Social innovations and the fight against poverty: An analysis of India's first prosocial P2P lending platform

Prosocial P2P lending platforms are a novel and powerful example of a digital social innovation (DSI) in which the operating model relies primarily on digital technologies and the overarching focus is on the “social” aspect of the innovation. These platforms establish a virtual connection between low‐income individuals and lenders, helping the former access loans at low rates of interest. In realising their mission of fighting poverty, prosocial P2P lending platforms maintain a challenging hybrid – online and offline – focus. This paper explores how prosocial P2P lending platforms enact their hybrid orientation. It draws on an inductive qualitative study of Rang De, India's first prosocial P2P lending platform. The analysis highlights five clusters of actions: digital attention‐building, digital credibility‐building, digital empathy‐building, intermediary relationship‐building, and borrower relationship‐building. The paper argues that significant strengths on the online side help establish a sustainable business model. A willingness and commitment to maintain a high degree of engagement with the complex offline world of low‐income borrowers helps develop the model as an impactful social innovation.

[1]  Carlos Serrano-Cinca,et al.  The use of profit scoring as an alternative to credit scoring systems in peer-to-peer (P2P) lending , 2016, Decis. Support Syst..

[2]  Shan Ling Pan,et al.  The influence of organizational identification on organizational knowledge management (KM) , 2008 .

[3]  I. Galloway Peer-to-peer lending and community development finance , 2009 .

[4]  John Carr,et al.  Kiva's Flat, Flat World: Ten Years of Microcredit in Cyberspace , 2016 .

[5]  Zhao Wang,et al.  Mining Semantic Soft Factors for Credit Risk Evaluation in Peer-to-Peer Lending , 2020, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[6]  E. Mattarelli,et al.  Building Bridges in Global Virtual Teams: The Role of Multicultural Brokers in Overcoming the Negative Effects of Identity Threats on Knowledge Sharing Across Subgroups , 2017 .

[7]  Shan Ling Pan,et al.  Boundary permeability and onlineoffline hybrid organization , 2017 .

[8]  Lin Ma,et al.  A new aspect on P2P online lending default prediction using meta-level phone usage data in China , 2018, Decis. Support Syst..

[9]  M. N. Ravishankar,et al.  Public ICT innovations: a strategic ambiguity perspective , 2013, J. Inf. Technol..

[10]  Julie Battilana,et al.  Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises , 2014 .

[11]  John P. Berns,et al.  Dynamics of Lending-Based Prosocial Crowdfunding: Using a Social Responsibility Lens , 2018, Journal of Business Ethics.

[12]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Friendships in Online Peer-to-Peer Lending: Pipes, Prisms, and Relational Herding , 2015 .

[13]  D. Shepherd,et al.  A Framework for Exploring the Degree of Hybridity in Entrepreneurship , 2019, Academy of Management Perspectives.

[14]  B. Funk,et al.  Online Peer-to-Peer Lending - A Literature Review , 2011 .

[15]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .

[16]  A. Vaccaro,et al.  Stakeholders Matter: How Social Enterprises Address Mission Drift , 2017 .

[17]  M. N. Ravishankar,et al.  Social innovations in outsourcing: An empirical investigation of impact sourcing companies in India , 2015, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[18]  David M. Weber,et al.  Information Asymmetries and Identification Bias in P2P Social Microlending , 2015, 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  Jennifer Jie Xu,et al.  Cheap Talk? The Impact of Lender-Borrower Communication on Peer-to-Peer Lending Outcomes , 2018, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Bin Gu,et al.  Predicting and Deterring Default with Social Media Information in Peer-to-Peer Lending , 2017, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Bowing before Dual Gods: How Structured Flexibility Sustains Organizational Hybridity* , 2019 .

[22]  J. Battilana,et al.  BUILDING SUSTAINABLE HYBRID ORGANIZATIONS: THE CASE OF COMMERCIAL MICROFINANCE ORGANIZATIONS , 2010 .

[23]  Richard Leifer,et al.  Using Simultaneous Structures to Cope With Uncertainty , 1983 .

[24]  Xi Lin,et al.  Judging online peer-to-peer lending behavior: A comparison of first-time and repeated borrowing requests , 2016, Inf. Manag..

[25]  Frederick J. Riggins,et al.  Information asymmetries and identification bias in P2P social microlending , 2017 .

[26]  Renate E. Meyer,et al.  The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism , 2017 .

[27]  Heather A. Haveman,et al.  Hybrid Forms and the Evolution of Thrifts , 2006 .

[28]  RUSHING TO REGULATE: RETHINKING THE RBI’S DIRECTIVES ON PEER-TO-PEER REGULATIONS IN INDIA , 2019 .

[29]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprise , 2013, Business Ethics Quarterly.

[30]  Alnoor Ebrahim,et al.  The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations , 2014 .

[31]  Loizos Heracleous,et al.  Singapore Airlines' Balancing Act , 2010 .

[32]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Doing interpretive research , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[33]  E. Schein The Corporate Culture Survival Guide , 1999 .

[34]  M. Pratt,et al.  Classifying Managerial Responses to Multiple Organizational Identities , 2000 .

[35]  M. Pratt,et al.  Constructing Professional Identity: The Role of Work and Identity Learning Cycles in the Customization of Identity Among Medical Residents , 2006 .

[36]  Serrano-CincaCarlos,et al.  The use of profit scoring as an alternative to credit scoring systems in peer-to-peer (P2P) lending , 2016 .

[37]  Carlos Serrano-Cinca,et al.  The use of pro fi t scoring as an alternative to credit scoring systems in peer-to-peer ( P 2 P ) lending , 2016 .

[38]  Mingfeng Lin,et al.  Market Mechanisms in Online Peer-to-Peer Lending , 2017, Manag. Sci..

[39]  Jeffery S. McMullen Organizational hybrids as biological hybrids: Insights for research on the relationship between social enterprise and the entrepreneurial ecosystem , 2018, Journal of Business Venturing.

[40]  M. N. Ravishankar,et al.  Sociocultural transitions and developmental impacts in the digital economy of impact sourcing , 2018, Inf. Syst. J..

[41]  A. Schwittay Digital mediations of everyday humanitarianism: the case of Kiva.org , 2019, Citizen Aid and Everyday Humanitarianism.

[42]  Dongyu Chen,et al.  Toward an Understanding of Online Lending Intentions: Evidence from a Survey in China , 2015, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[43]  R. Mersland,et al.  Microfinance Mission Drift , 2010 .

[44]  Emily S. Block,et al.  Funding the story of hybrid ventures: Crowdfunder lending preferences and linguistic hybridity , 2017, Journal of Business Venturing.

[45]  Marya L. Besharov,et al.  Unpacking Variation in Hybrid Organizational Forms: Changing Models of Social Enterprise Among Nonprofits, 2000–2013 , 2018, Journal of Business Ethics.

[46]  John Carr,et al.  Kiva.org, Person-to-Person Lending, and the Conditions of Intercultural Contact , 2013 .

[47]  S. Ansari,et al.  Taming Wicked Problems: The Role of Framing in the Construction of Corporate Social Responsibility , 2016 .

[48]  J. Sandberg,et al.  The ethical crisis in microfinance: Issues, findings, and implications , 2013 .

[49]  Jie Liu,et al.  Boundary permeability and online-offline hybrid organization: A case study of Suning, China , 2017, Inf. Manag..

[50]  Siva Viswanathan,et al.  Judging Borrowers by the Company They Keep: Friendship Networks and Information Asymmetry in Online Peer-to-Peer Lending , 2011, Manag. Sci..

[51]  R. Voola,et al.  The Role of Hybrid Organizations in Scaling Social Innovations in Bottom‐of‐the‐Pyramid Markets: Insights from Microfinance in India , 2019, Journal of Product Innovation Management.

[52]  Anne Ellerup Nielsen,et al.  Constructing Non-profit Identity in the Midst of Stakeholder Complexity , 2016 .

[53]  P. Adler Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism , 2001 .

[54]  Jonathan Z. Zhang,et al.  Strategic Information Transmission in Peer-to-Peer Lending Markets , 2018 .

[55]  A. Werr,et al.  The three challenges of corporate consulting , 2003 .

[56]  B. Armendáriz,et al.  Subsidy Uncertainty and Microfinance Mission Drift , 2013 .

[57]  Asli Demirgüç-Kunt,et al.  Financial Performance and Outreach: A Global Analysis of Leading Microbanks , 2006 .

[58]  Matthew S. Kraatz,et al.  Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism , 2008 .

[59]  M. N. Ravishankar,et al.  Impact sourcing ventures and local communities: a frame alignment perspective , 2016, Inf. Syst. J..

[60]  A. Ghose,et al.  Cultural Differences and Geography as Determinants of Online Prosocial Lending , 2014, MIS Q..