Norek, M. & Wennberg, K. (2015). “Virtuous decision-making in entrepreneurship”. In N. Karlson, M. Norek & K. Wennberg (Eds.), Virtues in Entrepreneurship (pp. 38–56). Stockholm: Ratio.
2022
Hellerstedt, K., Uman, T., & Wennberg, K. (2022). Fooled by diversity? When diversity initiatives exacerbate rather than mitigate inequality. Academy of Management Perspectives.
This article analyzes and critically discusses the business case logic of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. We highlight the value-in diversity logic for organizations and compare this with both the recent logic of power activism driven by internal and external lobbying and the classical moral justice logic originating in the civil rights movement,showing how the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion are seen differently in research and advocacy as organizational inputs, sought-for outputs, or as a context for social change…
2023
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
This virtual special issue includes research on the effects of crises, in particular the COVID-19 pandemic, on entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial responses to deal with consequences of crises. This issue highlights how crises affect entrepreneurs’ well-being and reinforce the importance of agency of entrepreneurs and other citizens. The special issue also highlights the need for resilience; the ability of entrepreneurs, organizations, and economies to absorb and adapt to shocks; and how it can be strengthened. We discuss the importance of data in times of crisis and the greater need for engaged scholarship.
The article can be accessed here.
2022
Questioning the Entrepreneurial State, 157.
Expansions of innovation policies have been paralleled with an increase in the evaluations of such policies. Yet, there are few systematic evaluations of how such evaluations are conducted, by whom, and their overall conclusions. We analyze 110 evaluations of innovation policy in Sweden from 2005 to 2019. Our findings show that the majority of these evaluations are positive, about one-third are neutral in their conclusions, and very few are negative. The majority of evaluations were conducted by consulting firms, close to one-third by expert government agencies, and around 10% by university researchers or as self-evaluations by the governmental agencies responsible for the policy themselves. Few evaluations employed causal methods to assess the potential effects of policies. We discuss conflicts of interest and question the reliability of evaluations of innovation policy.
