• COVID-19
• 2019-2023close
• Article close
• SE close
• Forschungsindex und Repositorium der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg close
• Journal of Business Venturing Insights close

This article offers a collectively developed analysis of the Covid-19 crisis as it relates to contemporary cultures of rejection, i.e. the socio- cultural conditions in which authoritarian and right-wing populist politics thrive, in Europe. We explore how the pandemic and its management reinforces, transforms and/or overrides existing antagonisms and institutes new ones in Serbia, Croatia, Austria, Germany and Sweden. We discuss how the Covid-19 crisis affects the rise of new statisms ; gendered patterns of social reproduction ; mobility and migration ; digital infrastructures ; and new political mobilizations.

What measures are SMEs most likely to take in order to make ends meet in the face of a “black swan” external shock? That is the question we explore in this study, drawing upon unique data from 456 SMEs in the midst of an unfolding crisis. Our findings demonstrate how SMEs acted immediately by deferring investments, reducing labor costs, reducing expenses, and negotiating contracts and terms. Moreover, the data highlight how SMEs in an unfolding crisis are reluctant to commit to any action that will increase their debt-to-equity ratio. The findings suggest new questions to be explored in relation to actions during an unfolding crisis, post-crisis businesses, entrepreneurial failure, and entrepreneur/entrepreneurial team characteristics. Implications for policy and practice are provided. Highlights • SMEs focused upon reducing negative cash flow and tied-up capital. • SMEs refrained from increasing their debt-to-equity ratio. • SMEs rarely responded to the crisis by innovation and revenue focused actions. • Surprisingly many SMEs did not take any immediate actions.

How do international organisations (IOs) legitimise their right to rule in times of a Pandemic? Where are their previously made environmental commitments on their agenda during a crisis? What are the differences in self-legitimation, if any, across different types of IOs? These questions have gathered renewed urgency during the ongoing COVID-19 and climate change crises posing a threat to the legitimacy not only of national governments but also of IOs. The paper aims to address these questions through the analysis of environmental commitments made in legal documents of three IOs (the EU, the EAEU, and the AIIB) and through the analysis of their respective social media between 2017 and 2021. Among other issues, we find significant differences in self-legitimation strategies of these three IOs as reflected by their social media and some evidence of mimicry across these IOs that should remain on the agenda for further studies. Stephen G. F. Hall thanks the Economic and Social Research Council for providing funding for this research. Tobias thanks the Leibniz Association for financial support and Lynda Irolou, Niklas Krösche, Swantje Schirmer and Henning Schmidtke for extensive discussions on the theme of this article. Anastassia Obydenkova acknowledges the support of the Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University). Co-authors are listed alphabetically and they contributed equally to this project.

AbstractHow does psychology vary across human societies? The fundamental social motives framework adopts an evolutionary approach to capture the broad range of human social goals within a taxonomy of ancestrally recurring threats and opportunities. These motives—self-protection, disease avoidance, affiliation, status, mate acquisition, mate retention, and kin care—are high in fitness relevance and everyday salience, yet understudied cross-culturally. Here, we gathered data on these motives in 42 countries (N = 15,915) in two cross-sectional waves, including 19 countries (N = 10,907) for which data were gathered in both waves. Wave 1 was collected from mid-2016 through late 2019 (32 countries, N = 8,998; 3,302 male, 5,585 female; Mage = 24.43, SD = 7.91). Wave 2 was collected from April through November 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic (29 countries, N = 6,917; 2,249 male, 4,218 female; Mage = 28.59, SD = 11.31). These data can be used to assess differences and similarities in people’s fundamental social motives both across and within cultures, at different time points, and in relation to other commonly studied cultural indicators and outcomes.

Abstract As physical distancing is a core measure of containing the spread of COVID-19, this pandemic is a crisis that has uprooted social interaction. While current research mainly focuses on crises as a challenge for entrepreneurial ventures and potential regulatory response mechanisms, we complement this research by addressing the question of how crises in general—and COVID-19’s physical distancing measures in particular—shape entrepreneurial opportunities for social innovation. Based on two rounds of data collection—desktop research mapping out 95 entrepreneurial activities in Germany and four focus groups—we find first that entrepreneurs are proactive agents in alleviating the negative consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. They do so by creating two types of digital social innovation: digital brokering and digitized services. Second, we note that negative societal consequences of crises can be buffered by shifts in entrepreneurs’ strategic orientation through improvised venturing, rapid pivoting and pro-social product extension. Third, we note variance in the persistence of changes with consequences for entrepreneurial opportunities and social innovation: Whereas some social innovation are rather ephemeral, others might endure and promise long-term impacts. We offer key insights for the literature on crisis, social innovation and hybrid organizing as well as on the implications for entrepreneurship practice and policy.

How can entrepreneurs protect their wellbeing during a crisis? Does engaging agility (namely, opportunity agility and planning agility) in response to adversity help entrepreneurs safeguard their wellbeing? Activated by adversity, agility may function as a specific resilience mechanism enabling positive adaption to crisis. We studied 3162 entrepreneurs from 20 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic and found that more severe national lockdowns enhanced firm-level adversity for entrepreneurs and diminished their wellbeing. Moreover, entrepreneurs who combined opportunity agility with planning agility experienced higher wellbeing but planning agility alone lowered wellbeing. Entrepreneur agility offers a new agentic perspective to research on entrepreneur wellbeing.