Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Categories of badges include antipoverty focus, vulnerable group focus, family and community empowerment, client voice, innovation, entrepreneurial support, facilitation of savings.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., & Kallas, K. (2008). State of literature on small-to-medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship in low-income communities. In G. Yago, J. R. Barth, & B. Zeidman (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and emerging domestic markets (pp. 21–45). New York: Springer and Milken.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aernoudt, R. (1999). Business angels: Should they fly on their own wings? Venture Capital, 1(2), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2014). Some simple economics of crowdfunding. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 14(1), 63–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlers, G. K., Cumming, D., Gunther, C., & Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending investment: An examination of the warm–glow effect. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 690–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Short, J. C., & Webb, J. W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, D. (2005). Cooperation in microcredit borrowing groups: Identity, sanctions, and reciprocity in the production of collective goods. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 496–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • André, K., Bureau, S., Gautier, A., & Rubel, O. (2017). Beyond the opposition between altruism and self-interest: Reciprocal giving in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(2), 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anglin, A. H., Short, J. C., Drover, W., Stevenson, R. M., McKenny, A. F., & Allison, T. H. (2018). The power of positivity? The influence of positive psychological capital language on crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(4), 470–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anglin, A. H., Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Allison, T. H., & McKenny, A. F. (2020). Third-party signals in crowdfunded microfinance: The role of microfinance institutions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(4), 623–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assenova, V., Best, J., Cagney, M., Ellenoff, D., Karas, K., Moon, J., et al. (2016). The present and future of crowdfunding. California Management Review, 58(2), 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder-company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial crowdfunding organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baty, G., & Sommer, B. (2002). True then, true now: A 40-year perspective on the early stage investment market. Venture Capital, 4(4), 289–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behr, P., Entzian, A., & Güttler, A. (2011). How do lending relationships affect access to credit and loan conditions in microlending? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(8), 2169–2178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berns, J. P., Figueroa-Armijos, M., da Motta Veiga, S. P., & Dunne, T. (2020). Dynamics of lending-based prosocial crowdfunding: Using a social responsibility lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(1), 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollinger, B., & Yao, S. (2018). Risk transfer versus cost reduction on two-sided microfinance platforms. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 16(3), 251–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breedon, T. (2012). Boosting finance options for business. London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2015). New financial alternatives in seeding entrepreneurship: Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 39(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, R., & Pande, R. (2005). Do rural banks matter? Evidence from the Indian social banking experiment. American Economic Review, 95(3), 780–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (1984). Attitudes toward history. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2014). Cultural differences and geography as determinants of online prosocial lending. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 38(3), 773–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calic, G., & Mosakowski, E. (2016). Kicking off social entrepreneurship: How a sustainability orientation influences crowdfunding success. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 738–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CGAP. (2004). Financial institutions with a double bottom line: Implications for the future of crowdfunding. Occasional Paper. Washington, DC: Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury, A. (2009). Crowdfunding as a poverty reduction tool—a critical assessment. United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) (Working Paper, 89).

  • Colombo, M. G., Franzoni, C., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). Internal social capital and the attraction of early contributions in crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheston, S., & Kuhn, L. (2002). Empowering women through microfinance. New York: UNIFEM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosetto, P., & Regner, T. (2014). Crowdfunding: Determinants of success and funding dynamics (No. 2014-035). Jena Economic Research Papers.

  • Crowdsourcing.org. (2014). 2014 economic value of crowdfunding. Retrieved from September 1, 2020. http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/crowdfunding-outlook-for-2014-and-beyond-infographic/30520.

  • Dabson, B. (2001). Supporting rural entrepreneurship. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Proceedings, 27, 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L. (1966). Business and its environment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Webb, J. W., & Coombs, J. E. (2017). Funders’ positive affective reactions to entrepreneurs’ crowdfunding pitches: The influence of perceived product creativity and entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 90–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defazio, D., Franzoni, C., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2020). How pro-social framing affects the success of crowdfunding projects: The role of emphasis and information crowdedness. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04428-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Garcia, C., Brush, C. G., Gatewood, E. J., & Welter, F. (2016). Women entrepreneurship in global and local contexts. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dichter, T. (1999). Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in crowdfunding: Past, present and future. Retrieved from September 1, 2020 http://www.esd.worldbank.org/html/esd/agr/sbp/end/ngo.htm.

  • Dichter, T. W., & Harper, M. (2007). What’s wrong with microfinance? Rugby: Practical Action Pub.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dorfleitner, G., Priberny, C., Schuster, S., Stoiber, J., Weber, M., de Castro, I., & Kammler, J. (2016). Description-text related soft information in peer-to-peer lending: Evidence from two leading European platforms. Journal of Banking & Finance, 64, 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorfleitner, G., Oswald, E. M., & Zhang, R. (2019). From credit risk to social impact: On the funding determinants in interest-free peer-to-peer lending. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04311-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drover, W., Wood, M. S., & Fassin, Y. (2014). Take the money or run? Investors’ ethical reputation and entrepreneurs’ willingness to partner. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, J., Siegel, S., & Young, L. (2012). Trust and credit: The role of appearance in peer-to-peer lending. The Review of Financial Studies, 25(8), 2455–2484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dushnitsky, G., & Fitza, M. A. (2018). Are we missing the platforms for the crowd? Comparing investment drivers across multiple crowdfunding platforms. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 10, e00100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J., & Yuthas, K. (2010). Mission impossible: Diffusion and drift in the crowdfunding industry. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 1, 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. J., & Yuthas, K. (2011). Protecting and regaining clarity of mission in the crowdfunding industry. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 2(2), 322–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin, Y., & Drover, W. (2017). Ethics in entrepreneurial finance: Exploring problems in venture partner entry and exit. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(4), 649–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (2003). Theories of fairness and reciprocity–evidence and economic applications. In M. Dewatripont, L. P. Hansen, & S. J. Turnovsky (Eds.), Advances in economics and econometrics, 8th world congress, econometric society monographs (pp. 208–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa-Armijos, M. (2019). Does public entrepreneurial financing contribute to territorial servitization in manufacturing and KIBS in the US? Regional Studies, 53(3), 341–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa-Armijos, M., & Johnson, T. G. (2013). Entrepreneurship in rural America across typologies, gender, and motivation. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 1350014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa-Armijos, M., Dabson, B., & Johnson, T. G. (2012). Rural entrepreneurship in a time of recession. Entrepreneurship Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.2202/2157-5665.1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P. C., & Hirsch, P. M. (2005). The discourse of globalization: Framing a and sensemaking of an emerging concept. American Sociological Review, 70(2), 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54(1), 65–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13, 32–33.

  • Gaiha, R., & Thapa, G. (2006). A methodology for assessment of the impact of microfinance on empowerment and vulnerability. Working paper. International Fund for Agricultural Development.

  • Galak, J., Small, D., & Stephen, A. T. (2011). Crowdfunding decision making: A field study of prosocial lending. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(SPL), 130–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E. M., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, S., & Weber, K. (2015). Marks of distinction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 333–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giudici, G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). Why crowdfunding projects can succeed: The role of proponents’ individual and territorial social capital. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2255944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, C. H., Long, B. F., Babb, E. M., Beaulieu, L. J., Moseley, A., Mulkey, D., & Zimet, D. J. (1989). Rural entrepreneurship: One key to rural revitalization. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(5), 1305–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Mollick, E. R. (2015). Leaning in or leaning on? Gender, homophily, and activism in crowdfunding. In Academy of Management Proceedings.

  • Hangl, C. (2014). A literature review about the landscape of social finance. Journal of Finance and Risk Perspectives, 3(4), 64–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, L. R., & Badding, K. D. (2012). For compassion or money? The factors influencing the funding of micro loans. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 41(6), 831–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermes, N., Lensink, R., & Meesters, A. (2011). Outreach and efficiency of crowdfunding institutions. World Development, 39, 938–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertog, J. K., & McLeod, D. M. (2001). A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A field guide. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives of media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 139–161). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzenstein, M., Sonenshein, S., & Dholakia, U. M. (2011). Tell me a good story and I may lend you money: The role of narratives in peer-to-peer lending decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(SPL), 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, T., Puri, M., & Rocholl, J. (2016). Adverse incentives in crowdfunding. Management Science, 63(3), 587–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. P., Ainscough, T., Shank, T., & Manullang, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investing: A global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), 165–174.

  • Hoetker, G. (2007). The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 331–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai, K. S., Arun, T., & Annim, S. K. (2010). Microfinance and household poverty reduction: New evidence from India. World Development, 38(12), 1760–1774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenq, C., Pan, J., & Theseira, W. (2015). Beauty, weight, and skin color in charitable giving. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 119, 234–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, Y., Rejesus, R. M., & Little, B. B. (2005). Binary choice models for rare events data: A crop insurance fraud application. Applied Economics, 37(7), 841–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. C. (2015). Reciprocity as a foundation of financial economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1), 43–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyner, B. E., Payne, D., & Raiborn, C. A. (2002). Building values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility into the developing organization. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 113–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, L. R., Poulos, B., & Sukhdial, A. (1988). Changes in social values in the United States during the past decade. Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabeer, N. (2001). Conflicts over credit: Re-evaluating the empowerment potential of loans to women in rural Bangladesh. World Development, 29(1), 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabeer, N. (2005). Is microfinance a ‘magic bullet’ for women’s empowerment? analysis of findings from South Asia. Economic and Political weekly, 40, 4709–4718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khandker, S. R. (2005). Microfinance and poverty: Evidence using panel data from Bangladesh. The World Bank Economic Review, 19(2), 263–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khavul, S. (2010). Microfinance: Creating opportunities for the poor? Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khavul, S., Bruton, G. D., & Wood, E. (2009). Informal family business in Africa. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(6), 1219–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khavul, S., Chavez, H., & Bruton, G. D. (2013). When institutional change outruns the change agent: The contested terrain of entrepreneurial microfinance for those in poverty. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 30–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., & Zeng, L. (1999a). Logistic regression in rare events data. Department of Government, Harvard University. Retrieved September 1, 2020 from https://gking.harvard.edu/.

  • King, G., & Zeng, L. (1999b). Estimating absolute, relative and attributable risks in case-control studies. Department of Government, Harvard University. Retrieved September 1, 2020, from https://gking.harvard.edu/.

  • Kiva. (2020a). $1 billion in life-changing loans. Retrieved September 15, 2020, from https://www.kiva.org/blog/1-billion-in-life-changing-loans.

  • Kiva. (2020b). About us—statistics. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.kiva.org/about.

  • Kiva. (2020c). Due diligence for field partner loans. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://www.kiva.org/about/due-diligence/field-partner-role.

  • Kulviwat, S., Guo, C. Q., & Engchanil, N. (2004). Determinants of online information search: A critical review and assessment. Internet Research-Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 14(3), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuppuswamy, V., & Bayus, B. L. (2017). Does my contribution to your crowdfunding project matter? Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, P., & Shariff, A. (2004). Rural non-farm employment in India: Access, incomes, and poverty impact. Economic and Political Weekly, 39, 4429–4446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledgerwood, J., Earne, J., & Nelson, C. (2013). The new microfinance handbook: A financial market system perspective. Singapore: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2012). Formal institutions, culture, and venture capital activity: A cross–country analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M., & Viswanathan, S. (2015). Home bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market. Management Science, 62(5), 1393–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low, S., Henderson, J., & Weiler, S. (2005). Gauging a region’s entrepreneurial potential. Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 90(3), 61.

  • Ly, P., & Mason, G. (2012). Competition between microfinance NGOs: Evidence from Kiva. World Development, 40(3), 643–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markley, D., Macke, D., & Luther, V. B. (2005). Strategies for energizing entrepreneurs. In D. Markley (Ed.), Energizing entrepreneurs: Charting a course for rural communities (pp. 107–132). Lincoln, NE: Heartland Center for Leadership Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin, L., & Ruiz, S. (2007). I need you too! corporate identity attractiveness for consumers and the role of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marom, D., Robb, A., & Sade, O. (2015). Gender dynamics in crowdfunding (Kickstarter): Evidence on entrepreneurs, investors, deals, and taste-based discrimination. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2442954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massolution. (2015). 2015CF Crowdfunding industry report. Retrieved May 2, 2020, from http://reports.crowdsourcing.org/index.php?route=product/product&path=20&product_id=54.

  • McKenny, A. F., Allison, T. H., Ketchen, D. J., Short, J. C., & Ireland, R. D. (2017). How should crowdfunding research evolve? A survey of the entrepreneurship theory and practice editorial board. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (1991). Hypertext in context (Vol. 6). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minniti, M., & Naude, W. (2010). What do we know about the patterns and determinants of female entrepreneurship across countries? European Journal of Development Research, 22(3), 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollick, E., & Nanda, R. (2015). Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Management Science, 62(2), 1533–1553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollick, E., & Robb, A. (2016). Democratizing innovation and capital access: The role of crowdfunding. California Management Review, 58(2), 72–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, T. W., Renko, M., Block, E., & Meyskens, M. (2018). Funding the story of hybrid ventures: Crowdfunder lending preferences and linguistic hybridity. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumark, D., Wall, B., & Zhang, J. (2011). Do small businesses create more jobs? New evidence for the United States from the National Establishment Time Series. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, J. (2008). Investment with a conscience: Examining the impact of pro-social attitudes and perceived financial performance on socially responsible investment behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M., & Cuevas, J. (1982). The relationship of children’s prosocial behavior to social responsibility, prosocial reasoning, and personality. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 140(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odell, K. (2010). Measuring the impact of crowdfunding: Taking another look. Washington, DC: Grameen Foundation USA Publication Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parhankangas, A., & Renko, M. (2017). Linguistic style and crowdfunding success among social and commercial entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(2), 215–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, D., & Sydnor, J. (2011). What’s in a picture? Evidence of discrimination from prosper.com. Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), 53–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posegga, O., Zylka, M. P., & Fischbach, K. (2015). Collective dynamics of crowdfunding networks. In Paper presented at Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

  • Rhee, E. Y., & Fiss, P. C. (2014). Framing controversial actions: Regulatory focus, source credibility, and stock market reaction to poison pill adoption. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1734–1758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. S. (2001). The microfinance revolution. Sustainable finance for the poor. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, W., Choy, H. L., & Guiral, A. (2013). Do investors value a firm’s commitment to social activities? Journal of Business Ethics, 114(4), 607–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogaly, B. (1996). Micro-finance evangelism, “destitute women”, and the hard selling of a new anti-poverty formula. Development in Practice, 6(2), 100–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secchi, D. (2009). The cognitive side of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 565–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shahriar, A. Z. M., & Garg, M. (2017). Lender-entrepreneur relationships and credit risk: A global analysis of microfinance institutions. International Small Business Journal, 35(7), 829–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., McKenny, A. F., Allison, T. H., & Ireland, R. D. (2017). Research on crowdfunding: Reviewing the (very recent) past and celebrating the present. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simanowitz, A. (2011). Challenges to the field and solutions: Over-indebtedness, client drop-outs, unethical collection practices, exorbitant interest rates, mission drift, poor governance structures and more. In S. Daley-Harris & A. Awimbo (Eds.), New pathways out of poverty (pp. 53–120). Sterling: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, R. B., & Floro, M. (2012). Assessing the effect of microfinance on vulnerability and poverty among low income households. Journal of Development Studies, 48(5), 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain, R. B., & Wallentin, F. Y. (2009). Does microfinance empower women? Evidence from self-help groups in India. International Review of Applied Economics, 23(5), 541–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchouassi, G. (2011). Microfinance, inequality, and vulnerability: Empirical analysis from central African countries. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 3(3), 150–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2006). Building inclusive financial sectors for development. Washington: United Nations Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wingerden, R., & Ryan, J. (2011). Fighting for funds: An exploratory study into the field of crowdfunding. Extraction, 14(151), 1–82.

  • Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. E., & Testoni, M. (2014). Improving the role of equity crowdfunding in Europe’s capital markets. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2502280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2006). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2020). COVID response alliance for social entrepreneurs. Retrieved May 16, 2020, from https://www.weforum.org/reports/covid-social-entrepreneurs-alliance.

  • Yu, S., Johnson, S., Lai, C., Cricelli, A., & Fleming, L. (2017). Crowdfunding and regional entrepreneurial investment: An application of the CrowdBerkeley database. Research Policy, 46(10), 1723–1737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yunus, M. (2007). Banker to the poor: Micro-Lending and the battle against world poverty. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., & Salvendy, G. (2001). The implications of visualization ability and structure preview design for web information search tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(1), 75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, T., Reedy, E., Le, A., Zhang, B., Kroszner, R. S., & Garvey, K. (2017). The Americas alternative finance industry report 2017. Cambridge: Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance, the Cambridge Judge Business School.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EDHEC Business School, 24 Avenue Gustave Delory, 59057, Roubaix, France

    Maria Figueroa-Armijos

  2. School of Business Administration, University of Mississippi, 253 Holman, University, MS, 38677, USA

    John P. Berns

Authors
  1. Maria Figueroa-Armijos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John P. Berns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Figueroa-Armijos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Figueroa-Armijos, M., Berns, J.P. Vulnerable Populations and Individual Social Responsibility in Prosocial Crowdfunding: Does the Framing Matter for Female and Rural Entrepreneurs?. J Bus Ethics 177, 377–394 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04712-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04712-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation