Development of a Success Prediction Model for Crowdfunding Based on Machine Learning Reflecting ESG Information
Open accessAbstract
This study aims to develop a success prediction model for crowdfunding by integrating ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors using machine learning techniques. Crowdfunding, a modern financing method conducted through online platforms, has become a popular avenue for raising funds, particularly for creative projects, startups, and social enterprises. Incorporating ESG factors into crowdfunding success prediction models is crucial, as these factors represent environmental responsibility, social accountability, and ethical governance, which are increasingly important to investors and sponsors. To achieve the research objectives, this study employed advanced machine learning algorithms, including XGBoost, LightGBM, AdaBoost, CatBoost, and NGBoost, to analyze data from a prominent reward-based crowdfunding platform in Korea, ‘Wadiz.’ Text mining techniques were used to quantify unstructured ESG-related data, and the predictive performance of models including ESG factors was compared with models excluding them. The results demonstrated that prediction accuracy significantly improved when ESG factors were incorporated. Among the ESG dimensions, environmental information contributed the highest prediction performance, followed by social activity information and governance information. The findings of this study contribute to academia by expanding the understanding of non-financial factors in crowdfunding success prediction and integrating ESG elements into machine learning models. This research also provides practical implications by offering insights for platform operators, project creators, and investors to improve decision-making processes through the strategic use of ESG factors. The proposed model enhances crowdfunding platforms’ reliability and success rates, supports project makers in designing impactful campaigns, and aids investors in making sustainable and data-driven investment decisions. This study advances theoretical understanding and provides actionable strategies for enhancing the effectiveness of crowdfunding in practice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Including ESG information in AI-based crowdfunding success prediction increases accuracy from approximately 81-83% to 89-90%.
“When ESG was not taken into account, the predictive AI model predicted the success of campaigns in approximately 81-83% of cases with the best algorithms (XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost). After adding environmental information, the accuracy increased to 89-90% (e.g., LightGBM: from 82.9% to 89.7%).”
From Artificial Intelligence in Managerial Decision-Making for Sustainable Business Models: A Systematic Literature Review (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
The study by Park et al. analyzed 3196 crowdfunding campaigns from three Korean platforms, with a mean success rate of 0.56.
“The study analyzed 3196 crowdfunding campaigns from three Korean platforms (Wadiz, Tumblbug, and Crowdy) and used a binary indicator, Success, as the dependent variable (1 = the campaign achieved its goal, 0 = it failed). The mean value of the success variable in the dataset was 0.56, indicating that 56% of the campaigns were successful.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Managerial Decision-Making for Sustainable Business Models: A Systematic Literature Review (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
Integrating ESG information into AI-based decision models materially improves predictive accuracy, as shown by Park et al. [31] where accuracy increased from 81-83% to nearly 90%.
“At the strategic level, evidence from Park et al. [31] shows that integrating ESG information into AI-based decision models materially improves predictive accuracy: in crowdfunding decision-making, the inclusion of environmental criteria increases campaign success prediction accuracy from approximately 81-83% to nearly 90%, effectively halving the rate of incorrect decisions.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Managerial Decision-Making for Sustainable Business Models: A Systematic Literature Review (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 88 · Cited by 10
- Authors
- Park, J., Na, H. J., & Kim, H.
- Affiliations
- Seoul National University (KR)
- Semyung University (KR)
- Changwon National University (KR)
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- 197275-197289
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4405488235
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 88
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 4.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Semyung University Research Grant of 2023
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Keywords
- crowdfunding, success prediction, ESG factors, reward-based crowdfunding, non-financial factors, environmental, social and governance, crowdfunding platforms, investment decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review