Purpose: In this study, we aim to establish whether sustainable enterprises can increase their crowdfunding success by communicating non-financial performance (NFP) metrics that enhance different types of organizational legitimacy with investors in a crowdfunding market. Study design: We carried out an exploratory online incentivized experiment with investors of a crowdfunding platform to establish whether communicating NFP metrics of a venture affects different forms of legitimacy and therewith crowdfunding success (investment decision and amount). Findings: We show that higher perceived general organizational legitimacy and pragmatic legitimacy of a sustainable enterprise by investors is related to a higher incidence of positive investment decisions, but only pragmatic legitimacy increases the amount invested. Secondly, we find that NFP metrics do not directly increase the relative amount of positive investment decisions, but they do increase the average size of crowdfunding contributions towards sustainable enterprises of those positive investment decisions. Contributions: We show that quantifying and communicating NFP in the sustainable crowdfunding context increases the amount of resources mobilized, mainly through enhanced pragmatic and cognitive legitimacy. We show the importance of disentangling ‘crowdfunding success’ into a two-step decision process - investment decision and amount invested. Implications: Our results lead to practical implications for sustainable entrepreneurs and crowdfunding platforms in deciding how to communicate NFP to investors in crowdfunding markets.
Adamska-MieruszewskaJ.MrzygłódU.SuchanekM.Fornalska-SkurczyńskaA. (2021). Keep it simple. The impact of language on crowdfunding success. Economics & Sociology, 14(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2021/14-1/9
2.
Adamska-MieruszewskaJ.ZientaraP.MrzygłódU.FornalskaA. (2024). Identifying factors affecting intention to support pro-environmental crowdfunding campaigns: Mediating and moderating effects. Journal of Alternative Finance, 1(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/27533743231201864
3.
AguinisH.BradleyK. (2014). Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experimental Vignette Methodology Studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
4.
AhlersG. K. C.CummingD.GüntherC.SchweizerD. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12157
5.
AlbertiniE. (2013). Does Environmental Management Improve Financial Performance? A Meta-Analytical Review. Organization & Environment, 26(4), 431–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026613510301
6.
AldrichH. E.FiolC. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.2307/258740
7.
AllisonT. H.DavisB. C.ShortJ. C.WebbJ. W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12108
8.
AllisonT. H.McKennyA. F.ShortJ. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.003
9.
AnglinA. H.MilanovH.ShortJ. C. (2023). Religious expression and crowdfunded microfinance success: Insights from role congruity theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(2), 397–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05191-1
10.
Aragòn-CorreaJ. A.MarcusA. A.VogelD. (2019). The effects of mandatory and voluntary regulatory pressures on firms’ environmental strategies: A review and recommendations for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 339–365. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0014
11.
ArenaM.AzzoneG.BengoI. (2015). Performance measurement for social enterprises. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9436-8
12.
AshforthB. E.GibbsB. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organisation Science, 1(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
13.
ÅstebroT.FernándezM.LovoS.VulkanN. (2024). Herding in equity crowdfunding. The RAND Journal of Economics, 55(3), 403–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12474
14.
BaferaJ.KleinertS. (2022). Signaling theory in entrepreneurship research: A systematic review and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(6), 2419–2464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258722113848
15.
BagnoliL.MegaliC. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009351111
16.
BarmanE. (2015). Of principle and principal: Value plurality in the market of impact investing. Valuation Studies, 3(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.3384/VS.2001-5592.15319
17.
BarraketJ.YousefpourN. (2013). Evaluation and social impact measurement amongst small to medium social enterprises: Process, purpose and value. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(4), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12042
BlockJ. H.ColomboM. G.CummingD. J.VismaraS. (2018). New players in entrepreneurial finance and why they are there. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9826-6
22.
BlumbergB.CooperD.SchindlerP. (2014). Business research methods (4th ed.). McGraw Hill.
23.
BöckelA.HörischJ.TennerI. (2020). A systematic literature review of crowdfunding and sustainability: Highlighting what really matters. Management Review Quarterly, 71(2), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00189-3
24.
CaiW.PolzinF.StamE. (2020). Crowdfunding and social capital: A systematic review using a dynamic perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120412
25.
CalicG.MosakowskiE. (2016). Kicking off social entrepreneurship: How A sustainability orientation influences crowdfunding success. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 738–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12201
26.
CandeliseC. (2015). Smart financing and empowerment: The use of crowdfunding in the energy sector.
27.
CarmanJ. G. (2011). Understanding evaluation in nonprofit organizations. Public Performance and Management Review, 34(3), 350–377. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576340302
ChungJ. Y.BergerB. K.DeCosterJ. (2016). Developing measurement scales of organizational and issue legitimacy: A case of direct-to-consumer advertising in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2498-8
30.
CohenJ.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (1988). (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
CohenB.WinnM. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001
32.
ConnellyB. L.CertoS. T.IrelandR. D.ReutzelC. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
33.
CordovaA.DolciJ.GianfrateG. (2015). The determinants of crowdfunding success: Evidence from technology projects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.872
DeanT. J.McMullenJ. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003
37.
De ClercqD.VoronovM. (2011). Sustainability in entrepreneurship: A tale of two logics. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 29(4), 322–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610372460
38.
DeephouseD. L.CarterS. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00499.x
39.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
40.
DóciG.VasileiadouE. (2015). “Let’s do it ourselves” individual motivations for investing in renewables at community level. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 49, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.051
41.
DowlingJ.PfefferJ. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388226
42.
EbrahimA.BattilanaJ.MairJ. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001
43.
EbrahimA.RanganV. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.118
EdwardsM. L. (2016). Public perceptions of the legitimacy of water governance organizations in Nebraska and Washington. Society & Natural Resources, 29(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1054979
46.
ElsbachK. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 57–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393494
47.
FaberA.FrenkenK. (2009). Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.04.009
48.
FeolaR.VesciM.MarinatoE.ParenteR. (2021). Segmenting “digital investors”: Evidence from the Italian equity crowdfunding market. Small Business Economics, 56(3), 1235–1250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00265-3
49.
FisherG.KuratkoD. F.BloodgoodJ. M.HornsbyJ. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.005
Gallego-ÁlvarezI. (2012). Impact of CO2 Emission Variation on Firm Performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(7), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1729
52.
GerberE. M.HuiJ. S.KuoP.-Y. (2012). Crowdfunding: Why people are motivated to post and fund projects on crowdfunding platforms. https://doi.org/10.1145/2530540
53.
GoethnerM.LuettigS.RegnerT. (2021). Crowdinvesting in entrepreneurial projects: Disentangling patterns of investor behavior. Small Business Economics, 57(2), 905–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00332-0
54.
GuentherC.JohanS.SchweizerD. (2017). Is the crowd sensitive to distance?—How investment decisions differ by investor type. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9834-6
55.
HandelmanJ. M.ArnoldS. J. (1999). The role of marketing actions with a social dimension: Appeals to the institutional environment. Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251774
56.
HemerJ.SchneiderU.DornbuschF.FreyS. (2011). Crowdfunding and other forms of informal microfinance in project and innovation financing. Fraunhofer Publishing.
57.
HervéF.ManthéE.SannajustA.SchwienbacherA. (2019). Determinants of individual investment decisions in investment-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 46(5–6), 762–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12372
58.
HockertsK.WüstenhagenR. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.005
59.
HörischJ.TennerI. (2020). How environmental and social orientations influence the funding success of investment-based crowdfunding: The mediating role of the number of funders and the average funding amount. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120311
60.
HornufL.StenzhornE.VintisT. (2021). Are sustainability-oriented investors different? Evidence from equity crowdfunding. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(6), 1662–1689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09896-9
61.
HosmerD. W.LemeshowS. (2000). Introduction to the logistic regression model. In Applied logistic regression (pp. 1–30). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471722146.ch1/summary
KahnemanK.TverskyA. (2012). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. In MacLeanLeonard CZiembaWilliam T (Eds.), Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making (4, pp. 99–127). World Scientific.
64.
KiblerE.FinkM.LangR.MuñozP. (2015). Place attachment and social legitimacy: Revisiting the sustainable entrepreneurship journey. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 3, 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2015.04.001
65.
KimM. J.HallC. M.KimD.-K. (2020). Why do investors participate in tourism incentive crowdfunding? The effects of attribution and trust on willingness to fund. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2020.1722784
66.
KimP. H.BuffartM.CroidieuG. (2016). TMI: Signaling credible claims in crowdfunding campaign narratives. Group & Organization Management, 41(6), 717–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116651181
67.
KimE-H.LyonT. P. (2011). Strategic environmental disclosure: Evidence from the DOE’s voluntary greenhouse gas registry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 61(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.11.001
68.
KlyverK.LindsayN. J.KassiciehS. K. S.HancockG. (2016). Altruistic investment decision behavior in early-stage ventures. Small Business Economics, 48(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9771-4
69.
KochJ.-A.SieringM. (2015). Crowdfunding success factors: The characteristics of successfully funded projects on crowdfunding platforms. Social Science Research Network. (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2808424). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2808424
70.
LallS. (2017). Measuring to improve versus measuring to prove: Understanding the adoption of social performance measurement practices in nascent social enterprises. Voluntas, 28(6), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9898-1
LiangX.HuX.JiangJ. (2020). Research on the effects of information description on crowdfunding success within a sustainable economy—The perspective of information communication. Sustainability, 12(2), 650. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020650
73.
LinY.BohW. F.GohK. H. (2014). How different are crowdfunders? Examining archetypes of crowdfunders and their choice of projects. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), 13309. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2014.209
74.
LukeB.BarraketJ.EversoleR. (2013). Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 10(3/4), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-08-2012-0034
75.
MaasK. (2009). Corporat social performance: From output measurement to impact measurement. School of Management (RSM), Erasmus School of Economics (ESE). https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277797
76.
MacIndoeH.BarmanE. (2013). How organizational stakeholders shape performance measurement in nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 716–738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012444351
77.
MaierL.BaccarellaC. V.BlockJ. H.WagnerT. F.VoigtK.-I. (2023). The legitimization effect of crowdfunding success: A consumer perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(4), 1389–1420. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211057025
78.
MaioliniR.CappaF.FrancoS.QuaratinoG. R. (2024). The impact of sustainable development goals in lending-based prosocial crowdfunding: A topic modeling analysis on the kiva platform. International Review of Financial Analysis, 95, 103441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103441
79.
MairJ.MartíI. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
80.
MansouriS.MomtazP. P. (2022). Financing sustainable entrepreneurship: ESG measurement, valuation, and performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(6), 106258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2022.106258
81.
Massa SaluzzoF.AlegreI. (2021). Supporting entrepreneurs: The role of third-party endorsement in crowdfunding platforms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120402
82.
MasseyJ. E. (2001). Managing organizational legitimacy: Communication strategies for organizations in crisis. Journal of Business Communication, 38(2), 153–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194360103800202
83.
MatsumuraE. M.PrakashR.Vera-MuñozS. C. (2013). Firm-Value Effects of Carbon Emissions and Carbon Disclosures. The Accounting Review, 89(2), 695–724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50629
84.
McKnightD. H.CummingsL. L.ChervanyN. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.2307/259290
85.
MenzelS. (2013). Are emotions to blame? — The impact of non-analytical information processing on decision-making and implications for fostering sustainability. Ecological Economics, 96, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.10.001
86.
Messeni PetruzzelliA.NatalicchioA.PannielloU.RomaP. (2019). Understanding the crowdfunding phenomenon and its implications for sustainability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.002
87.
MichelsJ. (2012). Do unverifiable disclosures matter? Evidence from peer-to-peer lending. The Accounting Review, 87(4), 1385–1413. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50159
88.
MillarR.HallK. (2013). Social return on investment (SROI) and performance measurement: The opportunities and barriers for social enterprises in health and social care. Public Management Review, 15(6), 923–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.698857
89.
MillerT. L.WesleyC. L. (2010). Assessing mission and resources for social change: An organizational identity perspective on social venture capitalists’ decision criteria. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 705–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00388.x
90.
MochkabadiK.KleinertS.UrbigD.VolkmannC. (2024). From distinctiveness to optimal distinctiveness: External endorsements, innovativeness and new venture funding. Journal of Business Venturing, 39(1), 106340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2023.106340
91.
MohammadiA.ShafiK. (2017). Gender differences in the contribution patterns of equity-crowdfunding investors. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9825-7
MoritzA.BlockJ. (2016). Crowdfunding: A Literature Review and Research Directions. In BrüntjeDennisGajdaOliver (Eds.), Crowdfunding in Europe (pp. 25–53). Springer International Publishing.
94.
MoritzA.BlockJ.LutzE. (2015). Investor communication in equity-based crowdfunding: A qualitative-empirical study. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 7(3), 309–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-07-2014-0021
95.
MoyN.ChanH. F.TorglerB. (2018). How much is too much? The effects of information quantity on crowdfunding performance. PLoS One, 13(3), Article e0192012. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192012
96.
MoysidouK.HausbergJ. P. (2019). In crowdfunding we trust: A trust-building model in lending crowdfunding. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(3), 511–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2019.1661682
97.
NichollsA. (2009). “We do good things, don’t we?”: “Blended value accounting” in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.008
98.
NielsenK. R.BinderJ. K. (2021). I am what I pledge: The importance of value alignment for mobilizing backers in reward-based crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(3), 531–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720929888
99.
O’DonovanG. (2002). Environmental disclosures in the annual report. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 344–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435870
100.
ÓgáinE. N.LumleyT.PritchardD. (2012). Making an impact: Impact measurement among charities and social enterprises (issue 10). New Philanthropy Capital.
101.
OlsenS.GalimidiB. (2008). Catalog of approaches to impact measurement: A catalog of methods for entrepreneurs and investors to define, measure and communicate social impact and return in privately-held companies (p. 74). Social Venture Technology Group.
102.
OrdaniniA.MiceliL.PizzettiM.ParasuramanA. (2011). Crowdfunding: Transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal of Service Management, 22(4), 443–470. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111155079
103.
OrmistonJ.SeymourR. (2011). Understanding value creation in social entrepreneurship: The importance of aligning mission, strategy and impact measurement. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2011.606331
104.
PachecoD. F.DeanT. J.PayneD. S. (2010). Escaping the green prison: Entrepreneurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.006
105.
ParhankangasA.RenkoM. (2017). Linguistic style and crowdfunding success among social and commercial entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.11.001
106.
PlummerL. A.AllisonT. H.ConnellyB. L. (2016). Better together? Signaling interactions in new venture pursuit of initial external capital. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1585–1604. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0100
107.
PolzinF.ToxopeusH.StamE. (2018). The wisdom of the crowd in funding: Information heterogeneity and social networks of crowdfunders. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9829-3
108.
RenningsK. (2000). Redefining innovation—Eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 32(2), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00112-3
109.
RuefM.ScottW. (1998). A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 877–904. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393619
110.
RyuS. (2024). Antecedents and consequences of relationship motivation in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Alternative Finance, 1(2), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/27533743241259493
111.
SapienzaH. J.KorsgaardM. A. (1996). Procedural justice in entrepreneur-investor relations. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 544–574. https://doi.org/10.2307/256655
112.
SchaeferK.CornerP. D.KearinsK. (2015). Social, environmental and sustainable entrepreneurship research: What is needed for sustainability-as-flourishing?Organization & Environment, 28(4), 394–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615621111
113.
SchalteggerS.WagnerM. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
114.
SewaidA.ParkerS. C.KaakehA. (2021). Explaining serial crowdfunders’ dynamic fundraising performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(4), 106124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106124
115.
ShepherdD. A.PatzeltH. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “What is to be sustained” with “What is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00426.x
116.
ShneorR.Baah-PeprahP.CoxJ.NguyenT. (2026). Acting on good intentions? A longitudinal study of prosocial lending intentions and behaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 203(4), 863–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06065-y
117.
ShneorR.MrzygłódU.Adamska-MieruszewskaJ.Fornalska-SkurczyńskaA. (2022). The role of social trust in reward crowdfunding campaigns’ design and success. Electronic Markets, 32(3), 1103–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00456-5
SiemrothC.HornufL. (2023). Why do retail investors pick green investments? A lab-in-the-field experiment with crowdfunders. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 209, 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.02.023
120.
SimonM.StantonS. J.TownsendJ. D.KimJ. (2019). A multi-method study of social ties and crowdfunding success: Opening the black box to get the cash inside. Journal of Business Research, 104(C), 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.010
121.
StubbsW. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship and B corps. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1920
122.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
SullivanM. K.MillerA. (1996). Segmenting the informal venture capital market: Economic, hedonistic, and altruistic investors. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00160-3
125.
TaeuscherK.BounckenR.PeschR. (2021). Gaining legitimacy by being different: Optimal distinctiveness in crowdfunding platforms. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0620
126.
ToxopeusH. (2019). Financing sustainable innovation: From a principal-agent to a collective action perspective. Erasmus University. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/114018/
127.
ToxopeusH.PolzinF.CaiW.HuismanR. (2025). Investor types and campaign dynamics in investment crowdfunding: A herding and collective action perspective. Research Policy, 54(9), 105303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105303
128.
VasileiadouE.HuijbenJ. C. C. M.RavenR. P. J. M. (2016). Three is a crowd? Exploring the potential of crowdfunding for renewable energy in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 128, 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.028
129.
VismaraS. (2018). Signaling to Overcome Inefficiencies in Crowdfunding Markets. In CummingDouglasHornufLars (Eds.), The Economics of Crowdfunding (pp. 29–56). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66119-3_3
WehnertP.BaccarellaC. V.BeckmannM. (2019). In crowdfunding we trust? Investigating crowdfunding success as a signal for enhancing trust in sustainable product features. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.036
132.
YinL.-Y.KhalilF. C.KhalilL. J.KaspardJ. A. (2025). The role of project description in the success of sustainable crowdfunding projects. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(4), 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18040200
133.
ZhouH.YeS. (2019). Legitimacy, worthiness, and social network: An empirical study of the key factors influencing crowdfunding outcomes for nonprofit projects. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 849–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-0004-0
