Crises are accompanied by resource shortages, operational challenges, and shifts in demand for resources. During crises, nonprofit organizations have historically played a crucial role in mitigating these challenges, with crowdfunding platforms emerging as a new solution for resource mobilization. In this study, we examine how individual and institutional donors respond to the sudden shifts in demand that accompany a global crisis. We analyze rich, granular data from multiple sources, including donation data from a leading education crowdfunding platform, before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and find notable contrasts between individual and institutional responses. While there was a significant increase in institutional donations during the pandemic, individual donations remained relatively stable overall. Adopting a motivation-opportunity-ability (MOA) framework, we center donor heterogeneity in our approach, deriving nuanced insights. Donations from individuals in economically disadvantaged communities, which were the worst impacted by the crisis, decreased; however, these communities prioritized immediate and time-sensitive needs. Small and local institutions played a pivotal role in supporting high-need schools during the crisis. These findings make meaningful contributions to the operations literature on crowdfunding and have practical implications for platform designers. By distinguishing between individual and institutional donors and identifying the factors that drive their behavior, our study offers important implications for platform designers to improve crisis-time resource mobilization through more targeted engagement strategies.
AlbuquerqueRKoskinenYZhangC (2019) Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science65(10): 4451–4469.
2.
AminKHarrisE (2022) The effect of investor sentiment on nonprofit donations. Journal of Business Ethics175(2): 427–450.
3.
ArgoteLMcEvilyBReagansR (2003) Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science49(4): 571–582.
4.
AutenGRudneyG (1990) The variability of individual charitable giving in the US. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations1(2): 80–97.
5.
BaianoCRaimoGZappulloI, et al. (2022) Empathy through the pandemic: Changes of different emphatic dimensions during the COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health19(4): 2435.
6.
BatsonCDDuncanBDAckermanP, et al. (1981) Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40(2): 290.
7.
BeckTLevineRLevkovA (2010) Big bad banks? The winners and losers from bank deregulation in the united states. The Journal of Finance65(5): 1637–1667.
8.
BehlADuttaP (2020) Engaging donors on crowdfunding platform in disaster relief operations (DRO) using gamification: A civic voluntary model (CVM) approach. International Journal of Information Management54: 102140.
9.
BehlADuttaPLuoZ, et al. (2022) Enabling artificial intelligence on a donation-based crowdfunding platform: A theoretical approach. Annals of Operations Research319(1): 761–789.
10.
BekkersRWiepkingP (2011) A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly40(5): 924–973.
11.
BerenguerGShenZJ (2020) OM forum—challenges and strategies in managing nonprofit operations: An operations management perspective. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management22(5): 888–905.
12.
BerkowitzM (1964) Philanthropy and public policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science351: 213–215.
13.
BesiouMVan WassenhoveLN (2020) Humanitarian operations: A world of opportunity for relevant and impactful research. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management22(1): 135–145.
14.
BoudreauJHoppWMcClainJO, et al. (2003) On the interface between operations and human resources management. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management5(3): 179–202.
BuffardiAL (2011) Institutional Influence: The Role of International Donors in Shaping Development Goals, Implementation and Effectiveness. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
17.
BurkartCBesiouMWakolbingerT (2016) The funding—humanitarian supply chain interface. Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science21(2): 31–45.
18.
BurkeBLMartensAFaucherEH (2010) Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review14(2): 155–195.
19.
BurtchGGhoseAWattalS (2015) The hidden cost of accommodating crowdfunder privacy preferences: A randomized field experiment. Management Science61(5): 949–962.
20.
CarrollAB (1979) Corporate performance. Academy of Management Review4(4): 497–505.
21.
ChakrabortySSwinneyR (2021) Signaling to the crowd: Private quality information and rewards-based crowdfunding. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management23(1): 155–169.
22.
ChenDGaoHMaY (2021) Human capital-driven acquisition: Evidence from the inevitable disclosure doctrine. Management Science67(8): 4643–4664.
23.
ChenDQPrestonDSXiaW (2013) Enhancing hospital supply chain performance: A relational view and empirical test. Journal of Operations Management31(6): 391–408.
24.
ChenMYChangJRChenLS, et al. (2022) Identifying the key success factors of movie projects in crowdfunding. Multimedia Tools and Applications81(19): 27711–27736.
25.
CoibionOGorodnichenkoYWeberM (2020) Labor markets during the COVID-19 crisis: A preliminary view. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
26.
CramptonWPattenD (2008) Social responsiveness, profitability and catastrophic events: Evidence on the corporate philanthropic response to 9/11. Journal of Business Ethics81: 863–873.
27.
DaviesR (2015) Three provocations for civic crowdfunding. Information, Communication & Society18(3): 342–355.
28.
De BruijnEJAntonidesG (2022) Poverty and economic decision making: A review of scarcity theory. Theory and Decision92(1): 5–37.
29.
DevalkarSKSohoniMGAroraP (2017) Ex-post funding: How should a resource-constrained non-profit organization allocate its funds?Production and Operations Management26(6): 1035–1055.
30.
DoutyCM (1972) Disasters and charity: Some aspects of cooperative economic behavior. The American Economic Review62(4): 580–590.
31.
DuLHuMWuJ (2022) Contingent stimulus in crowdfunding. Production and Operations Management31(9): 3543–3558.
32.
DyckALinsKVRothL, et al. (2019) Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence. Journal of Financial Economics131(3): 693–714.
33.
FengLLiuJWangZ, et al. (2024) Navigating compliance complexity: Insights from the moa framework in international construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
34.
FengQShanthikumarJG (2017) Not-for-profit operations management. In: The routledge companion to production and operations management, pp.510–526. Routledge.
35.
FreemanREWicksACParmarB (2004) Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited”. Organization Science15(3): 364–369.
36.
GalaskiewiczJ (2013) Social Organization of An Urban Grants Economy: A Study of Business Philanthropy and Nonprofit Organizations. New York, NY: Elsevier.
37.
GallienJRashkovaIAtunR, et al. (2017) National drug stockout risks and the global fund disbursement process for procurement. Production and Operations Management26(6): 997–1014.
38.
GaoQLinMWuD (2021) Education crowdfunding and student performance: An empirical study. Information Systems Research32(1): 53–71.
39.
GautierAPacheAC (2015) Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics126: 343–369.
40.
Goodman-BaconA (2021) Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. Journal of Econometrics225(2): 254–277.
41.
GoreA (1993) From red tape to results: Creating a government that works better and costs less. Technical report, National Performance Review, Washington, DC.
42.
GreenbergJ (2019) Inequality and crowdfunding. In: Handbook of research on crowdfunding, pp.303–322. Edward Elgar Publishing.
43.
GudaH, et al. (2024) Non-profit support in education: Resource allocation and students’ lifetime outcomes. Working paper, Available at SSRN.
44.
GunesseeSSubramanianNRoscoeS, et al. (2018) The social preferences of local citizens and spontaneous volunteerism during disaster relief operations. International Journal of Production Research56(21): 6793–6808.
45.
GuthrieDMcQuarrieM (2008) Providing for the public good: Corporate–community relations in the era of the receding welfare state. City & Community7(2): 113–139.
46.
HerreidCF (1997) What is a case?Journal of College Science Teaching40(6): 92–93.
47.
Holguín-VerasJJallerMVan WassenhoveLN, et al. (2012) On the unique features of post-disaster humanitarian logistics. Journal of Operations Management30(7-8): 494–506.
48.
HongYHuYBurtchG (2018) Embeddedness, pro-sociality, and social influence: Evidence from online crowdfunding. MIS Quarterly42(4): 1211–1224.
49.
HughesJ (2007) The ability-motivation-opportunity framework for behavior research in is. In: 2007 40th Annual hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’07), pp.250a–250a. Ieee.
50.
JenkinsHFordSGreenJ (2013) Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. In: Spreadable media. New York University Press.
51.
JinYTanYHuangJ (2022) Managing contributor performance in knowledge-sharing communities: A dynamic perspective. Production and Operations Management31(11): 3945–3962.
52.
KaratzasAPapadopoulosGGodsellJ (2020) Servitization and the effect of training on service delivery system performance. Production and Operations Management29(5): 1101–1121.
53.
KepplerSMLiJWuD (2022) Crowdfunding the front lines: An empirical study of teacher-driven school improvement. Management Science68(12): 8809–8828.
54.
KimHHurDSchoenherrT (2015) When buyer-driven knowledge transfer activities really work: A motivation–opportunity–ability perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management51(3): 33–60.
55.
KimKViswanathanS (2019) the’experts’ in the crowd: The role of experienced investors in a crowdfunding market. MIS Quarterly43(2): 347–372.
56.
KimaniZW (2015) The effects of budget variance on donor funding in non governmental organizations in Kenya. PhD Thesis, University of Nairobi.
LevBPetrovitsCRadhakrishnanS (2010) Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal31(2): 182–200.
59.
LiJJChenXPKothaS, et al. (2017) Catching fire and spreading it: A glimpse into displayed entrepreneurial passion in crowdfunding campaigns. Journal of Applied Psychology102(7): 1075.
60.
LinCLiuSMansoG (2021) Shareholder litigation and corporate innovation. Management Science67(6): 3346–3367.
61.
LinMViswanathanS (2016) Home bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market. Management Science62(5): 1393–1414.
62.
LitofcenkoJMeyerMNeumayrM, et al. (2023) Charitable giving in times of COVID-19: Do crises forward the better or the worse in individuals?VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations34(6): 1322–1334.
63.
LiuQLiuXBalachanderS (2021) Crowdfunding project design: Optimal product menu and funding target. Production and Operations Management30(10): 3800–3811.
64.
LogueDGrimesM (2022) Platforms for the people: Enabling civic crowdfunding through the cultivation of institutional infrastructure. Strategic Management Journal43(3): 663–693.
65.
MaYWangTZhengH (2023) On fairness and efficiency in nonprofit operations: Dynamic resource allocations. Production and Operations Management32(6): 1778–1792.
66.
MacInnisDJJaworskiBJ (1989) Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing53(4): 1–23.
67.
MaclnnisDJMoormanCJaworskiBJ (1991) Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing55(4): 32–53.
68.
MarcumCSBevcCAButtsCT (2012) Mechanisms of control in emergent interorganizational networks. Policy Studies Journal40(3): 516–546.
69.
MejiaJUrreaGPedraza-MartinezAJ (2019) Operational transparency on crowdfunding platforms: Effect on donations for emergency response. Production and Operations Management28(7): 1773–1791.
70.
MullerAKräusslR (2011) Doing good deeds in times of need: A strategic perspective on corporate disaster donations. Strategic Management Journal32(9): 911–929.
71.
MullerAWhitemanG (2009) Exploring the geography of corporate philanthropic disaster response: A study of fortune global 500 firms. Journal of Business Ethics84: 589–603.
72.
MullerAWhitemanG (2016) Corporate philanthropic responses to emergent human needs: The role of organizational attention focus. Journal of Business Ethics137: 299–314.
73.
OstrowerF (1997) Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
74.
PattenDM (2008) Does the market value corporate philanthropy? Evidence from the response to the 2004 tsunami relief effort. Journal of Business Ethics81: 599–607.
75.
PrivettNA (2011) Operations management in community-based nonprofit organizations. In: Community-based operations research: Decision modeling for local impact and diverse populations, pp.67–95. Springer.
76.
QiuSCJiangJLiuX, et al. (2021) Can corporate social responsibility protect firm value during the COVID-19 pandemic?International Journal of Hospitality Management93: 102759.
77.
RamaswamiSBrettKStraderT (1998) Electronic channel customers for financial products: Test of ability-motivation-opportunity model. AMCIS 1998 Proceedings112.
78.
RaubS (2017) When employees walk the company talk: The importance of employee involvement in corporate philanthropy. Human Resource Management56(5): 837–850.
79.
SaiiaDHCarrollABBuchholtzAK (2003) Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “begins at home”. Business & Society42(2): 169–201.
80.
SalzmanMB (2001) Globalization, culture, and anxiety: Perspectives and predictions from terror management theory. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless10(4): 337–352.
81.
SambamurthyVBharadwajAGroverV (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly27(2): 237–263.
82.
SchwartzSH (1974) Awareness of interpersonal consequences, responsibility denial, and volunteering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology30(1): 57.
83.
SearingEAWileyKKYoungSL (2023) Resiliency tactics during financial crisis: The nonprofit resiliency framework. In: Understanding nonprofit organizations, pp.275–289. Routledge.
84.
SeifertBMorrisSABartkusBR (2003) Comparing big givers and small givers: Financial correlates of corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics45(3): 195–211.
85.
SharmaNDevalkarSKSohoniMG (2021) Payment for results: Funding non-profit operations. Production and Operations Management30(6): 1686–1702.
86.
SiemsenERothAVBalasubramanianS (2008) How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model. Journal of Operations Management26(3): 426–445.
87.
SongYLiZSahooN (2022) Matching returning donors to projects on philanthropic crowdfunding platforms. Management Science68(1): 355–375.
88.
SpeierCWhippleJMClossDJ, et al. (2011) Global supply chain design considerations: Mitigating product safety and security risks. Journal of Operations Management29(7-8): 721–736.
89.
StrauszR (2017) A theory of crowdfunding: A mechanism design approach with demand uncertainty and moral hazard. American Economic Review107(6): 1430–1476.
90.
TurnerTPennington IIIWW (2015) Organizational networks and the process of corporate entrepreneurship: How the motivation, opportunity, and ability to act affect firm knowledge, learning, and innovation. Small Business Economics45(2): 447–463.
91.
Van FleetJW (2010) Corporate giving to education during economic downturns: General trends and the difficulty of prediction. International Journal of Educational Advancement9: 234–250.
92.
van TeunenbroekCDalla ChiesaCHesseL (2023) The contribution of crowdfunding for philanthropy: A systematic review and framework of donation and reward crowdfunding. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing28(3): e1791.
93.
WanGWangHGengX, et al. (2023) Natural disasters and corporate philanthropy: A double movement perspective. Management and Organization Review19(1): 98–137.
94.
WangJZhaoLHuchzermeierA (2021) Operations-finance interface in risk management: Research evolution and opportunities. Production and Operations Management30(2): 355–389.
95.
WangQBodenD (2024) Comparing corporate giving and individual giving: Evidence from Chinese foundations. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing21(3): 691–712.
96.
WangTJinFHuYJ, et al. (2024) Making early and accurate deep learning predictions to help disadvantaged individuals in medical crowdfunding. Production and Operations Management0(0): 0.
97.
WebbNJFarmerA (1996) Corporate goodwill: A game theoretic approach to the effect of corporate charitable expenditures on firm behaviour. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics67(1): 29–50.
98.
WellmanBBoaseJChenW (2002) The networked nature of community: Online and offline. IT & Society1(1): 151–165.
99.
WuAGarimellaASubramanyamR (2025) When top-down meets bottom-up: Legislative signals and online crowdfunding. Information Systems ResearchForthcoming.
100.
XiaoPHsiehKYBaoW (2024) Donations by disaster-afflicted firms and changes in firm value: Self-protection and reputation-building perspectives. Production and Operations Management33(1): 323–341.
101.
XiaoSHoYCCheH (2021) Building the momentum: Information disclosure and herding in online crowdfunding. Production and Operations Management30(9): 3213–3230.
102.
YetmanMHYetmanRJ (2013) Do donors discount low-quality accounting information?. The Accounting Review88(3): 1041–1067.
103.
YooERandWEftekharM, et al. (2016) Evaluating information diffusion speed and its determinants in social media networks during humanitarian crises. Journal of Operations Management45: 123–133.
104.
YounkinPKuppuswamyV (2018) The colorblind crowd? Founder race and performance in crowdfunding. Management Science64(7): 3269–3287.
105.
ZhangCAtasuAAyerT, et al. (2020) Truthful mechanisms for medical surplus product allocation. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management22(4): 735–753.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
