Vulnerable Populations and Individual Social Responsibility in Prosocial Crowdfunding: Does the Framing Matter for Female and Rural Entrepreneurs?

被引:0
作者
Maria Figueroa-Armijos
John P. Berns
机构
[1] EDHEC Business School,School of Business Administration
[2] University of Mississippi,undefined
来源
Journal of Business Ethics | 2022年 / 177卷
关键词
Prosocial crowdfunding; Social responsibility; Framing theory; Vulnerable entrepreneur; Female entrepreneur; Rural entrepreneur;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Prosocial crowdfunding was originally conceived as a financial mechanism to assist vulnerable unbanked populations, typically excluded from formal financial markets. It subsequently grew into a billion-dollar scheme (Kiva 2020a, https://www.kiva.org/blog/1-billion-in-life-changing-loans) in the multi-billion-dollar crowdfunding industry. However, recent evidence claims prosocial crowdfunding may be shifting away from its goal to support the poor and underserved. Drawing on a composite social responsibility and framing theory framework, we examine the role that vulnerability plays in successfully raising funds in a prosocial crowdfunding context. We conduct multilevel logistic regressions on a sample of microloans allocated to 105,727 ventures in 64 countries. Our results indicate that applying for funds through a field partner which caters to vulnerable populations may in fact have a negative effect on the entrepreneur’s request to be fully funded. Notwithstanding, framing the entrepreneur as being female or rural as key characteristics of individual vulnerability increases the project’s likelihood to be fully funded. This conflict offers noteworthy theoretical and practical implications for ethics in prosocial crowdfunding, an understudied field of research.
引用
收藏
页码:377 / 394
页数:17
相关论文
共 249 条
[1]  
Aernoudt R(1999)Business angels: Should they fly on their own wings? Venture Capital 1 187-195
[2]  
Agrawal A(2014)Some simple economics of crowdfunding Innovation Policy and the Economy 14 63-97
[3]  
Catalini C(2015)Signaling in equity crowdfunding Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39 955-980
[4]  
Goldfarb A(2013)The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending investment: An examination of the warm–glow effect Journal of Business Venturing 28 690-707
[5]  
Ahlers GK(2015)Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39 53-73
[6]  
Cumming D(2005)Cooperation in microcredit borrowing groups: Identity, sanctions, and reciprocity in the production of collective goods American Sociological Review 70 496-515
[7]  
Gunther C(2017)Beyond the opposition between altruism and self-interest: Reciprocal giving in reward-based crowdfunding Journal of Business Ethics 146 313-332
[8]  
Schweizer D(2018)The power of positivity? The influence of positive psychological capital language on crowdfunding performance Journal of Business Venturing 33 470-492
[9]  
Allison TH(2020)Third-party signals in crowdfunded microfinance: The role of microfinance institutions Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 44 623-644
[10]  
McKenny AF(2016)The present and future of crowdfunding California Management Review 58 125-135