for middle-school Hero, and 44.6*** for high-school Entship; no high-school Hero value was reported. Creativity capacity was not reported for middle-school Entship, while the other listed values were 17.3*** for middle-school Hero, 54.5*** for high-school Entship, and 55.2*** for high-school Hero.
Social problem-solving values were not reported for middle-school Entship; the reported comparison values were 20.9*** for middle-school Hero, 30.1*** for high-school Entship, and 20.5*** for high-school Hero. Entrepreneurial intention was 0.02 for middle-school Entship, 12.4*** for middle-school Hero, 23.6*** for high-school Entship, and 12.9*** for high-school Hero.
These Korea results are best used as an example of why program design and outcome definitions matter. The workshops differed in length and structure, some cells were not reported, and the table’s numerical scale is not specified in the figures above. The results support careful comparison within the study, not an unsupported ranking of entrepreneurship education worldwide.