# From flashlight to spotlight: Illuminating gray shadows that shape entrepreneurship's dark sides

April J Spivack, Amitabh Anand, Anders Örtenblad, Dieter Bögenhold,

Christina Theodoraki, Oana Branzei

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

April J Spivack, Amitabh Anand, Anders Örtenblad, Dieter Bögenhold, Christina Theodoraki, et al.. From flashlight to spotlight: Illuminating gray shadows that shape entrepreneurship's dark sides. Small Business Economics, 2025, 10.1007/s11187-025-01089-0 . hal-05444982

HAL Id: hal-05444982

https://hal.science/hal-05444982v1

Submitted on 6 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# From flashlight to spotlight: Illuminating gray shadows that shape entrepreneurship's dark sides

April J. Spivack · Amitabh Anand ·
Anders Örtenblad · Dieter Bögenhold ·
Christina Theodoraki · Oana Branzei

Accepted: 11 June 2025
© The Author(s) 2025

**Abstract** Research on entrepreneurship has predominantly focused on its positive dimensions, overlooking the complex dynamics that lead to harmful or unethical outcomes. This special issue advances our understanding of entrepreneurship's dark sides by introducing the “entrepreneurial fulcrum” model, which conceptualizes entrepreneurial activities as existing in a precarious balance between light and dark manifestations. Moving beyond simplistic characterizations of entrepreneurs or ventures as inherently good or bad, we illuminate how various

contextual forces—institutional environments, regulatory systems, financial incentives, and legitimacy-building strategies—can tip entrepreneurial activities toward either constructive or destructive outcomes. The five papers in this special issue examine these contingent factors across multiple levels, from formal and informal institutions to individual entrepreneur behaviors, revealing entrepreneurship as neither inherently light nor dark, but rather existing in dynamic equilibrium. By spotlighting these systemic and interactive influences, we challenge prevailing assumptions and provide a foundation for research that considers not only the diagnosis of dark side manifestations but also potential remedies and transformative pathways.

**Plain English Summary** This special issue explores the lesser-studied “dark sides” of entrepreneurship—situations where entrepreneurial activities lead to harmful outcomes rather than positive ones. We introduce a new way of thinking about entrepreneurship as being on a seesaw or fulcrum that can tip toward either positive or negative outcomes depending on various factors. The papers in this collection examine how different influences—from government institutions to financial systems to individual entrepreneur strategies—can push entrepreneurial activities toward beneficial or harmful results. Rather than labeling entrepreneurs or ventures as simply “good” or “bad,” we show how the same entrepreneurial

<footnote>A. J. Spivack (✉)  
Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland  
e-mail: april.spivack@hanken.fi</footnote>

<footnote>A. Anand  
Excelia Business School, CERIIM, La Rochelle, France</footnote>

<footnote>A. Anand  
Corvinus Institute for Advanced Studies (CIAS), Budapest, Hungary</footnote>

<footnote>A. Örtenblad  
University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway</footnote>

<footnote>D. Bögenhold  
Alpen-Adria-University, Klagenfurt, Austria</footnote>

<footnote>C. Theodoraki  
Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France</footnote>

<footnote>O. Branzei  
Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Canada</footnote>
activities can produce different outcomes based on
changing conditions. This approach helps us under-
stand not only why entrepreneurship sometimes goes
wrong, but also how we might prevent harmful out-
comes and transform problematic ventures into posi-
tive ones. By examining these complexities, we pro-
vide practical insights for policymakers, investors,
and entrepreneurs themselves on how to encourage
positive entrepreneurial outcomes while minimizing
potential harm.

**Keywords** Dark side of entrepreneurship ·
Entrepreneurial ethics · Destructive
entrepreneurship · Institutional influences · Social
entrepreneurship

**JEL Classification** L26 · O17 · D73 · M14 · K42 · L14 · D02

# 1 Introduction

Entrepreneurship is a pursuit that may yield both pos-
itive and negative outcomes (Shepherd, 2019). How-
ever, for many decades, academics have focused on
studying the positive sides of entrepreneurial pursuit
(Scheaf & Wood, 2022). This positive bent is prem-
ised on the notion that entrepreneurial acts are legal,
moral, and socially responsible (Anderson & Smith,
2007), and boost innovation and economic success
(Spivack & McKelvie, 2018). Yet, mounting and sub-
stantial evidence makes it clear that some entrepre-
neurs engage in unproductive (Audretsch et al., 2021)
and unethical actions, such as financial crime, cus-
tomer fraud, investor deception (Antony et al., 2017;
Desai, 2016; Scheaf & Wood, 2022), and other mis-
conduct that erodes societal values and trust (Anand
et al., 2023; Haans & van der Oever, 2021).

Even though the destructive, unproductive, and
dark sides of entrepreneurship were highlighted
decades ago (Baumol, 1990; Kets de Vries, 1985),
recent larger-scale entrepreneurial scandals have rein-
vigorated scholarly interest in the topic (e.g., Box
et al., 2020; Qin et al., 2022; Scheaf & Wood, 2022;
Shepherd, 2019). Among them, Billy McFarland’s
Fyre Festival scandal involved defrauding investors
of $27.4 million through false promises of a luxury
music festival, while Elizabeth Holmes’ Theranos
scandal involved defrauding investors of hundreds of

millions of dollars by misrepresenting her company's
capacity to offer revolutionary blood-testing technol-
ogy (Ho, 2021). These cases underscored the capac-
ity of entrepreneurial ventures to involve dark actors,
dark actions, and dark outcomes. Scholars can explore
these topics more deeply by building upon the foun-
dation of works that have identified the many forms
and levels of “dark” and “destructive” that may result
from entrepreneurship (Chase et al., 2025). A compi-
lation of these works is found in the book “Against
Entrepreneurship” (Örtenblad, 2020a), for example,
which focuses on the identification and illumination
of the breadth and depth of “dark” or negative sides
of entrepreneurship (Bandera et al., 2021; Baumol,
1990; Miller, 2014; Shepherd, 2019).

Despite the interest in shining the spotlight on the
dark sides of entrepreneurship, forward momentum of
research on the topic remains surprisingly slow and
challenging, more in line with revelations through a
flashlight, with the broader phenomenon remaining
both under-represented and under-theorized (e.g.,
Hainz, 2018; Wood et al., 2022). The dark topic area
is challenging for many reasons. First, because of
implicit ties to morality, ethics, and gray area assess-
ments delineating the point at which behaviors or
outcomes become dark and undesirable, it is a con-
tested terrain. Moreover, there is heterogeneity in
dark and destructive instances (Desai & Acs, 2007),
which make a wide range of conditions and examples
subject to these types of disputed assessments. As a
result, it is challenging to reach an overall agreement
on the phenomenon (Desai, 2016), define and differ-
entiate concepts (Shepherd et al., 2019), and discern
key patterns (Talmage et al., 2019). This heterogene-
ity in dark and destructive instances makes achieving
consensus particularly challenging, as researchers
must navigate diverse manifestations, contexts, and
interpretations. The absence of agreement on funda-
mental parameters of the phenomenon complicates
research design, measurement, and interpretation of
findings. Researchers struggle to determine appropri-
ate dependent variables, establish meaningful bound-
aries around the concept, and distinguish between
degrees of “darkness” in entrepreneurial behavior
and outcomes. Yet, divergent perspectives on the dark
side of entrepreneurship provide promising ground
for future research and theorizing (e.g., Lundmark
& Westelius, 2019). Second, progress requires being
able to reveal evidence; the act of “shining light”
implies the effort required to “expose” the “dark” and hidden behaviors and outcomes. The behaviors and aspects are often intentionally “hidden” to obscure awareness, due to the potentially questionable or undesirable nature of the behaviors, actors, or outcomes. That is, the relevant players wish to avoid the scrutiny and opportunity for such judgements, making it harder to gain access, observe, and collect relevant data to give more insights into the topic. Still, there is hope that access to a wider range of data and contexts is on the horizon. For example, awareness of the darker sides of entrepreneurship becomes easier as technology increasingly generates digital trails, more mobile phone access and features allow for photos, videos, and other recordings to be gathered in everyday life activities, and social media connects individuals who can share their experiences globally (e.g., Castells, 2009).

To guide research efforts going forward, we have identified that relatively little has been uncovered regarding how entrepreneurs choose, switch, or sustain opposing ends and means (Luca & Zervas, 2016; Theoharakis et al., 2021) between light and dark acts. An example that highlights the need for a shift in focus in understanding dark sides of entrepreneurship comes from the entrepreneurial “fake it until you make it” ethos (Wood et al., 2022). This ethos may influence entrepreneurial behaviors by encouraging entrepreneurs to devise their own rules, play by the rules of the game, or be victims of institutional voids, thereby contributing to entrepreneurs’ intentional or unintentional engagement in fraudulent behaviors (Scheaf & Wood, 2022). Awareness of this ethos has led to focused investigation of entrepreneurs’ behavior in line with that ethos, yet, the ethos directly implies an audience for which you need to “fake it.” For instance, a recent survey of 150 early-stage firms revealed that three-quarters of organizations deliberately gave incomplete or misleading information to their stakeholders (Yu et al., 2020) to gain financial benefits (Shepherd, 2019). This external audience pressure has been less studied but likely plays a substantial role in influencing entrepreneurial behaviors.

Therefore, through this special issue, we shine the spotlight on systemic and dynamic influences that give rise to the dark or light sides of entrepreneurial activities or outcomes (Shepherd et al., 2019). We advance entrepreneurship studies of lightness and darkness by recognizing that entrepreneurs are not

the only relevant actors to consider in the manifestation of dark sides of entrepreneurship. Furthermore, we acknowledge that occupying a dark status is not necessarily a fixed condition, nor a “black and white” one, but an interpretation that may depend on point of reference and may also transform over time. Here, we consider the contextual and stakeholder influences which direct entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial outcomes to the light or dark. In so doing, we push for the field to not only diagnose the causes and recognize the multiplicity of influences, but also to attend to potential remedies for the dark side aspects.

## 2 The entrepreneurial fulcrum (seesaw model)

It was once said that entrepreneurship is a hodgepodge (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) in terms of firm sizes, affiliations, histories, and involved actors, but this also applies to numerous motivations and intended and unintended negative consequences (Merton, 1936). Instead, for a long time, entrepreneurship was treated as a one-class stereotype without acknowledging its internal heterogeneity or contextual complexity. In recent debates, this view has changed towards acceptance of social and economic variations and diversity (Bakker & McMurlen, 2023; Bögenhold, 2019; Garcia et al., 2025). It has become increasingly clear that the study of the dark sides of entrepreneurship requires a broader and more nuanced lens. Such a lens should enable investigation beyond dark outcomes, or the dark entrepreneur and their dark behavior, to also account for influences in shaping these qualities or acts and recognizing that these influences may arise from a wide range of sources. Similarly, such a lens must consider the degrees of lightness and darkness that can simultaneously be found at various levels from micro to macro—individual behaviors, person-based characteristics, dyadic interactions, team dynamics, venture qualities, venture-to-other organization interactions, venture-to-customer, market, industry, institutions, etc.

The seminal differentiation proposed by Bauholz (1990) between productive, unproductive, and destructive forms of entrepreneurship points to differing institutional contexts as the “most satisfactory framework” for discussing entrepreneurship policy (Minniti, 2016). This framework acknowledges that
entrepreneurial activity can manifest in various ways—some that generate societal value and others that extract or destroy it. For instance, criminal enterprises or corruption may exhibit innovative or entrepreneurial characteristics but fundamentally conflict with ethical and legal standards of modern societies. While entrepreneurship can drive economic renewal and growth, it can equally contribute to ineffectiveness, decay, or poverty when destructive and unproductive forms dominate (Boettke & Piano, 2016; Bögenhold, 2020). The *entrepreneurial fulcrum* model we propose extends Baumol’s foundation by explicitly recognizing the contingent factors that tip entrepreneurial activities toward either productive or destructive manifestations.

The so-called dark side refers to all items beyond the glittering scenery, showing negative phenomena related to the existence and working of entrepreneurship. Building on Baumol’s classifications, our conceptualization recognizes the fluid boundaries between these categories. In this understanding, research on the dark sides of entrepreneurship is also research on societal legitimation and business ethics. In other words, via this special issue, we start the push toward Entrepreneurship 3.0, a version of

entrepreneurship rhetoric and inquiry that emphasizes the contingencies that shape whether (and to what extent) endeavors, experiences, etc., are tipped to the light or dark side. Entrepreneurship 3.0 represents an evolution in how we conceptualize entrepreneurial phenomena. If Entrepreneurship 1.0 represented a focus on the heroic entrepreneur and unambiguously positive outcomes, and Entrepreneurship 2.0 acknowledged potential negative dimensions but treated them as separate and static categories, then Entrepreneurship 3.0 recognizes the dynamic, contingent nature of entrepreneurial outcomes that exist along a spectrum from light to dark. This perspective emphasizes that entrepreneurial activities are not inherently good or bad, but rather exist in constant tension between productive and destructive potentials, influenced by a complex array of factors at individual, organizational, and societal levels. To conceptualize the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial outcomes that can tip toward either light or dark manifestations, we propose the *entrepreneurship fulcrum* (*seesaw* model (Fig. 1). This model illustrates how entrepreneurship exists in a precarious balance, where various forces—institutional, contextual, and individual—can influence whether entrepreneurial activity yields primarily

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** The entrepreneurship fulcrum (seesaw model). Source: authors’ own</figcaption></figure>
constructive or destructive outcomes. Unlike binary classifications of “good” or “bad” entrepreneurship, the fulcrum model recognizes that the same venture may simultaneously produce both light and dark outcomes for different stakeholders, and that the balance can shift over time based on changing conditions.

Examining this dark side of entrepreneurial pursuits through the *entrepreneurial fulcrum* (*seesaw*) *model* is essential for policymakers, stakeholders, and venture capitalists, as it may inform ways to avoid exerting pressures on entrepreneurs that influence the manifestation of dark entrepreneurship. Perhaps, instead, practices and policies may be adopted to encourage both light behaviors and light outcomes. These more positive influences should translate into positive outcomes for the entrepreneurs, their ventures, and their ability to deliver value to the societies in which they operate. Furthermore, these investigations provide an opportunity for renewed academic debate and advancement of the scattered dark side of entrepreneurship literature.

### 3 Contingencies of dark side of entrepreneurship

The special issue contains five original papers, after this introduction. The papers in this special issue collectively illuminate different aspects of the entrepreneurship fulcrum (seesaw) model (Fig. 1), showing how entrepreneurship can manifest in both productive and destructive ways depending on these contingent factors. The papers are presented here in a progression from macro (institutional) to meso (contextual/system) to micro (individual entrepreneur strategies) levels, with the final paper spanning multiple levels via an assessment framework (see Table 1 for a summary). First, Aparicio, Martinez-Moya, Muñoz-Moya, and Urbano (2025) examine formal and informal institutional influences in destructive entrepreneurship. Second, Biru and Arenius (2025) examine rule-breaking behaviors in relation to norms and particular contextual characteristics. The context of emerging economies and rule-breaking behavior spotlights the interactive dynamics between entrepreneurs and their social and regulatory contexts, distributing the responsibility for engaging in these behaviors across stakeholder groups instead of solely with the context or the entrepreneur. Third, Distefano (2025)

tests a model of financial system interactions with entrepreneurial activities by considering the relationships between cost of capital, loan diversion, and economic impacts. In the context of venture financial capital in the form of bank loans, it is the interplay between banks, other entrepreneurs, and the extent to which each actor diverts loans to informal or illegal activities that can yield both positive and negative outcomes. Fourth, Bureau, Gerges-Yammine, Battaglia, and Zhou (2025) examine an entrepreneur's legitimacy building strategies through strategic ambiguity. An entrepreneur's strategic use of ambiguity can become a mechanism for shielding fraudulent activities in certain contexts and when other players and stakeholders enable the dynamic. Fifth, Bacq, Janssen, Sabbatucci, and Wuillaume (2025) introduce a framework for categorically assessing negative outcomes of social entrepreneurship. In social entrepreneurship, potential risks and harm need to be acknowledged to mitigate them, but prior work has predominantly focused on the positive aspects of these endeavors. The papers shine light on the interactive and dynamic forces that can easily pivot to light or dark sides and that assessing ventures as light or dark is incomplete without understanding these influential dynamics.

#### 3.1 Formal and informal institutional influences

First, the paper, “Managing destructive entrepreneurship in place: Formal and informal institutions for the achievement of regional economic growth” by Aparicio, Martinez-Moya, Muñoz-Moya, and Urbano (2025), addresses the gap in the literature that exists regarding destructive entrepreneurship—activities such as corruption, extortion, and illicit drug production—that undermine economic growth. This study examines how institutions influence coca cultivation, which is viewed as destructive entrepreneurship, in Colombia.

The research draws from Baumol's (1990) typology and North's (1990, 2005) institutional framework to investigate how formal institutions, like institutional reinforcement and governance quality, and informal institutions, like religious affiliations and historical land conflict, influence coca cultivation and economic growth. Using a comprehensive Colombian municipality-level dataset (2005–2009), the study empirically tests these relationships.
<table><caption>**Table 1** Summary of special issue articles</caption><thead><tr><th>Authors</th><th>Article title</th><th>Method</th><th>Contribution</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Aparicio, Martinez-Moya, Muñoz-Moya, and Urbano</td><td>Managing destructive entrepreneurship in place: Formal and informal institutions for the achievement of regional economic growth</td><td>Quantitative, three-stage least squares (3SLS) estimation, using the CEDE (Centro de Estudios Sobre Desarrollo Económico) municipality-level panel dataset (2005–2009), 5610 observations across 1122 municipalities</td><td>How institutional incentives shape entrepreneurial behavior, including productive venture pursuits and influencing the prevalence of destructive activities. The findings also highlight the interplay between formal and informal institutions and the potential for informal norms to substitute for, or complement, formal governance in fragile contexts</td></tr><tr><td>Bacq, Janssen, Sabbatucci, and Guillaume</td><td>The Dark Side of Doing Good: A Guiding Framework for Advancing Research on the Negative Outcomes of Social Entrepreneurship</td><td>Conceptual paper introducing a dual-lens framework</td><td>Introduces a prescriptive dual-lens framework to systematically examine and categorize adverse outcomes of social entrepreneurship. The framework evaluates “who is affected” and “what capital is put at risk” to categorize adverse effects, encouraging a more balanced perspective in SE research and practice</td></tr><tr><td>Biru and Arenius</td><td>Sustaining Enforcement Weakness: Entrepreneurs’ Actions in Normalizing Rule-Breaking</td><td>Qualitative, 39 semi-structured interviews with small business entrepreneurs in Ethiopia</td><td>Challenges the survivalist framing of rule-breaking by showing how entrepreneurs proactively perpetuate enforcement vulnerability. Repositions detrimental entrepreneurship as a systemic issue encompassing collective, institutional, and societal dynamics. Contributes to geographically grounded understanding of regulatory governance in underrepresented contexts</td></tr><tr><td>Bureau, Gerges-Yammine, Battaglia, and Zhou</td><td>Legitimising Destructive Entrepreneurship: The Case of a Crypto-Entrepreneur</td><td>Historical case study of Sam Bankman-Fried</td><td>Demonstrates how fraudulent entrepreneurs can sustain deception through ambiguous narratives. Sheds light on the contingencies and contextual influences that enable or constrain strategic ambiguity and whether it can effectively obscure awareness of fraudulent activities</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th>Authors</th><th>Article title</th><th>Method</th><th>Contribution</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Disiefano</td><td>The social benefit of being destructive: Entrepreneurship and loan diversion</td><td>Econometric modeling</td><td>Analyzes entrepreneurs' decisions to allocate business loans for purposes other than intended. Introduces the possibility of simultaneous and variable investments in both formal and informal sectors. Shows how the presence of potential loan diverters can lead to reduced interest rates, benefiting all entrepreneurs. Challenges assumptions by exploring how informal activities can sometimes be more productive than formal projects</td></tr></tbody></table>

Key findings highlight that institutional reinforcement significantly reduces coca cultivation, indicating that increased governance investment deters destructive entrepreneurship. Furthermore, effective municipal governance can curb harmful activities like coca cultivation. Similarly, informal institutions such as historical land conflict, or religious land ownership, play a role in deterring illicit crop production, suggesting that enduring social structures or community norms arising from past conflict may discourage undesirable enterprises. The findings also suggest that coca cultivation significantly reduces regional economic growth, confirming the detrimental impact of destructive entrepreneurship. On average, new coca crops are linked to lower municipal GDP growth. Together, the findings offer support for Baumol's and North's theories by demonstrating how institutional incentives shape entrepreneurial behavior through both enabling productive ventures and influencing the prevalence of destructive activities. The findings also highlight the interplay between formal and informal institutions and the potential for informal norms to substitute for or complement formal governance in fragile contexts.

The study calls for strengthened formal institutions through better governance, funding, and performance monitoring alongside anti-corruption efforts. Implications for policymakers include acknowledging the role of informal institutions (e.g., land ownership structures, community norms) in influencing entrepreneurial activities. The paper offers targets for interventions—structural reforms and socio-cultural dynamics, with the possibility of offering valuable insights for other countries facing similar challenges, such as Peru, Bolivia, or Myanmar.

## 3.2 Rule-breaking in context

Second, the paper, “Sustaining Enforcement Weakness: Entrepreneurs’ Actions in Normalizing Rule-Breaking” by Biru and Arenius (2025), investigates the strategies employed by entrepreneurs in emerging economies to prevent enforcement officials from sanctioning rule-breaking behavior. In contrast to the prevailing scholarly perspective, which portrays entrepreneurial noncompliance as a survival strategy in response to restrictive institutional environments, the authors contend that entrepreneurs frequently implement intentional measures
to circumvent sanctions and maintain enforcement vulnerabilities. They discover that entrepreneurs perceive rule-breaking as a means of outsmarting the regulatory system and act, both individually and collectively, to discourage authorities from sanctioning rule-breaking behavior, based on qualitative data from 39 semi-structured interviews with small business entrepreneurs in Ethiopia. The entrepreneurs contend that regulations are unclear, excessively complex, and inconsistently applied across jurisdictions, which provides a conducive environment for opportunistic behavior. In conjunction with societal skepticism toward entrepreneurship and a cultural tolerance for unethical practices, this ambiguity fosters an unscrupulous mindset among entrepreneurs. Success is frequently pursued at any expense, and rule-breaking is depicted as entrepreneurial acumen rather than deviance.

The study identified four interrelated strategies entrepreneurs use to discourage enforcement of regulations: mobilizing social support by positioning non-compliance as justified; exaggerating credentials to secure contracts while deterring scrutiny; engaging in organized disobedience through business networks; and exploiting “role model” status to gain exemptions and shield themselves from scrutiny. These strategies collectively undermine regulatory frameworks and create a culture of impunity.

These behaviors are not isolated incidents; instead, they are part of a more extensive pattern that erodes the regulatory framework and perpetuates a culture of impunity. Local officials, who are accountable to higher government entities for the development of entrepreneurship and are embedded within the community, are frequently hesitant to enforce sanctions against role-model entrepreneurs or firms that contribute to local employment. This discretion creates a feedback cycle in which regulatory leniency motivates additional rule-breaking.

The research makes several theoretical contributions to understanding rule-breaking behavior in entrepreneurship. First, it illustrates how entrepreneurs proactively perpetuate enforcement vulnerability to secure competitive advantage, thereby challenging the survivalist framing of rule-breaking. Second, it repositions detrimental entrepreneurship as a systemic issue that encompasses collective, institutional, and societal dynamics in addition to individual morality. Third, the study contributes to a

geographically grounded comprehension of regulatory governance and entrepreneurial agency by contextualizing its findings in the African context, which is frequently underrepresented in conventional management research.

### 3.3 Loan diversion

Third, the paper, “The social benefit of being destructive: Entrepreneurship and loan diversion” by Disteфano (2025), examines the phenomenon of the improper reallocation of business loans towards informal or illegal activities. While participation in the informal sector has mainly been analyzed in terms of tax evasion through under-reporting income, this paper focuses on the cost of credit, which is a key determinant of the decision to become an entrepreneur. Loan diversion not only undermines market transparency and integrity, but also generates distortions in the financial system, increasing the risk of default for credit institutions. The lack of low-cost financing and information asymmetries may exacerbate the moral hazard incentive to divert business funds toward other uses. This is particularly true for small businesses, where informational opacity and weak law enforcement further amplify such risks.

The research contributes to understanding the dark side of entrepreneurship by analyzing entrepreneurs’ decisions about loan allocation for unintended purposes; introducing a model that allows simultaneous investments in both formal and informal sectors; and examining how loan diversion affects non-diverting entrepreneurs. The analysis shows that the investment choice is endogenously determined by the monopoly cost of credit, which erodes entrepreneurial rent and makes formal projects relatively less profitable. The model’s main prediction suggests that high interest rates push entrepreneurs toward the informal economy, while lower interest rates may attract them to the formal sector. A counterintuitive result of the analysis is that an increase in the proportion of potentially destructive entrepreneurs leads to a reduction in interest rates, benefiting all entrepreneurs. This is because the presence of potential diverters induces the monopoly bank to charge lower interest rates to mitigate the risk of massive default, allowing even productive entrepreneurs to retain a greater share of their entrepreneurial rent. From a policy perspective, when the equilibrium is inefficient, a regulatory
intervention, such as imposing an interest rate cap, can improve social welfare. However, the cost and effectiveness of such policies depend on whether the proceeds from informal activities are included in the social welfare function. If the informal project is significantly productive, the socially optimal fraction of loan diversion can be positive, making regulatory interventions ineffective.

The paper counters assumptions by exploring the possibility that informal and potentially destructive activities can be more productive than formal projects. Examples include illegal activities with returns exceeding those of legal ventures, or informal activities that play a role in job creation, poverty alleviation, and economic resilience. This perspective captures the dual nature of informal activities: while they deviate from the legal framework and may undermine the productivity of formal projects, their short-term contribution to social welfare can, in some circumstances, be positive. This research demonstrates that contingent factors surrounding the cost of credit and the actions of a network of players have implications for means versus ends assessments of light and dark, whereby informal (dark) activities can yield positive (light) outcomes, under certain conditions.

### 3.4 Legitimacy and strategic ambiguity

Fourth, the article, "Legitimising Destructive Entrepreneurship: The Case of a Crypto-Entrepreneur" by Bureau, Gerges-Yammine, Battaglia, and Zhou (2025), investigates entrepreneurial legitimacy-building strategies. Traditionally, legitimacy-building efforts are seen as positive mechanisms for overcoming liability of newness (e.g., Spivack et al., 2025). While there is considerable understanding of the strategies legally compliant businesses use to gain legitimacy, such as storytelling, business plan development, coupling and decoupling strategies, or impression management (e.g., Spivack et al., 2025; Zott & Huy, 2007), we know less about how entrepreneurs leverage legitimacy to engage in destructive practices—those that inflict more harm than benefit to society (Shepherd et al., 2024).

The research examines the high-profile case of Sam Bankman-Fried, a crypto entrepreneur who, in just a few years, rose from being relatively unknown to amassing a net worth exceeding $22 billion, only to face conviction for fraud and a 25-year prison

sentence in 2024. Using a historical case study approach, the authors analyze how Bankman-Fried used strategic ambiguity, defined as the deliberate use of vague, contradictory, or misleading narratives (Abdallah & Langley, 2014; Eisenberg, 1984), to simultaneously build legitimacy and obscure fraudulent financial practices. The research found that Bankman-Fried strategically employed three types of ambiguity—image, mission, and ideology—to build legitimacy while concealing fraudulent activities. This strategic ambiguity allowed him to maintain public confidence even as financial misconduct became increasingly evident. This case demonstrates how the entrepreneurial context, including media, investors, and regulatory bodies, can either enable or constrain such ambiguous narratives, highlighting the complex interplay between individual behavior and systemic factors in entrepreneurial fraud.

The study makes several contributions to research on destructive entrepreneurship, legitimacy, and strategic ambiguity by demonstrating how fraudulent entrepreneurs can sustain deception through ambiguous narratives. Furthermore, the case sheds light on the contingencies and contextual influences that enable or constrain ambiguity and whether it can be effectively used to obscure awareness of the fraudulent activities of entrepreneurs.

### 3.5 Social entrepreneurship stakeholders and risks

Fifth, the paper, "The Dark Side of Doing Good: A Guiding Framework for Advancing Research on the Negative Outcomes of Social Entrepreneurship" by Bacq, Janssen, Sabbatucci, and Wuillaume (2025), challenges extant work by attending to the adverse outcomes associated with social entrepreneurship (SE). SE has been predominantly viewed as a positive force in society, leading researchers to focus on the beneficial aspects and to neglect the adverse consequences of SE. In this article, Bacq, Janssen, Sabbatucci, and Wuillaume introduce a prescriptive dual-lens framework to systematically examine and categorize adverse outcomes of SE. This framework offers a foundational structure that encourages future empirical inquiries to move beyond anecdotal evidence and case-specific scenarios, ultimately fostering a more comprehensive academic discourse around the darker aspects of social entrepreneurship.
The proposed dual-lens framework evaluates two intersecting dimensions: “who is affected” and “what capital is put at risk” to categorize the adverse effects of SE. The “who” dimension recognizes diverse stakeholders affected by social initiatives, including entrepreneurs, beneficiaries, employees, resource providers, local communities, and society at large. The “what” dimension classifies potential losses into three forms of capital: material, immaterial, and health-related. By mapping the adverse effects at the intersection of these two dimensions, the framework facilitates the understanding of complex, interrelated types of harm that can arise from SE initiatives. As a result, Bacq, Janssen, Sabbatucci, and Wuillaume’s framework provides scholars and practitioners with a theoretically grounded, practically helpful tool to recognize and study SE’s dark side and enables a more balanced perspective in SE research and practice. As we better understand both positive impact and potential risks, we can avoid promoting unsuitable models and underplaying harm. By addressing its dark and light sides, SE can maintain its credibility as a promising and powerful approach to addressing complex social issues.

Collectively, these papers illustrate the “entrepreneurial fulcrum” at work across different contexts. Aparicio, Martinez-Moya, Muñoz-Moya, and Urbano (2025) and Biru and Arenius (2025) demonstrate how the institutional environment creates conditions that can tip entrepreneurial activities toward destruction or productivity. Distefano (2025) reveals how individual strategic choices, when aggregated, produce system-level effects that challenge simple categorizations of “dark” behaviors. Bureau, Gerges-Yammine, Battaglia, and Zhou (2025) highlight how strategic ambiguity serves as a mechanism that can obscure the transition from light to dark entrepreneurship. Finally, Bacq, Janssen, Sabbatucci, and Wuillaume (2025) provide a framework for understanding how even enterprises with explicitly prosocial missions can produce negative outcomes. Together, these studies reveal entrepreneurship as inherently neither light nor dark, but rather existing in a dynamic equilibrium that can shift based on contingent factors.

## 4 Conclusion

Having examined how entrepreneurship exists in a dynamic balance between light and dark manifestations,

this special issue points toward several promising research directions. First, future studies should further investigate the tipping points where entrepreneurship shifts from light to dark (or vice versa), identifying early warning signals and intervention opportunities. Second, researchers should explore remediation pathways for bringing dark entrepreneurship back into the light, examining both individual-level rehabilitation and system-level reforms. Third, work is needed to develop more nuanced metrics that capture the full spectrum of entrepreneurial outcomes across multiple stakeholder groups, moving beyond binary classifications. Finally, cross-cultural and comparative studies could illuminate how different institutional and cultural contexts influence the manifestation of entrepreneurship’s dark sides.

Together, the studies presented here shine the spotlight on contingencies and tipping points where entrepreneurship can shift from light to dark or dark to light. We present the following collection in hopes that we can prompt future studies to advance these more systemic and dynamic considerations of how the dark sides of entrepreneurship unfold, how they could be avoided, and how the dark can be remediated and brought back into the light. Moreover, we hope this special issue fuels debate over the shades of gray between light and dark and the net positive or net negative effects for different stakeholders. Perhaps entrepreneurship reflects humanity and is therefore similarly constituted of light and dark side potentials that emerge or are suppressed by values, intentionality, stewardship, and the environmental contexts in which we are embedded.

**Funding** Open Access funding provided by Hanken School of Economics.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
## References

Abdallah, C., & Langley, A. (2014). The double edge of ambiguity in strategic planning. *Journal of Management Studies*, 51(2), 235-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12002

Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. *Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice*, 30(5), 595-621.

Ahl, H., & Marlow, S. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate to escape a dead end? *Organization*, 19(5), 543-562.

Alonso-Martínez, D., De Marchi, V., & Di Maria, E. (2020). Which country characteristics support corporate social performance? *Sustainable Development*, 28(4), 670-684.

Anand, A., Rottig, D., Parameswar, N., & Zwerg-Villegas, A. M. (2023). Diving deep into the dark side: A review and examination of research on organizational misconduct in emerging markets. *Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility*. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12514

Anderson, A. R., & Smith, R. (2007). The moral space in entrepreneurship: An exploration of ethical imperatives and the moral legitimacy of being enterprising. *Entrepreneurship and Regional Development*, 19(6), 479-497.

Anokhin, S., & Schulze, W. S. (2009). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. *Journal of Business Venturing*, 24, 465-476.

Antony, J., Klarl, T., & Lehmann, E. E. (2017). Productive and harmful entrepreneurship in a knowledge economy. *Small Business Economics*, 49(1), 189-202.

Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., & Cherkas, N. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: The role of institutions. *PloS one*, 16(3), e0247609.

Bacq, S., Janssen, F., Sabbatucci, A.-S., & Wuillaume, A. (2025). The dark side of doing good: A guiding framework for advancing research on the negative outcomes of social. *Small Business Economics*.

Bakker, R. M., & McMullen, J. S. (2023). Inclusive entrepreneurship: A call for a shared theoretical conversation about unconventional entrepreneurs. *Journal of Business Venturing*, 38(1), 106268.

Bandera, C., Santos, S. C., & Liguori, E. W. (2021). The dark side of entrepreneurship education: A Delphi study on dangers and unintended consequences. *Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy*, 4(4), 609-636.

Baucus, M. S., & Mitteness, C. R. (2016). Crowdfrauding: Avoiding Ponzi entrepreneurs when investing in new ventures. *Business Horizons*, 59(1), 37-50.

Baumol, W. T. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. *The Journal of Political Economy*, 98(5), 893-921.

Beaver, G., & Jennings, P. (2005). Competitive advantage and entrepreneurial power: The dark side of entrepreneurship. *Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development*, 12(1), 9-23.

Bergman, B. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2022). Helping entrepreneurs help themselves: A review and relational research agenda on entrepreneurial support organizations. *Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice*, 46(3), 688-728.

Bischoff, K. M., Gielnik, M. M., & Frese, M. (2020). When capital does not matter: How entrepreneurship training buffers the negative effect of capital constraints on business creation. *Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal*, 14(3), 369-395.

Bjerregaard, T., & Lauring, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship as institutional change: Strategies of bridging institutional contradictions. *European Management Review*, 9(1), 31-43.

Boettke, P. J., & Piano, E. (2016). Baumol's productive and unproductive entrepreneurship after 25 years. *Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy*, 5(2), 130-144.

Bögenhold, D. (2019). From hybrid entrepreneurs to entrepreneurial billionaires: Observations on the socioeconomic heterogeneity of self-employment. *American Behavioral Scientist*, 63(2), 129-146.

Bögenhold, D. (2020). Self-employment and entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive or destructive?. Örtenblad (ed.). *Against entrepreneurship: A critical examination*, 19-35.

Box, M., Gratzer, K., & Lin, X. (2020). Destructive entrepreneurship in the small business sector: Bankruptcy fraud in Sweden, 1830-2010. *Small Business Economics*, 54(2), 437-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0043-3

Butticè, V., & Rovelli, P. (2020). “Fund me, I am fabulous!” Do narcissistic entrepreneurs succeed or fail in crowdfunding? *Personality and Individual Differences*, 162, 110037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110037

Calás, M. B., Smircich, L., & Bourne, K. A. (2009). Extending the boundaries: Reframing “entrepreneurship as social change” through feminist perspectives. *Academy of Management Review*, 34(3), 552-569.

Castells, M. (2009). *Rise of the network society, with a new preface: The information age: Economy, society, and culture* (Vol. I). Blackwell.

Chase, S. R., Shepherd, D. A., & Souitaris, V. (2025). The underbelly of entrepreneurship: A multilevel perspective of destructive entrepreneurship. *Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice*. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587251322403

Clark, D. R., & Skousen, B. R. (2023). Whistleblowing in entrepreneurial ventures. *Journal of Business Venturing Insights*, 19, e00369.

De Sordi, J. O., dos Santos, A. R., de Azevedo, M. C., Jorge, C. F. B., & Hashimoto, M. (2022). Dark, down, and destructive side of entrepreneurship: Unveiling negative aspects of unsuccessful entrepreneurial action. *The International Journal of Management Education*, 20(3), 100659.

Dempster, G., & Isaacs, J. (2017). Entrepreneurship, corruption and economic freedom. *Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy*, 6(2), 181-192.

Desai, S. (2016). Destructive entrepreneurship and the security context: Program design considerations for disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) and counterinsurgency. *Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy*, 5(2), 240-250.

Desai, S., & Acs, Z. J. (2007). A theory of destructive entrepreneurship. *SSRN Electronic Journal*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1029648

Desai, S., Acs, Z., & Weitzel, U. (2013). A model of destructive entrepreneurship: Insight for conflict and post-conflict recovery. *Journal of Conflict Resolution*, 57(1), 20-40.
Desai, S., Naudé, W., & Stel, N. (2021). Refugee entrepreneurship: Context and directions for future research. *Small Business Economics*, 56(3), 933-945.

Dutta, N., & Sobel, R. (2016). Does corruption ever help entrepreneurship? *Small Business Economics*, 47(1), 179-199.

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. *Communication Monographs*, 51(3), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390197

Ferreira, A. I., Braun, T., Carvalho, H., Abrantes, A. C., & Sydow, J. (2022). Networking to death: On the dark side of start-ups' external networking. *International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research*, 28(9), 289-310.

Fleck, D. (2020). "Against irresponsible entrepreneurship: A dual perspective on the impact of entrepreneurship on firm survival", in A. Örtenblad (Ed.), *Against Entrepreneurship: A Critical Examination*, Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Friman, H. R. (2001). Informal economies, immigrant entrepreneurship and drug crime in Japan. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies*, 27(2), 313-333.

García, R., Dodd, S., Wettermark, A., Schwartz, B. M., Berglund, K., Lindbergh, J., ... & Atkins, R. (2025). How should we study heterogeneity in entrepreneurship?: Moving the field to an inclusive approach. *Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice*.

Gerpott, F. H., & Kieser, A. (2020). The fairytale of the successful entrepreneur: Reasons and remedies for the prevalent ideology of entrepreneurship. In A. Örtenblad (Ed.), *Against entrepreneurship* (pp. 133-151). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47937-4_8

Goss, D., Jones, R., Betta, M., & Latham, J. (2011). Power as practice: A micro-sociological analysis of the dynamics of emancipatory entrepreneurship. *Organization Studies*, 32(2), 211-229.

Gottschalk, P. (2019). Convenience in criminal entrepreneurship: The case of a Norwegian Hashish Baron. *Deviant Behavior*, 40(3), 326-333.

Haans, R. F., & van den Oever, K. (2021). Foreign entrepreneurs engage in less misconduct than native entrepreneurs: Evidence from UK director disqualifications. *Journal of Business Venturing Insights*, 16, e00281.

Hainz, C. (2018). Fraudulent behavior by entrepreneurs and borrowers. In *The economics of crowdfunding* (pp. 79-99). Springer.

Hmielecki, K. M., & Lerner, D. A. (2016). The dark triad and nascent entrepreneurship: An examination of unproductive versus productive entrepreneurial motives. *Journal of Small Business Management*, 54(S1), 7-32.

Ho, J. (2021). Purposeful life or sugar-coated lies: How Elizabeth Holmes legitimised her fraud. *Language and Communication*, 77, 106-120.

Holmes, T. J., & Schmitz, J. A., Jr. (2001). A gain from trade: From unproductive to productive entrepreneurship. *Journal of Monetary Economics*, 47(2), 417-446.

Jakobsen, O., & Storsletten, V. M. L. (2020). From Entrepreneurship to Eco-preneurship. In A Örtenblad (Ed.), *Against entrepreneurship* (pp. 153-165). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47937-4_9

Kets de Vries, M. F. (1985). *The dark side of entrepreneurship*. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1977). The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the crossroads. *Journal of Management Studies*, 14(11), 34-57.

Luca, M., & Zervas, G. (2016). Fake it till you make it: Reputation, competition, and Yelp review fraud. *Management Science*, 62(12), 3412-3427.

Lundmark, E., & Westelius, A., (2019). Antisocial entrepreneurship: Conceptual foundations and a research agenda. *Journal of Business Venturing Insights*, 11, e00104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2018.e00104

Matos, S., & Hall, J. (2020). An exploratory study of entrepreneurs in impoverished communities: When institutional factors and individual characteristics result in non-productive entrepreneurship. *Entrepreneurship and Regional Development*, 32(1-2), 134-155.

Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of propositive social action. *American Sociological Review*, 1(6), 894-904.

Miller, D. (2014). A downside to the entrepreneurial personality. *Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice*, 39, 1-8.

Minniti, M. (2016). The foundational contribution to entrepreneurship research of William. *J. Baumol. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal*, 10(2), 214-228.

Muldoon, J., Bauman, A., & Lucy, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystem: Do you trust or distrust? *Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy*, 12(2), 158-177.

North, D. C. (1990). *Institutions, institutional change and economic performance*. Cambridge University Press.

North, D. C. (2005). *Understanding the process of economic change*. Princeton University Press.

Olaison, L., & Sørensen, B. M. (2014). The abject of entrepreneurship: Failure, fiasco, fraud. *International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research*, 20(2), 193-211.

Örtenblad, A. (2020a). Background and introduction: How could anyone be against entrepreneurship? In A. Örtenblad (Ed.), *Against Entrepreneurship: A Critical Examination* (pp. 1-18). Palgrave Macmillan.

Örtenblad, A. R. (Ed.). (2020b). *Against entrepreneurship: A critical examination*. Palgrave Macmillan.

Osborne, R. L. (1991). The dark side of the entrepreneur. *Long Range Planning*, 24(3), 26-31.

Palmer, D., & Weiss, T. (2022). The unique vulnerabilities of entrepreneurial ventures to misconduct. In *Entrepreneurialism and Society: New Theoretical Perspectives* (Vol. 81, pp. 129-159). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Qin, X., Shepherd, D. A., Lin, D., Xie, S., Liang, X., & Lin, S. (2022). The dark side of entrepreneurs' creativity: Investigating how and when entrepreneurs' creativity increases the favorability of potential opportunities that harm nature. *Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice*, 46(4), 857-883.

Sawy, A., & Bögenhold, D. (2022). Dark, darker, social media: Dark side experiences, identity protection, and preventive strategies of micro-entrepreneurs on social media. *Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship*. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-02-2022-0017

Scheaf, D. J., & Wood, M. S. (2022). Entrepreneurial fraud: A multidisciplinary review and synthesized framework. *Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice*, 46(3), 607-642.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. *Academy of Management Review*, *25*(1), 217–226.

Shepherd, D. (2015). Party on! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. *Journal of Business Venturing*, *30*(4), 489–507.

Shepherd, D. (2019). Researching the dark side, downside, and destructive side of entrepreneurial action: It's the compassionate thing to do. *Academy of Management Discoveries*, *5*(3), 217–220. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0194

Shepherd, D. A., Seyb, S., & Souitaris, V. (2024). On the edge of destruction: An impaired-regulation model of destructive entrepreneurial action. *Journal of Management*, *50*(2), 722–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221126710

Shepherd, D. A., Wennberg, K., Suddaby, R., & Wiklund, J. (2019). What are we explaining? A review and agenda on initiating, engaging, performing, and contextualizing entrepreneurship. *Journal of Management*, *45*(1), 159–196.

Somerville, P., Smith, R., & McElwee, G. (2015). The dark side of the rural idyll: Stories of illegal/illicit economic activity in the UK countryside. *Journal of Rural Studies*, *39*, 219–228.

Spivack, A. J., & McKelvie, A. (2018). Entrepreneurship addiction: Shedding light on the manifestation of the “dark side” in work-behavior patterns. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, *32*(3), 358–378.

Spivack, A. J., Lahti, T., Burström, T., & Wincent, J. (2025). Legitimacy perceptions amid institutional pluralism: How hype over decoupled practices influences entrepreneurial ventures. *Journal of Business Venturing*, *40*(4), 106505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2025.106505

Talmage, C. A., Bell, J., & Dragomir, G. (2019). Searching for a theory of dark social entrepreneurship. *Social Enterprise Journal*, *15*(1), 131–155.

Theoharakis, V., Voliotis, S., & Pollack, J. M. (2021). Going down the slippery slope of legitimacy lies in early-stage ventures: The role of moral disengagement. *Journal of Business Ethics*, *172*(4), 673–690.

Verduijn, K., & Essers, C. (2013). Questioning dominant entrepreneurship assumptions: The case of female ethnic minority entrepreneurs. *Entrepreneurship & Regional Development*, *25*(7/8), 612–630.

Williams, D., & K'nife, K. (2012). The dark side of social entrepreneurship. *International Journal of Entrepreneurship*, *16*, 63–75.

Wood, M. S., Scheaf, D. J., & Dwyer, S. M. (2022). Fake it 'til you make it: Hazards of a cultural norm in entrepreneurship. *Business Horizons*, *65*(5), 681–696.

Yu, M.-C., Wang, G. G., Zheng, X.-T., & Shi, W.-J. (2020). Entrepreneur narcissism and unethical pro-organizational behaviour: An examination of mediated-moderation model. *Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja*, *33*(1), 501–520.

Ziemianski, P., & Golik, J. (2020). Including the dark side of entrepreneurship in the entrepreneurship education. *Education Sciences*, *10*(8), 1–26.

Zott, C., & Huy, Q. (2007). Symbolic emphasizing: How entrepreneurs use symbolism to acquire resources. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, *52*(1), 70–105.

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.