Virtual philanthropy, as a novel and distinct mode of digital giving, is expanding the boundaries of traditional philanthropy. Yet, little is known about this new phenomenon, which warrants academic inquiry. This study adopts a mixed-methods approach to conceptualize virtual philanthropy and examine the conditions under which the cases of virtual philanthropy generate higher perceived social impact. Based on cross-case comparative analyses of 40 global cases, we identify three core dimensions: nature of donation, donation mechanism, and beneficiaries, and three common characteristics: gamification, public-benefits, and stickiness. By employing fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), we identify three configurations associated with higher perceived social impact: Gamified Public-Benefit Path (C1), Sticky Public-Benefit Path (C2), and Ad Revenue with Single-Cause Path (C3). These findings contribute to addressing the ambiguity surrounding the definition of virtual philanthropy and offer practical insights for philanthropic practitioners seeking to design effective virtual philanthropy initiatives with high social impact.
AndreoniJ. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458.
2.
AshfaqM.ZhangQ.AliF.WaheedA.NawazS. (2021). You plant a virtual tree: We’ll plant a real tree: Understanding users’ adoption of the Ant Forest mobile gaming application from a behavioral reasoning theory perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 310, 127–394.
3.
BacqS.HertelC.LumpkinG. T. (2022). Communities at the nexus of entrepreneurship and societal impact: A cross-disciplinary literature review. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(5), 106231.
4.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.
5.
BenjaminL. M. (2012). Nonprofit organizations and outcome measurement: From tracking program activities to focusing on frontline work. American Journal of Evaluation, 3(3), 431–447.
6.
BenjaminL. M.EbrahimA.GugertyM. K. (2023). Nonprofit organizations and the evaluation of social impact: A research program to advance theory and practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52, 313S–352S.
7.
BundsK.TangY.KoenigstorferJ. (2023). Community building in virtual participation charity sport events. Journal of Marketing Management, 39(17–18), 1738–1764.
8.
ChenS.LiB.ZhouQ.LiuH. (2023). From virtual trees to real forests: The impact of gamification affordances on green consumption behaviors in ant forest. Environmental Communication, 18(5), 1–25.
9.
CoteA. C.Dal CinS.ExelmansL.MustafajM. (2022). Philanthropic, prosocial players: How game-related charity events motivate unlikely donors. New Media & Society, 26(8), 4867–4884.
10.
CouldryN.MejiasU. A. (2019). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media, 20(4), 336–349.
11.
DalyS. (2012). Philanthropy as an essentially contested concept. Voluntas, 23, 535–557.
12.
DiMaggioP. (2001). Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector on society is probably impossible but possibly useful. In FlynnP.HodgkinsonV. A. (Eds.), Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector (pp. 249–272). Springer.
13.
DouglasB. D.BrauerM. (2021). Gamification to prevent climate change: A review of games and apps for sustainability. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 89–94.
14.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
15.
GriecoC.MicheliniL.IasevoliG. (2015). Measuring value creation in social enterprises: A cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1173–1193.
16.
HartT. R. (2002). ePhilanthropy: Using the Internet to build support. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(4), 353–360.
17.
Haski-LeventhalD.OppenheimerM.HolmesK.Lockstone-BinneyL.AlonyI.OngF. (2019). The conceptualization of volunteering among nonvolunteers: Using the net-cost approach to expand definitions and dimensions of volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48, 30S–51S.
18.
HaynesP. (2014). Combining the strengths of qualitative comparative analysis with cluster analysis for comparative public policy research: With reference to the policy of economic convergence in the euro currency area. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(9), 581–590.
19.
KonrathS.HandyF. (2018). The development and validation of the motives to donate scale. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 347–375.
20.
LeeY. K.ChangC. T. (2007). Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(9), 1173–1180.
21.
LinJ. C. C. (2007). Online stickiness: Its antecedents and effect on purchasing intention. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(6), 507–516.
22.
LiuH.HarrisonY.LaiJ.ChikotoG.Jones-LungoK. (2016). Online and virtual volunteering. In The Palgrave handbook of volunteering, civic participation, and nonprofit associations. Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
LiuJ.LiuC.ZhouP.LvR.ZhouK.ZhangY. (2023). Is ChatGPT a good recommender? a preliminary study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10149.
24.
MiL.JiangL.XuT.HanJ.ZhuY.QiaoL.. . .NiuM. (2024). Motivating more people to engage in online green behavior: A multi-agent simulation study of Ant Forest. Journal of Cleaner Production, 448, 141683.
25.
PhillipsS. D.JungT. (2016). Introduction: A new “new” philanthropy: From impetus to impact. In The Routledge companion to philanthropy. Routledge.
26.
Prats LópezM.RijpmaA.MoorT. D.ReijerinkJ. (2024). Behind the crowdsourcing platform: Assessing volunteer recruitment and engagement instruments. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 53(6), 1381–1409.
27.
QuilloyK.NewmanA.PymanA. (2024). Antecedents of the social impact of social enterprises: A systematic review and agenda for future research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 53(3), 689–715.
28.
RaginC. C.FissP. C. (2008). Net effects analysis versus configurational analysis: An empirical demonstration. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and beyond, 240, 190–212.
29.
SadowskiJ. (2019). When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 2053951718820549.
30.
SalamonL. M. (1992). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer. Foundation Center.
31.
Salido-AndresN.Rey-GarciaM.Alvarez-GonzalezL. I.Vazquez-CasiellesR. (2021). Mapping the field of donation-based crowdfunding for charitable causes: Systematic review and conceptual framework. Voluntas, 32, 288–302.
32.
SasakiS.KuboT.KitanoS. (2025). Prosocial and financial incentives for biodiversity conservation: A field experiment using a smartphone app. Ecological Economics, 230, 108506.
33.
SulekM. (2010). On the modern meaning of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 193–212.
34.
TaddeoM. (2016). Data philanthropy and the design of the infraethics for information societies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083), 20160113.
35.
Von SchnurbeinG.Rey-GarciaM.NeumayrM. (2021). Contemporary philanthropy in the spotlight: Pushing the boundaries of research on a global and contested social practice. Voluntas, 32(2), 185–193.
36.
WiepkingP.HandyF. (2015). Explanations for cross-national differences in philanthropy. In The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
37.
XiaoS.YueQ. (2021). The role you play, the life you have: Donor retention in online charitable crowdfunding platform. Decision Support Systems, 140, 113427.
38.
XuJ.HuangD.ZhangH. (2021). Internet philanthropy as China’s Digital Solution to the 2030 agenda for sustainable development: Policies, practices, politics, and critique. In The Palgrave handbook of international communication and sustainable development (pp. 371–391).
39.
YuH. (2017). Philanthropy on the move: Mobile communication and neoliberal citizenship in China. Communication and the Public, 2(1), 35–49.
40.
ZhangY.ChenJ.HanY.QianM.GuoX.ChenR.. . .ChenY. (2021). The contribution of Fintech to sustainable development in the digital age: Ant Forest and land restoration in China. Land Use Policy, 103, 105306.
41.
ZhengW. (2023). Converting donation to transaction: How platform capitalism exploits relational labor in non-profit fundraising. Socio-Economic Review, 21(4), 1897–1916.
42.
ZhouH.YeS. (2019). Legitimacy, worthiness, and social network: An empirical study of the key factors influencing crowdfunding outcomes for nonprofit projects. Voluntas, 30, 849–864.
43.
ZottC.AmitR.DonlevyJ. (2000). Strategies for value creation in e-commerce: Best practice in Europe. European Management Journal, 18(5), 463–475.
44.
ZuboffS. (2019, January). Surveillance capitalism and the challenge of collective action. New Labor Forum, 28(1), 10–29.
