Copyright 2021 by Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. For reprints, call HBS Publishing (800) 545-7685.

BH1152
Business Horizons (2022) 65, 21e31

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

t
ScienceDirect

os
w w w. j o u r n a l s . e l s e v i e r. c o m / b u s i n e s s - h o r i z o n s

Social entrepreneurship and digital

rP
platforms: Crowdfunding in the sharing-
economy era
Vallari Chandna

yo
Austin E. Cofrin School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Wood Hall 460,
2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, WI 54311-7001, U.S.A.

KEYWORDS Abstract Though crowdfunding is no longer an atypical fundraising mechanism, its

op
Crowdfunding; practical use remains limited, particularly when it comes to social entrepreneurship,
Value cocreation; owing to the numerous challenges unique to social-entrepreneurial ventures. By
Sharing economy; combining existing research on social entrepreneurship, value cocreation, the sharing
Digital platforms; economy, and digital platforms, this work offers practical insights into how existing
Social entrepreneurship platforms can be used for crowdfunding financial resources, sourcing creative ideas,
collaborating, and gathering an array of nonfinancial resources. Additionally, this
article discusses the ideal digital platform solution and explains how a multifaceted,
tC

multiuse digital platform can be created and utilized by new social ventures for
meeting a multitude of needs. By focusing on a mission of social change and by under-
standing how digital platforms can avail crowdfunding, social entrepreneurs can over-
come legitimacy issues and lack of traditional funding avenues. This taps into many of
the typical aspects of the sharing economy: the benevolence of the actors, use of the
internet for facilitation, and the motivation to engage in a new way of doing things.
Thus, this article adopts a multidisciplinary view in exploring how crowdfunding can
be coupled with the remobilization of idling resources using digital platforms to sup-
port social-entrepreneurial ventures in a myriad of ways.
No

ª 2021 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.

1. Social entrepreneurship: Unique great deal of research (Dwivedi & Weerawardena,

crowdfunding needs 2018). The interest in social entrepreneurship does
Do

not appear to be a mere passing fad but seems to

Though it is still in an early stage, social entre- transcend that (Martin & Osberg, 2007). Drawing
preneurship is a critical topic that is inviting a from their varied perspectives and research,
different researchers have offered varying defini-
E-mail address: [email protected]
tions of social entrepreneurship. For instance, it

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.09.005
0007-6813/ª 2021 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
22 V. Chandna

has been described both as a combination of social succeeded (Paschen, 2017). Crowdfunding has also
mission, innovation, and business (Dees, 2001) and in recent years become subsumed under the larger

t
as a response to a social need in the form of an umbrella of the sharing economy (Felländer et al.,

os
out-of-the-box solution (Martin & Osberg, 2007). In 2015). Sharing of funds and resources is becoming
this stage of social entrepreneurship, boundary an indelible part of our lives. The sharing economy
demarcations to help study it become imperative has been defined in multiple ways, but at the heart
(Dwivedi & Weerawardena, 2018). Most definitions of the definition is utilization of spare resources
do seem to focus on these four major factors: the (Bardhi & Eckhart, 2012; Roh, 2016); this can be
characteristics of the social entrepreneurs them- true for physical resources or for intangible ones,

rP
selves, their operative domain, the processes or which take the form of skills, talents, or time
resources used, and the mission of the social (Felländer et al., 2015). For instance, by con-
entrepreneur (Dacin et al., 2011). tracting with Uber, an automobile owner can share
The basic premise of social entrepreneurship is their car and their time to take other people or
the intent to create social value while using even food from point A to point B; through Airbnb,
market-based methods and tactics to make that a space or a home can be shared by a person with
value creation a reality (Miller et al., 2012). Social someone in need of the same; and on TaskRabbit,
entrepreneurship identifies an imbalance that individuals list their skills, such as assembling

yo
causes the exclusion or suffering of a group of furniture or organizing basements, and people who
persons, then recognizes an opportunity to restore need assistance then connect with these skilled
the balance in the social system by alleviating the individuals. While many social entrepreneurs are
suffering of those negatively impacted by the un- using digital platforms and the internet for
fair equilibrium; the ultimate aim is to improve the crowdfunding purposes, the potential for such
overall situation not just for the marginalized or digital platforms to also tap into nonfinancial re-
affected group but also for everyone in the social sources, such as time and skills, warrants further
system (Martin & Osberg, 2007). Essentially, social- research.
op
entrepreneurial ventures create social value or I propose that it is possible for social-
fulfill a mission; this is unlike the traditionally entrepreneurial ventures to leverage the growing
sought-after goals of financial gains or some sort of interest in and support of the sharing economy not
personal benefit. But while social entrepreneurs’ just to seek out funding but also to gather creative
chief mission may be social, the aim to create ideas, to collaborate, and even to avail themselves
social value does not preclude an economic focus, of an array of untapped resources and skills at
tC

which can still be a part of the social entrepre- their disposal. With the recent developments in
neurship and is in fact beneficial from a strategic digital platforms and the success of a multitude of
sustainability standpoint (Dacin et al., 2011). In platform-dependent ventures, social entrepre-
fact, even most traditional entrepreneurs seek neurs too can reap the benefits of digital platforms
more than mere profit or financial outcomes. Thus, in increasingly novel ways to help gather both
both social entrepreneurs and for-profit entrepre- financial and nonfinancial resources. Thus, the
neurs are motivated by their visions, the pursuit of research question I seek to answer is: How can
opportunities identified by them, and nonfinancial social entrepreneurs better utilize digital plat-
No

goals such as satisfaction or successful realization forms to crowdfund money, crowdsource re-
of their idea (Martin & Osberg, 2007). The sources, and cocreate value with users?
distinctive feature of social entrepreneurship
therefore lies in its primary mission or purpose of
social impact. 2. Challenges in social entrepreneurship
Within the last decade, the field of social
entrepreneurship has garnered a lot of attention The challenges faced by social entrepreneurs have
(Calic & Mosakowski, 2016). Social entrepreneurs tended to evolve over time. Some of the more
have recently been able to benefit greatly from persistent challenges include the issues with
Do

crowdfunding (Lehner, 2013). Online crowdfunding leadership that social-entrepreneurial ventures

basically allows social-entrepreneurial ventures to face, as leaders in these positions have to balance
seek out monetary contributions from a large both their social and business aspects with great
group of people, often anonymous donors, to fund skill and expertise (Smith et al., 2012). Addition-
the endeavors. It relies on a large volume of the ally, in most social-entrepreneurial settings, there
population essentially donating very small is a strong social component alongside the for-
amounts of money, thereby making possible an profit component, leading to competing institu-
idea or a venture that otherwise may not have tional logics (Battilana & Dorado, 2010). Despite

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
Crowdfunding in the sharing-economy era 23

the blurred boundaries and intertwined nature of they may receive a few dollars each from millions
the social and business aspects, it is important that of donors who believe in their mission and their

t
social entrepreneurs have a clearly defined legitimacy (Armstrong et al., 2018). Lack of insti-

os
mission, planned outcomes, and measurable ob- tutional support, such as resources or expertise,
jectives (Byus & Deis, 2015). Scaling up the social- can be mitigated through the combination of
entrepreneurial venture from its fledgling roots to resource sharing and crowdfunding. Web 2.0 in-
a larger enterprise is fraught with ethical consid- terconnections and digital platforms are also
erations in addition to operational and financial enabling access to networks that social-
issues (André & Pache, 2016), making this one of entrepreneurial ventures may not have previously

rP
the most challenging aspects of social entrepre- been privy to, and they are also easing access to
neurship. The abilities to raise capital, to remain governmental and other support structures. Thus,
attractive to investors, and to take advantage of some of the major challenges faced by social-
resources as needed all depend on legitimacy, and entrepreneurial ventures can be mitigated by
this is an issue that often plagues social- crowdfunding and related tools. Figure 1 depicts
entrepreneurial ventures, especially nascent ones the multipronged challenges faced by such
(Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003; Witkamp et al., 2011). ventures.
This also relates to the challenge of institutional

yo
support, as social-entrepreneurial ventures often
do not have access to the institutional support 3. The critical role of digital platforms
they desire (Jetmar, 2013).
Crowdfundingdor even the more nuanced Newer digital technologies, new ways of interact-
“resource sharing,” discussed laterdis not a ing and collaborating, and newer avenues for the
magical solution to all of these challenges, but it pursuit of opportunities have all led to a rapidly
can certainly mitigate some of the most significant evolving competitive landscape with new chal-
ones, including legitimacy, and thereby access to lenges for entrepreneurial ventures of all types
op
funding; lack of institutional support; and liabil- (Elia et al., 2020). Social entrepreneurship’s
ities that arise owing to the venture’s smaller scale growth has been connected to the growth of digital
and lack of resources. As social-entrepreneurial technologies, as these allow for increased aware-
ventures continue to grow and to exercise influ- ness of and opportunities for social ventures.
ence, their legitimacy issues will eventually fall by While the increasing acceptance and acknowl-
the wayside (Rahdari et al., 2016). Through edgement of the significance of social entrepre-
tC

crowdfunding, social-entrepreneurial ventures can neurship is noteworthy, the concurrent lack of

gain access to a funding avenue through which access to traditional capital markets is

Figure 1. Challenges faced by social-entrepreneurial ventures

No
Do

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
24 V. Chandna

unfortunate (Austin et al., 2006; Calic & various types of crowdfunding options (Gleasure &
Mosakowski, 2016). But this vacuum has been fil- Feller, 2016) and connecting them with the

t
led by crowdfunding. Crowdfunding was the inev- different elements of the sharing economy

os
itable progression of crowdsourcing, which (Felländer et al., 2015), it can be seen that there
focused on gathering ideas from large groups of are two types of resources, financial and nonfi-
people to overcome issues like groupthink while nancial, which are shared by the contributor. The
also obtaining higher quality results (Prpic et al., gains from these resources may be fixed or
2015). Crowdfunding provides social entrepre- tangible, or they may be unfixed or intangible. The
neurs with much-needed financial resources, as latter case may arise from a situation with no

rP
unlike their traditional commercial counterparts, returns or perhaps with limited dynamic returns,
they cannot simply receive funds from a bank like in peer-to-peer lending. There are therefore
(Armstrong et al., 2018). Thus, social entrepre- four main types of platforms, classified according
neurs with little to no experience can gather small to outcome and type of resource contributed.
contributions from supporters all over the world, While many existing platforms exemplify the three
which in turn accumulates into a significant fund most common categories, when it comes to a
(Calic & Mosakowski, 2016). digital platform through which people can share
Social entrepreneurs are successful innovators their skills and other nonfinancial resources altru-

yo
with a drive to succeed in their mission, and as istically, there is a clear opportunity space, as
such they have been early adopters and seekers of illustrated in Figure 2.
new technology. Social entrepreneurs are eager to Additionally, for many individuals who are part
change social paradigms and do so, not by making of the sharing economy, the interactions and
small, incremental changes but through notable community nature that seemingly supersede profit
and radical ones (Martin & Osberg, 2007). As such, motives are quite crucial (Botsman & Rogers,
adopting new technology is not a deterrent to the 2011). The community component is a significant
growth of social entrepreneurship. Crowdfunding dimension of social entrepreneurship because it is
op
platforms have been eagerly adopted by social not just the social entrepreneurs but also their
enterprises in recent years and play a significant stakeholders, such as supporters and funders, who
role in ensuring that newer social-entrepreneurial seek out these community connections (Peredo &
ventures exist and thrive. If traditional funding McLean, 2006). An additional critical feature of
and market mechanisms were the sole options, the sharing economy is that the sharing is enabled
social-entrepreneurial ventures would die out far through digital platforms and digital networking
tC

too early, as their lack of a profit-centric approach (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014). The connections and
makes them an unexciting investment for tradi- social relationships inherent in the sharing econ-
tional financial institutions. omy are also increasingly a part of the digital
platforms that often offer a strong sense of virtual
4. Sharing economy: Resource sharing community in a digital setting (Chandna &
Salimath, 2020). Crowdfunding platforms have
made easy
been some of the most successful digital platforms
in recent years and have also helped fuel the rise
The sharing economy essentially encompasses the
No

of other sharing-economy enterprises (Muñoz &

sharing of possessions, talents, or time to exploit
Cohen, 2017). There is thus significant overlap
their untapped potential in an economic model
between crowdfunding and the sharing economy,
that is fundamentally different from traditional
even though the former connects funds with those
economic ventures (Roh, 2016). It is essentially an
who need it and the latter connects resources with
economic model wherein the sharing, renting, or
those who need it.
swapping of products or services is made possible,
and it is access, rather than ownership, that
dominates the definition of the concept (Botsman 5. Cocreation and the role of
& Rogers, 2011). Some resources, whether stakeholders in resource sharing
Do

tangible (e.g., land, space, automobiles) or

intangible (e.g., skills, time, expertise) are left The proliferation of crowdfunding and of social-
underutilized or idle, and the sharing economy entrepreneurial ventures via the internet have
encourages the utilization of the same by others, given rise to the concept of cocreation. Cocreation
thereby ensuring that this spare capacity does not is the process whereby actors seek to create
go waste and is in some way redistributed something of value through ideas that are jointly
(Daunoriene_ et al., 2015). On examining the conceived and by sharing their knowledge and

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
Crowdfunding in the sharing-economy era 25

Figure 2. Types of platforms based on input and output, showing opportunity space for a social platform focused
on sharing resources

t
os
rP
information (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). While
extant research tends to focus on individual
yo social-entrepreneurial ventures would help iden-
tify opportunities and potential collaborations (de
op
entrepreneurial spirit and efforts, some scholars Oliveira & Cortimiglia, 2017). The collaborators
have begun to explore how a multitude of stake- become involved stakeholders who, whether they
holders can cocreate value for enterprises without share money, time, or their abilities, benefit from
remaining on the sidelines (Shams & Kaufmann, the community connections and the satisfaction of
2016). Increasingly, individuals want to feel more being involved with the social enterprise. Individ-
empowered and involved in the process of value ual stakeholders thus collaborate with the social
creation (Füller et al., 2009). As discussed previ- enterprises and cocreate value with intangible
tC

ously, compared to their more traditional coun- benefits for themselves, and tangible benefits for
terparts, social-entrepreneurial ventures tend to the social enterprise (Fehrer & Nenonen, 2020).
have difficulties when it comes to resource mobi- This involvement of working more closely with the
lization (Austin et al., 2006). The challenges exist social ventures and being more intimately involved
due to their relative inexperience and lack of to cocreate value, leads to greater feelings of
credibility which more traditional ventures are empowerment (Agrawal & Rahman, 2015). For
able to overcome when it comes to funding (Calic social-entrepreneurial ventures, examples of this
No

& Mosakowski, 2016). The benevolent component collaborative involvement could be when pro-
of the sharing economy can thus have a significant grammers “share” their programming skills and
impact on t social enterprises as customers help develop a country-specific website for the
increasingly recognize the value of the products venture, an accountant contributes a fixed amount
they own, the spaces they have, the skills they of time to manage the books, or a researcher helps
possess, the time they can contribute, or the land navigate the grant-seeking process for the social-
they own, and recognize that that they can share entrepreneurial venture.
these valuable resources with others (Gansky,
2010).
In addition to crowdfunding financial resources, 6. A two-pronged proposal
Do

social-entrepreneurial ventures can connect with

interested stakeholders who are willing to share With the potential for significant overlap between
nonfinancial resources i.e., their abilities as a the domains of social entrepreneurship and the
slack resource as seen in a commercial setting sharing economy, in this section I propose how a
where ventures such as MTurk or Upwork connect multifaceted digital platform can be updated or
freelancers with businesses (Elia et al., 2020). The evolved for use, wherein social entrepreneurs can

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
26 V. Chandna

engage with users to provide both financial re- Approach 2 is viable as a long-term strategic
sources and nonfinancial ones as well. This would plan and entails working with other social-

t
involve continuing to solicit crowdfunding directly entrepreneurial ventures to develop a multi-

os
using digital platform interfaces, but also engaging faceted platform that meets all needs on a sin-
stakeholders and enabling the resource mobiliza- gle digital platform.
tion that the sharing economy is known for. But
creating a platform is no easy task that can take 6.1. Approach 1: Elements needed from
many months or even years (Montealegre & existing platforms to aid social
Iyengar, 2021). Thus, immediately actionable entrepreneurship

rP
practical advice about how to use existing digital
platforms is first described below (Approach 1) No single platform currently offers all the ele-
followed by the outline for a multifaceted plat- ments needed to aid social-entrepreneurial ven-
form that an enterprising entrepreneur or a group tures in a way that addresses all their needs;
of social entrepreneurs could cocreate together however, by using a multitude of digital platforms
(Approach 2). Thus: and tools in conjunction, social-entrepreneurial
ventures may be able to get their needs met until a
Approach 1 is viable for immediate use and en- more holistic platform is available. Figure 3 pre-

yo
tails using the provided decision tree to analyze sents a decision tree for identifying how existing
how to best utilize the current digital platforms digital platforms can be used in a cohesive
available. manner.

Figure 3. Decision tree illustrating how to determine current platform usage

op
tC
No
Do

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
Crowdfunding in the sharing-economy era 27

Social-entrepreneurial ventures thus need to platform allows for easy sharing of even more (e.g.,
use the available resources judiciously so as to ideas, abilities, and other resources). The sharing

t
address numerous challenges simultaneously. economy and digital platforms have made it

os
Figure 4 illustrates this step-by-step process. possible for people to connect in ways never seen
Thus, by first determining which crowdfunding before so they can reuse and remobilize their re-
website is most suitable to its cause or whether its sources (Muñoz & Cohen, 2017). People from all
own website works best, the social- across the world can easily aid the social-
entrepreneurial venture can begin to amass the entrepreneurial venture in a myriad of ways. They
financial resources needed. Following that, it can collaborate on new ideas, use new marketing

rP
should embrace a sharing-economy mindset and tools to create more awareness (Kotler et al., 2010),
make use of resource-sharing websites through and share in the duties of the social enterprise on an
which it can make its needs known and can receive as-needed basis. Additionally, not just financial
validated and verified assistance. The third step funders and resource contributors but also agencies
involves connecting with other social entrepre- seeking to aid social ventures can be included in a
neurs and academic institutions to build a support multifaceted digital platform. Numerous agencies,
structure that will allow the venture to take governmental or otherwise, offer grants or funds
advantage of governmental grants and funding. that new social ventures may be unaware of or un-

yo
The critical last step is to then ensure that in the able to access as easily as well-established ventures
future an ambidextrous approach is possible, one can, a disparity that has led to the popularity of
whereby rather than progressing sequentially, the crowdfunding (Clarkin et al., 2014). But by
social-entrepreneurial enterprise is more robust becoming a part of the digital platform ecosystem,
and can tap into all three avenuesdfunds, re- these entities can connect with the appropriate
sources, and connectionsdsimultaneously. social ventures for greater collaboration (Acquier
et al., 2019). Individual contributors can help ac-
6.2. Approach 2: Elements of proposed cess these grants through their grant-writing efforts
op
multifaceted platform or by examining applicable documentation, thereby
assisting both the grant providers and the social-
A well-developed platform with a multifaceted entrepreneurial ventures.
approach would allow social entrepreneurs to Thus, the ecosystem of such a multifaceted
move beyond using digital platforms for crowd- platform would consist of (1) numerous social
funding alone. Limiting the use of digital platforms ventures, (2) individuals seeking to donate funds
tC

to acquiring only financial resources is a restrictive (i.e., crowdfunders), (3) individuals willing to
perspective, which should be expanded to include contribute nonfinancial resources, and (4)
other types of nonfinancial resources. Figure 5 agencies that provide grants and funds to social
depicts the elements that a multifaceted digital ventures.
platform would contain.
Financial contributions may be small or infre- 6.3. Design elements needed for success
quent, but by engaging with the venture, contrib-
utors become more invested in the organization It is also important to consider the design elements
No

(Hansen, 2017). The contributions, then, are not of the digital platform that would be needed from
merely one-time monetary donations, as the digital the point of view of the different stakeholders.

Figure 4. Steps for using existing crowdfunding and other platforms efficiently
Do

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
28 V. Chandna

Figure 5. Elements of a proposed multifaceted platform that facilitates social entrepreneurship

t
os
rP
Social-entrepreneurial ventures should seek to

they can use the platform efficiently and effec-

yo
understand their different stakeholders’ needs so

tively (Bagheri et al., 2019). In this section, I

present the features that can enable all stake-
properly), communication, and other back-end
functionalities. Additionally, given the proposed
unique feature of involving stakeholders directly in
a variety of nonfinancial contributing roles, the
platform must provide a system of verification. This
op
holder groups to better participate on such a would be a functionality that verifies that those
platform. Figure 6 depicts the ecosystem and the volunteering their skills are actual persons or en-
design features needed for a successful multifac- tities who can provide the specified resource. Sys-
eted platform. tems that perform background checks already exist
All social-entrepreneurial ventures want the for platforms such as Uber, Airbnb, or Care.com,
platform to be easy to use and reliable when it and the proposed system would be similar in nature
tC

comes to payment processing, uptime (i.e., the (Kuhn & Maleki, 2017). For instance, when someone
proportion of time when the platform is functioning lists a home on Airbnb, the system verifies that they

Figure 6. The success factors or design features the platform needs for the ecosystem of stakeholders
No
Do

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
Crowdfunding in the sharing-economy era 29

are the owners and have the right to offer it, and if Social-entrepreneurial ventures must embrace
someone offers home care as a service on Care. the sharing-economy paradigm more holistically,

t
com, the platform verifies both their skills and while more nuanced and multifaceted digital

os
their suitability for visiting users’ homes. These platforms are needed to make this endeavor a
checks help reassure all stakeholders that the social success. Social entrepreneurs who decide to adopt
ventures are cocreating with dependable partners. the sharing-economy paradigm will find that
The three stakeholder groups that connect with numerous benefits accrue to them and their
the social-entrepreneurial ventures must be well- various stakeholders from: (1) the use of digital
matched with the social venture. For any multi- platforms to enable connectivity and community

rP
sided platform, the algorithms that match parties interactions, (2) crowdfunding, and (3) resource
must be efficient and accurate, or else the plat- utilization by way of task sharing and collaboration
form will not serve its purpose (Azevedo & Weyl, among users of the platform.
2016; Sutherland & Jarrahi, 2018). More specif- As a first step, the social entrepreneur needs to
ically, the resource donors (i.e., the collaborators) recognize the potential of the sharing economy to
need a digital platform that is easy to use, pro- aid their venture. Almost any venture can benefit
vides an appropriate collaborative space, and re- from the pooled resources and skills of others, but
lies on common technologies. This is also the group the social entrepreneurs themselves need to see

yo
that would be familiar with the offerings of the unique benefits afforded them through
governmental agencies. Resource donors may adopting the sharing-economy paradigm. There-
contribute their time or resources to help secure after, they can use a multitude of elements to
grants and would thus need easy access to the ensure that their desired outcomes are achieved.
same. In this context, too, the algorithm match While the outcomes sought may vary from one
becomes critical. Meanwhile, an additional helpful enterprise to the next, a general shared outcome
feature from the financial donors’ perspective is the creation of social value. Enterprises are
would be multiple options to make the donation, already using digital platforms to crowdfund both
op
whether through credit cards, bank transfers, for-profit ventures and charitable causes (Muñoz &
PayPal, or even newer mechanisms of payment Cohen, 2017). Crowdfunding through such digital
such as Bitcoin or Venmo. Crowdfunders are platforms can and should continue, as the issues of
particularly supportive of social issues, and with legitimacy and difficulty in obtaining traditional
the increased focus on social movements, their funding that are faced by social-entrepreneurial
support has become even more pronounced (Hsieh ventures will not be going away any time soon
tC

et al., 2019). Finally, individuals making financial (Armstrong et al., 2018). But these digital plat-
contributions would also benefit from a veracity forms can be either modified or developed anew to
check of the social-entrepreneurial venture, which offer additional features and tools that will enable
confirms that the venture is what it purports to be. multiple stakeholders to be better connected.
Alternatively, social-entrepreneurial ventures can
use multiple types of digital platforms sequentially
7. Final thoughts on social and simultaneously to help address their various
entrepreneurship and the sharing- needs. The potential to cocreate value, share re-
No

economy paradigm sources, network, and crowdfund all on the same

digital platform would help social-entrepreneurial
Social entrepreneurship continues to grow as an ventures succeed in hitherto unknown ways. In the
area of research, as many scholars are intrigued by meantime, existing platforms need to be lever-
the phenomenon’s novel context, its interdisci- aged in the most efficient way possible.
plinary potential, and its practical significance A multisided platform could allow numerous
(Dacin et al., 2011). Social entrepreneurship has social enterprises to seek the resources they need
thus become a part of the political discourse and by sharing information about their tasks, their
has a strong media presence (Dey, 2006). The same aims, their visions, and their current situations.
Do

is true for crowdfunding, which has experienced This would enable potential collaborators or
similar interest in the last few years (Short et al., stakeholders to decide whether they would like to
2017). Exploring these phenomena alongside digi- contribute financially or to offer their skills,
tal platforms and within the context of the expertise, or time as a resource (i.e., to volunteer
sharing-economy paradigm allows for practicable directly with the social enterprise in an undefined
solutions to help social-entrepreneurial ventures capacity). While amassing financial resources is a
grow. crucial goal of social enterprises, other outcomes

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
30 V. Chandna

sought, such as legitimizing the endeavor, scal- Byus, K., & Deis, D. R. (2015). Disadvantaged consumers on the
ability, access to resources, and increased aware- Southern border: The social entrepreneurs’ challenge.

t
Journal of Ethics and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 55e70.
ness of the cause and of the social enterprise Calic, G., & Mosakowski, E. (2016). Kicking off social entre-

os
itself, are often achieved with great difficulty preneurship: How a sustainability orientation influences
(Armstrong et al., 2018). But with the increased crowdfunding success. Journal of Management Studies,
diffusion and acceptance of the sharing-economy 53(5), 738e767.
paradigm, social entrepreneurs can use several Chandna, V., & Salimath, M. S. (2020). When technology shapes
community in the cultural and craft industries: Under-
digital platforms simultaneously to achieve a standing virtual entrepreneurship in online ecosystems.
multitude of outcomes (Roh, 2016). From a theo- Technovation, 92, 102042.

rP
retical standpoint, this multidisciplinary approach Clarkin, J. E., Phan, P., Bacq, S., & Nordqvist, M. (2014).
offers a foundation on which literature exploring Crowdfunding, foundations, and impact investors as sources
the intersection of the sharing economy with social of financial capital for social entrepreneurs. In P. H. Phan,
J. Kickul, S. Bacq & M. Nordqvist (Eds.), Theory and empir-
entrepreneurship can further develop. ical research in social entrepreneurship (pp. 191e223).
This work thus lays out two avenues for social Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
entrepreneurs: First, they should strongly consider Cohen, B., & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride on! Mobility business
the simultaneous use of multiple digital platforms models for the sharing economy. Organization and Envi-
to secure both financial and nonfinancial assets. ronment, 27(3), 279e296.

yo
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entre-
And second, they should embrace or build new, preneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization
multisided platforms that connect a variety of Science, 22(5), 1203e1213.
stakeholders who are already part of the broader Daunoriene, _ A., Draksaite,
_ A., Snieska, V., & Valodkiene, _ G.
ecosystem. Just as crowdfunding has become (2015). Evaluating sustainability of sharing economy busi-
increasingly mainstream, so must the altruistic ness models. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213,
836e841.
idea of sharing one’s resources with social enter- Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship.”
prises be made popular and accessible for all Available at https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/
stakeholders. knowledge_items/the-meaning-of-social-entrepreneurship/
op
Dey, P. (2006). The rhetoric of social entrepreneurship: Paral-
ogy and new language games in academic discourse. In
References C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (Eds.), Entrepreneurship as social
change: A third movements of entrepreneurship (pp.
Acquier, A., Carbone, V., & Massé, D. (2019). How to create 121e144). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
value(s) in the sharing economy: Business models, scalabil- Dwivedi, A., & Weerawardena, J. (2018). Conceptualizing and
ity, and sustainability. Technology Innovation Management operationalizing the social entrepreneurship construct.
Review, 9(2), 5e24. Journal of Business Research, 86, 32e40.
tC

Agrawal, A. K., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Roles and resource con- de Oliveira, D. T., & Cortimiglia, M. N. (2017). Value co-creation
tributions of customers in value co-creation. International in web-based multisided platforms: A conceptual framework
Strategic Management Review, 3(1/2), 144e160. and implications for business model design. Business Hori-
André, K., & Pache, A. C. (2016). From caring entrepreneur to zons, 60(6), 747e758.
caring enterprise: Addressing the ethical challenges of Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entre-
scaling up social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, preneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and col-
133(4), 659e675. lective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial
Armstrong, K., Ahsan, M., & Sundaramurthy, C. (2018). Micro- process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150,
finance ecosystem: How connectors, interactors, and insti- 119791.
No

tutionalizers co-create value. Business Horizons, 61(1), Fehrer, J. A., & Nenonen, S. (2020). Crowdfunding networks:
147e155. Structure, dynamics, and critical capabilities. Industrial
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Marketing Management, 88, 449e464.
commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Felländer, A., Ingram, C., & Teigland, R. (2015). Sharing econ-
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1e22. omy: Embracing change with caution. Stockholm, Sweden:
Azevedo, E. M., & Weyl, E. G. (2016). Matching markets in the Entreprenörskapsforum.
digital age. Science, 352(6289), 1056e1057. Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K., & Jawecki, G. (2009).
Bagheri, A., Chitsazan, H., & Ebrahimi, A. (2019). Crowdfunding Consumer empowerment through internet-based co-creation.
motivations: A focus on donors’ perspectives. Technological Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 71e102.
Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 218e232. Gansky, L. (2010). The mesh: Why the future of business is
Bardhi, F., & Eckhart, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: sharing. New York, NY: Penguin.
Do

The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, Gleasure, R., & Feller, J. (2016). Emerging technologies and the
39(4), 881e898. democratisation of financial services: A metatriangulation of
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid crowdfunding research. Information and Organization,
organizations: The case of commercial microfinance orga- 26(4), 101e115.
nizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), Hansen, A. V. (2017). What stories unfold: Empirically grasping
1419e1440. value co-creation. European Business Review, 29(1), 2e14.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2011). What’s mine is yours: How Hsieh, H. C., Hsieh, Y. C., & Vu, T. H. C. (2019). How social
collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. movements influence crowdfunding success. Pacific-Basin
London, UK: Collins. Finance Journal, 53, 308e320.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
Crowdfunding in the sharing-economy era 31

Jetmar, M. (2013). Social entrepreneurship: Challenge not only Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experi-
for developing countries but also for the EU. In CBU inter- ences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of

t
national conference proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 41e49). Pra- Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5e14.
gue, Czech Republic: CBU. Prpic, J., Shukla, P. P., Kietzmann, J. H., & McCarthy, I. P.

os
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2010). Marketing 3.0: (2015). How to work a crowd: Developing crowd capital
From products to customers to the human spirit. Hoboken, through crowdsourcing. Business Horizons, 58(1), 77e85.
NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Rahdari, A., Sepasi, S., & Moradi, M. (2016). Achieving sus-
Kuhn, K. M., & Maleki, A. (2017). Micro-entrepreneurs, depen- tainability through Schumpeterian social entrepreneurship:
dent contractors, and instaserfs: Understanding online labor The role of social enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Produc-
platform workforces. Academy of Management Perspec- tion, 137, 347e360.
tives, 31(3), 183e200. Roh, T. H. (2016). The sharing economy: Business cases of social

rP
Lasprogata, G. A., & Cotten, M. N. (2003). Contemplating en- enterprises using collaborative networks. Procedia Com-
terprise: The business and legal challenges of social entre- puter Science, 91, 502e511.
preneurship. American Business Law Journal, 41(1), 67e114. Shams, S. R., & Kaufmann, H. R. (2016). Entrepreneurial co-
Lehner, O. M. (2013). Crowdfunding social ventures: A model creation: A research vision to be materialised. Manage-
and research agenda. Venture Capital, 15(4), 289e311. ment Decision, 54(6), 1250e1268.
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., McKenny, A. F., Allison, T. H., &
case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), Ireland, R. D. (2017). Research on crowdfunding: Reviewing
28e39. the (very recent) past and celebrating the present. Entre-
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J. preneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(2), 149e160.

yo
(2012). Venturing for others with heart and head: How Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M.
compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy (2012). A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepre-
of Management Review, 37(4), 616e640. neurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical
Montealegre, R., & Iyengar, K. (2021). Managing digital business tools for managing social and commercial demands. The
platforms: A continued exercise in balancing renewal and Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(3),
refinement. Business Horizons, 64(1), 51e59. 463e478.
Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Mapping out the sharing economy: A Sutherland, W., & Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). The sharing economy
configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Tech- and digital platforms: A review and research agenda. In-
nological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 21e37. ternational Journal of Information Management, 43,
Paschen, J. (2017). Choose wisely: Crowdfunding through the 328e341.
op
stages of the startup life cycle. Business Horizons, 60(2), Witkamp, M. J., Royakkers, L. M., & Raven, R. P. (2011). From
179e188. cowboys to diplomats: Challenges for social entrepre-
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A neurship in The Netherlands. Voluntas: International
critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2),
41(1), 56e65. 283e310.
tC
No
Do

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Manali Chatterjee, IFIM Business School until Aug 2023. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860