2016 - 2017...executive summary chapter 1: introduction chapter 2: individual table of content...

Giving Hong Kong ReportGiving Hong Kong Report2016 - 2017

GivingHK Report_v2.indd 1 9/12/2019 5:23:51 PM

10

12

1.1 Introduction 25

2.1 Background 29 Survey Objectives 29 Survey Methodology 29

Enumeration Results 29 Statistical Analyses 30

2.2 Demographic Characteristics 31

2.3 Giving of Hong Kong Citizens 33 Patterns of Giving 33 Methods of Donating Money 35 Types of Organizations Supported

by Donors 38 Categories of Causes Supported by Donors 40 Categories of clients supported by donors 42 Factors of Giving to an Organization 44 Reasons for Giving 45 Channels of Receiving Information about Giving 46 Knowledge and Acceptance of Emerging Fundraising Methods 48 Behaviours of Flag-buying 49 Organ Donation Register 50

2.4 Volunteering of Hong Kong Citizens 52 Patterns of Volunteering 52

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: INDIVIDUAL

Table of Content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PREFACE


3

10

12

1.1 Introduction 25

2.1 Background 29 Survey Objectives 29 Survey Methodology 29

Enumeration Results 29 Statistical Analyses 30

2.2 Demographic Characteristics 31

2.3 Giving of Hong Kong Citizens 33 Patterns of Giving 33 Methods of Donating Money 35 Types of Organizations Supported

by Donors 38 Categories of Causes Supported by Donors 40 Categories of clients supported by donors 42 Factors of Giving to an Organization 44 Reasons for Giving 45 Channels of Receiving Information about Giving 46 Knowledge and Acceptance of Emerging Fundraising Methods 48 Behaviours of Flag-buying 49 Organ Donation Register 50

2.4 Volunteering of Hong Kong Citizens 52 Patterns of Volunteering 52

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2: INDIVIDUAL

Table of Content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PREFACE


4

Types of Organizations Served by Volunteers 54 Categories of Causes Supported by Volunteers 56 Categories of Clients Served by Volunteers 58 Time Spent in Volunteer Work 59 First Volunteering Experience 60 Reasons for volunteering 60 Experience in Informal Volunteer Work 62 Channels of Receiving Volunteering Information 65

3.1 Research Method 69 Scarcity of corporate giving data 69

Scope and sources of data 70 Data collection process and data format 71 Variables Identified 71 Limitations 74

3.2 Corporate Giving in Hong Kong in 2016 75 Financials, Business Focus and

Corporate Donation 75 Region of Origin 76 Regional Focus of Operation 78

3.3 Corporate Giving Activities in 2016 80 Types of Corporate Giving Activities 80 Regional Focus of Corporate Giving

Activities 81 Beneficiaries and Contributions of Corporate Giving Activities 83 Sectors of Beneficiaries of Corporate Giving Activities 84 Social Issues Addressed 86 Age Group of Beneficiaries 87 Corporate Roles 89

CHAPTER 4: PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS

CHAPTER 3: CORPORATE

4.1 Research Method 93 Phase 1: Defining and Locating

Philanthropic Foundations 94 Phase 2: Collecting Basic Financial Data 96 Phase 3: Collecting Basic Organizational and Giving Data 96 Limitations 97

4.2 Foundation Giving in Hong Kong

in 2016 98 Donations 98 4.3 Characteristics of Philanthropic

Foundations 99 Registration of the Company Registry 99 With Online Information 99 Nature of Philanthropic Foundations 100 Types of Philanthropic Foundations 101 Region-based and Region-served 102 Religious Affiliation 103 Age Group and Sectors of Beneficiaries 104 Social Issues Addressed 105

107

111

112

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF HANG SENG INDEX CONSTITUENT STOCK COMPANIES (AS OF JUNE 30, 2017)

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUDING REMARKS

APPENDIX 2: THE DOING GOOD AND CITIZENSHIP SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE


5

Types of Organizations Served by Volunteers 54 Categories of Causes Supported by Volunteers 56 Categories of Clients Served by Volunteers 58 Time Spent in Volunteer Work 59 First Volunteering Experience 60 Reasons for volunteering 60 Experience in Informal Volunteer Work 62 Channels of Receiving Volunteering Information 65

3.1 Research Method 69 Scarcity of corporate giving data 69

Scope and sources of data 70 Data collection process and data format 71 Variables Identified 71 Limitations 74

3.2 Corporate Giving in Hong Kong in 2016 75 Financials, Business Focus and

Corporate Donation 75 Region of Origin 76 Regional Focus of Operation 78

3.3 Corporate Giving Activities in 2016 80 Types of Corporate Giving Activities 80 Regional Focus of Corporate Giving

Activities 81 Beneficiaries and Contributions of Corporate Giving Activities 83 Sectors of Beneficiaries of Corporate Giving Activities 84 Social Issues Addressed 86 Age Group of Beneficiaries 87 Corporate Roles 89

CHAPTER 4: PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS

CHAPTER 3: CORPORATE

4.1 Research Method 93 Phase 1: Defining and Locating

Philanthropic Foundations 94 Phase 2: Collecting Basic Financial Data 96 Phase 3: Collecting Basic Organizational and Giving Data 96 Limitations 97

4.2 Foundation Giving in Hong Kong

in 2016 98 Donations 98 4.3 Characteristics of Philanthropic

Foundations 99 Registration of the Company Registry 99 With Online Information 99 Nature of Philanthropic Foundations 100 Types of Philanthropic Foundations 101 Region-based and Region-served 102 Religious Affiliation 103 Age Group and Sectors of Beneficiaries 104 Social Issues Addressed 105

107

111

112

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF HANG SENG INDEX CONSTITUENT STOCK COMPANIES (AS OF JUNE 30, 2017)

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUDING REMARKS

APPENDIX 2: THE DOING GOOD AND CITIZENSHIP SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE


6

Table 2.1 Number of samples and enumeration result P.30 Figure 2.2 Demographic characteristics of respondents P.31 Chart 2.3 Average monthly personal income (%) P.32 Chart 2.4 Average monthly household income (%) P.32 Chart 2.5 Giving in the past 12 months (%) P.33 Chart 2.6 Types of donation in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%) P.33 Chart 2.7 Reasons for not having given in the past 12 months (multiple answers)

(%) P.34

Chart 2.8 Willingness of non-donors to give in the forthcoming 12 months (%) P.35 Chart 2.9 Methods of donating money in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%) P.35 Table 2.10 Average donation frequency and average donation amount each time for

different donation methods in the past 12 months (%) P.36

Chart 2.11 Payment methods used to donate money in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.37

Chart 2.12 Acceptance of payment methods to donate money (%) P.37 Chart 2.13 Types of organizations that current donors had given to in the past 12

months (multiple answers) (%) P.38

Chart 2.14 Types of organizations that current donors and non-donors who were willing to give would give to in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.39

Chart 2.15 Categories of causes that current donors had given in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.40

Chart 2.16 Categories of causes that current donors and non-donors who were willing to give would give to in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.41

Chart 2.17 Categories of clients that current donors had given to in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.42

Chart 2.18 Categories of clients that current donors and non-donors who were willing to give would give to in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.43

Chart 2.19 Factors of giving to organizations (multiple answers) (%) P.44 Chart 2.20 Reasons for giving (multiple answers) (%) P.45 Table 2.21 Channels of receiving information about giving in the past 12 months (%) P.46 Table 2.22 Channels of receiving information about giving in the past 12 months

analyzed by the types of donors (%) P.47

Table 2.23 Knowledge and acceptance of emerging fundraising methods (%) P.48 Table 2.24 Knowledge and acceptance of emerging fundraising methods analyzed by

the types of donors (%) P.49

Chart 2.25 Buying flags in the past 12 months (%) P.49 Chart 2.26 Frequency of paying attention to flag-selling organizations (%) P.50

List of Table Chart 2.27 Organ donation register (%) P.50 Chart 2.28 Reasons for not registering as organ donors (multiple answers) (%) P.51 Chart 2.29 Volunteering in the past 12 months (%) P.52 Chart 2.30 Reasons for not volunteering in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%) P.53 Chart 2.31 Willingness of non-volunteers to volunteer in the forthcoming 12 months

(%) P.53

Chart 2.32 Types of organizations that current volunteers had worked for in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.54

Chart 2.33 Types of organizations that current volunteers and non-volunteers who were willing to volunteer would work for in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.55

Chart 2.34 Categories of causes that current volunteers had worked for in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.56

Chart 2.35 Categories of causes that current volunteers and non-volunteers who were willing to volunteer would work for in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.57

Chart 2.36 Categories of clients that current volunteers had served in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.58

Chart 2.37 Categories of clients that current volunteers and non-volunteers who were willing to volunteer would serve in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.59

Table 2.38 Average monthly hours and annual hours spent in volunteer work by each current volunteer in the past 12 months (%)

P.59

Chart 2.39 Period of the first volunteering experience (%) P.60 Chart 2.40 Reasons for volunteering (multiple answers) (%) P.61 Chart 2.41 Experience in voluntarily offering help to friends (%) P.62 Chart 2.42 Experience in voluntarily offering help to neighbors (%) P.63 Chart 2.43 Experience in participating in volunteer work that was initiated online (%) P.63 Chart 2.44 Experience in participating in online volunteer work (%) P.64 Chart 2.45 Experience in engaging in informal volunteer work (%) P.64 Table 2.46 Channels of receiving volunteering information in the past 12 months (%) P.65 Table 2.47 Channels of receiving volunteering information in the past 12 months

analyzed by the types of volunteers (%) P.66

Table 3.1 Variables identified P.71 Table 3.2 50 HSI Corporations: Total Assets, Profits and Donations as of June 2017 P.75 Chart 3.3 Percentage distribution of HSI corporations by region of origin P.76 Chart 3.4 Total amount of corporate giving by region of origin in 2015 and 2016 P.76 Chart 3.5 Percentage distribution of total corporate giving by region of origin in 2015

and 2016 P.77


7

Chart 2.27 Organ donation register (%) P.50 Chart 2.28 Reasons for not registering as organ donors (multiple answers) (%) P.51 Chart 2.29 Volunteering in the past 12 months (%) P.52 Chart 2.30 Reasons for not volunteering in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%) P.53 Chart 2.31 Willingness of non-volunteers to volunteer in the forthcoming 12 months

(%) P.53


P.54

Chart 2.33 Types of organizations that current volunteers and non-volunteers who were willing to volunteer would work for in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.55

Chart 2.34 Categories of causes that current volunteers had worked for in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.56

Chart 2.35 Categories of causes that current volunteers and non-volunteers who were willing to volunteer would work for in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.57


P.58

Chart 2.37 Categories of clients that current volunteers and non-volunteers who were willing to volunteer would serve in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

P.59

Table 2.38 Average monthly hours and annual hours spent in volunteer work by each current volunteer in the past 12 months (%)

P.59

Chart 2.39 Period of the first volunteering experience (%) P.60 Chart 2.40 Reasons for volunteering (multiple answers) (%) P.61 Chart 2.41 Experience in voluntarily offering help to friends (%) P.62 Chart 2.42 Experience in voluntarily offering help to neighbors (%) P.63 Chart 2.43 Experience in participating in volunteer work that was initiated online (%) P.63 Chart 2.44 Experience in participating in online volunteer work (%) P.64 Chart 2.45 Experience in engaging in informal volunteer work (%) P.64 Table 2.46 Channels of receiving volunteering information in the past 12 months (%) P.65 Table 2.47 Channels of receiving volunteering information in the past 12 months

analyzed by the types of volunteers (%) P.66

Table 3.1 Variables identified P.71 Table 3.2 50 HSI Corporations: Total Assets, Profits and Donations as of June 2017 P.75 Chart 3.3 Percentage distribution of HSI corporations by region of origin P.76 Chart 3.4 Total amount of corporate giving by region of origin in 2015 and 2016 P.76 Chart 3.5 Percentage distribution of total corporate giving by region of origin in 2015

and 2016 P.77


8

Chart 3.6 Percentage distribution of HSI corporations by regional focus of operation P.78 Chart 3.7 Total amount of corporate giving by regional focus of operation in 2015

and 2016 P.78

Chart 3.8 Percentage distribution of total corporate giving by regional focus of operation in 2015 and 2016

P.79

Chart 3.9 Percentage distribution of giving activities by type in 2016 P.80 Chart 3.10 Percentage distribution of giving activities by type and origins of the

corporations in 2016 P.81

Chart 3.11 Percentage distribution of giving activities by regional focus of the activities in 2016

P.81

Chart 3.12 Percentage distribution of giving activities by regional focus of the activities and origins of the corporations in 2016

P.82

Table 3.13 Number of beneficiaries and corporate contributions P.83 Chart 3.14 Sectors of beneficiaries of giving activities in 2016 P.84 Chart 3.15 Percentage distribution of giving activities by sectors of beneficiaries and

origins of the corporations in 2016 P.85

Chart 3.16 Social issues addressed of giving activities in 2016 P.86 Chart 3.17 Percentage distribution of giving activities by sectors of beneficiaries and

origins of the corporations in 2016 P.87

Table 3.18 Percentage distribution of age group of beneficiaries accumulated over years by age group in 2016

P.88

Chart 3.19 Percentage distribution of beneficiaries accumulated over years by age groups of beneficiaries and origins of the corporations in 2016

P.88

Table 3.20 Percentage distribution of corporate roles of the giving activities in 2016 P.89 Table 3.21 Percentage distribution of corporate roles of the giving activities by origins

of the corporations in 2016 P.90

Table 4.1 Reported Donations in 2015 and 2016 P.98 Table 4.2 Registration of the Company Registry P.99 Table 4.3 Philanthropic foundations with online information P.99 Chart 4.4 The nature of Philanthropic Foundations P.100 Chart 4.5 The types of Philanthropic Foundations P.101 Chart 4.6 Region-based of Philanthropic Foundations P.102 Chart 4.7 Region-served of Philanthropic Foundations P.102 Chart 4.8 Religious affiliation of Philanthropic Foundations P.103 Chart 4.9 Age group of beneficiaries of Philanthropic Foundations P.104 Chart 4.10 Sectors of beneficiaries of Philanthropic Foundations P.104 Chart 4.11 Social issues addressed by Philanthropic Foundations P.105


9


10

PREFACE Giving and volunteering are normally considered as virtuous conducts, as they are efforts in mobilizing societal resources to better the lives of others, may it be in the realms of personal well-being, societal interests, the environment, or animals. As such, they are essential features of the civil society, which consists of formal organizations and informal connections that exist outside the state, the market, and the family, and operate to advance shared benefits and values. It is the civil society, as some scholars argue, that leads the restoration of the imbalance left by the state and the market. From this perspective, giving and volunteering is immense not only as efforts among members of society to help one another, but also in augmenting and amending the work of the state to look after its citizens. Giving and volunteering is certainly not new to Hong Kong society. Since the late 19th century, local philanthropists have been at the forefront in the setting up of hospitals and NGOs to serve local Chinese. Although nowadays the Hong Kong government has assumed a much heavier role in providing for the welfare of its citizens, the reciprocal tradition continues. Hong Kong was ranked 30th among 144 countries/cities in CAF World Giving Index 2018. Figures on the local scene show a steady increase in the amount of donations. In the ten years from 2004/5 to 2014/5, approved charitable donations under personal income tax grew from HK$3.37 billion to HK$6.95 billion. Approved charitable donations under profits tax rose from HK$1.72 billion to HK$4.71 billion during the same period. The number of charitable organizations registered with the Inland Revenue Department mushroomed from 4,832 in 2007 to over 15,000 in 2017. Other than those general figures, a more complete picture of giving and volunteering in Hong Kong is wanting. There are, to be sure, scattered studies on giving and volunteering behaviors. Unfortunately, a study that covers the overall philanthropic scene is lacking. This report is an attempt to fill this void. It strives to supply a landscape view of individual, corporate and foundation giving and volunteering behavior. To this end, it is, to the best of our knowledge, the first of its kind in Hong Kong. As a first try, this study is exploratory at the most, as data collection alone presented an enormous challenge. A partial preview would reveal the lack of a uniform giving reporting system even for publicly listed corporations, as well as the scarcity of required information for the charitable foundations. Despite its significance, providing a landscape picture of giving and volunteering is but one purpose of this study. Other goals are more forward looking and should be useful to

NGOs; a few examples include identifying the levels of acceptance of newer forms of giving methods, the mindsets of individual giving and volunteering, the importance of NGO governance in individuals’ donation decision, and effective channels of fundraising and volunteer recruitment. Last but not least, we endeavor to point to ways to enhance the transparency of the philanthropic sector in Hong Kong. No information, scanty information or non-uniform information may feed distrust and deception, and will in the end hamper the development of both the philanthropic sector and civil society. During the research process, we have come across a few issues in which improvement was urgently needed. This research would not have been possible if not for the support of a number of organizations and individuals. The Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Hong Kong has generously funded the research and provided the graphic design of the report, and Policy 21 Ltd. took up the difficult task of conducting a door-to-door survey to collect individual giving and volunteering data. Also, we had a team of dedicated research collaborators who braved numerous challenges to eventually compile the corporate and foundation data sets. In particular, we would like to thank Dr. Rikkie Yeung, Dr. Lin Nie, Dr. Elaine Chan, Mr. Dickson Chan, and Mr. Ronson Chan. Finally, we’d like to thank Mrs. Amy Tsang for her advice, Ms. Lorraine Lui and Ms. Josephine Lau for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of the report, as well as Ms Joyce Chow for designing the information booklet. We by no means claim that this report is a definitive study of the state of giving and volunteering in Hong Kong, for as a first attempt it certainly has a number of limitations. This is the best that we could do taking into account the almost insurmountable challenge of information collection. Nevertheless, we hope that the report will serve as a pointer for future development, and a starting point to generate further discussion and action to take the field of philanthropy forward. Wai-Fung (Danny) Lam Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration Director, Centre for Civil Society and Governance Project Director, HKU-HKJC ExCEL3 August 2019


11

PREFACE Giving and volunteering are normally considered as virtuous conducts, as they are efforts in mobilizing societal resources to better the lives of others, may it be in the realms of personal well-being, societal interests, the environment, or animals. As such, they are essential features of the civil society, which consists of formal organizations and informal connections that exist outside the state, the market, and the family, and operate to advance shared benefits and values. It is the civil society, as some scholars argue, that leads the restoration of the imbalance left by the state and the market. From this perspective, giving and volunteering is immense not only as efforts among members of society to help one another, but also in augmenting and amending the work of the state to look after its citizens. Giving and volunteering is certainly not new to Hong Kong society. Since the late 19th century, local philanthropists have been at the forefront in the setting up of hospitals and NGOs to serve local Chinese. Although nowadays the Hong Kong government has assumed a much heavier role in providing for the welfare of its citizens, the reciprocal tradition continues. Hong Kong was ranked 30th among 144 countries/cities in CAF World Giving Index 2018. Figures on the local scene show a steady increase in the amount of donations. In the ten years from 2004/5 to 2014/5, approved charitable donations under personal income tax grew from HK$3.37 billion to HK$6.95 billion. Approved charitable donations under profits tax rose from HK$1.72 billion to HK$4.71 billion during the same period. The number of charitable organizations registered with the Inland Revenue Department mushroomed from 4,832 in 2007 to over 15,000 in 2017. Other than those general figures, a more complete picture of giving and volunteering in Hong Kong is wanting. There are, to be sure, scattered studies on giving and volunteering behaviors. Unfortunately, a study that covers the overall philanthropic scene is lacking. This report is an attempt to fill this void. It strives to supply a landscape view of individual, corporate and foundation giving and volunteering behavior. To this end, it is, to the best of our knowledge, the first of its kind in Hong Kong. As a first try, this study is exploratory at the most, as data collection alone presented an enormous challenge. A partial preview would reveal the lack of a uniform giving reporting system even for publicly listed corporations, as well as the scarcity of required information for the charitable foundations. Despite its significance, providing a landscape picture of giving and volunteering is but one purpose of this study. Other goals are more forward looking and should be useful to

NGOs; a few examples include identifying the levels of acceptance of newer forms of giving methods, the mindsets of individual giving and volunteering, the importance of NGO governance in individuals’ donation decision, and effective channels of fundraising and volunteer recruitment. Last but not least, we endeavor to point to ways to enhance the transparency of the philanthropic sector in Hong Kong. No information, scanty information or non-uniform information may feed distrust and deception, and will in the end hamper the development of both the philanthropic sector and civil society. During the research process, we have come across a few issues in which improvement was urgently needed. This research would not have been possible if not for the support of a number of organizations and individuals. The Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Hong Kong has generously funded the research and provided the graphic design of the report, and Policy 21 Ltd. took up the difficult task of conducting a door-to-door survey to collect individual giving and volunteering data. Also, we had a team of dedicated research collaborators who braved numerous challenges to eventually compile the corporate and foundation data sets. In particular, we would like to thank Dr. Rikkie Yeung, Dr. Lin Nie, Dr. Elaine Chan, Mr. Dickson Chan, and Mr. Ronson Chan. Finally, we’d like to thank Mrs. Amy Tsang for her advice, Ms. Lorraine Lui and Ms. Josephine Lau for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of the report, as well as Ms Joyce Chow for designing the information booklet. We by no means claim that this report is a definitive study of the state of giving and volunteering in Hong Kong, for as a first attempt it certainly has a number of limitations. This is the best that we could do taking into account the almost insurmountable challenge of information collection. Nevertheless, we hope that the report will serve as a pointer for future development, and a starting point to generate further discussion and action to take the field of philanthropy forward. Wai-Fung (Danny) Lam Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration Director, Centre for Civil Society and Governance Project Director, HKU-HKJC ExCEL3 August 2019


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INDIVIDUAL SURVEY

Background

The main objective of this survey is to investigate Hong Kong citizens’ attitudes and behaviours related to giving and volunteering. It also aims to identify factors that facilitate or hinder charitable giving, formal and informal volunteering, and community involvement.

Enumeration results

The main survey was conducted from January to July 2018. A total of 1201 respondents aged 15 or above residing in Hong Kong were successfully enumerated, which represented a response rate of 58.7%.

Key definitions

In this survey, giving referred to the unconditional donation of gifts such as money, blood, and goods. Current donors referred to persons who had given (except for flag-buying) in the past 12 months; non-donors referred to persons who had not given in the past 12 months, and likely donors referred to persons who had not given in the past 12 months but indicated a willingness to give in the next 12 months.

Volunteering referred to voluntary contribution of time and effort by individuals or organizations without any material reward. Current volunteers referred to persons who had volunteered in the past 12 months and non-volunteers referred to persons who had not volunteered in the past 12 months.

Patterns of giving

Of the total number of respondents, 43.8% were current donors, 4.0% were likely donors, and 56.2% were non-donors. Of the current donors, 79.4% donated money, 33.3% donated goods, and 10.8% donated blood.

The main reasons that non-donors had not given in the past 12 months were “I have no


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INDIVIDUAL SURVEY

Background

The main objective of this survey is to investigate Hong Kong citizens’ attitudes and behaviours related to giving and volunteering. It also aims to identify factors that facilitate or hinder charitable giving, formal and informal volunteering, and community involvement.

Enumeration results

The main survey was conducted from January to July 2018. A total of 1201 respondents aged 15 or above residing in Hong Kong were successfully enumerated, which represented a response rate of 58.7%.

Key definitions

In this survey, giving referred to the unconditional donation of gifts such as money, blood, and goods. Current donors referred to persons who had given (except for flag-buying) in the past 12 months; non-donors referred to persons who had not given in the past 12 months, and likely donors referred to persons who had not given in the past 12 months but indicated a willingness to give in the next 12 months.

Volunteering referred to voluntary contribution of time and effort by individuals or organizations without any material reward. Current volunteers referred to persons who had volunteered in the past 12 months and non-volunteers referred to persons who had not volunteered in the past 12 months.

Patterns of giving

Of the total number of respondents, 43.8% were current donors, 4.0% were likely donors, and 56.2% were non-donors. Of the current donors, 79.4% donated money, 33.3% donated goods, and 10.8% donated blood.

The main reasons that non-donors had not given in the past 12 months were “I have no


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

14

extra money/items to given” (59.7%) and “I was not exposed to any appeal” (52.6%).

Current donors donated money through a variety of methods and the more common methods were regular donation through auto transfer (23.5%), donation box in store/street (23.4%), and fundraising activities in the street (22.8%). In the past 12 months, current donors who donated money did so, on average, 6.2 times using different donation methods and gave $1755.2. Their most common payment methods were cash (83.4%) and bank transfer (24.7%). They were also more accepting of cash (86.3%) and bank transfer (42.9%) as their donation methods.

Types/categories of organizations, causes and clients supported by donors

Regarding donating to a particular type of organization, a higher proportion of current donors donated to social service organizations (54.6%), health care organizations/hospitals (48.1%), and environmental protection organizations (19.7%). In the forthcoming 12 months, more current donors and likely donors would want to give to social service organizations (60.1%), health care organizations/hospitals (47.6%), educational organizations (23.6%), and environmental protection organizations (23.1%).

More popular causes to which current donors had donated in the last 12 months included poverty alleviation (32.8%), health care and medical service (27.9%), and environmental protection (19.9%). Furthermore, more current donors and likely donors would want to donate to poverty alleviation (39.0%), health care and medical service (34.1%), and disaster relief (33.3%) in the forthcoming 12 months.

Out of the different categories of clients, a higher proportion of current donors had given to children (40.1%), the elderly (33.3%), and teenagers (28.9%) in the past 12 months. Similarly, a higher proportion of the current donors and likely donors would want to give to children (49.4%), the elderly (47.7%), and teenagers (38.7%) in the next 12 months.

Factors of giving to an organization and reasons for giving

The top three factors that current donors took into consideration when deciding whether they would give to an organization were “purpose of fundraising” (77.3%), “mission/visions of the organization” (72.7%), and “transparency of the organization” (70.4%).

Current donors also had various reasons for giving. Over three quarters of them indicated “I like to help others” (85.7%), “giving creates a better society” (81.2%), and “giving makes me feel better about myself” (77.8%).

Channels of receiving information about giving

Many more respondents indicated they had received information about giving from the following channels compared to other channels: the community (33.3%), posters or advertisements in public places (32.5%), and friends (31.0%). Regarding the effectiveness of these channels, the top three were friends (14.7%), the community (11.3%), and schools (9.5%).

Knowledge and acceptance of emerging fundraising methods

Among various emerging fundraising methods, the more popular ones included online crowdfunding/P2P (26.3%), charity trust fund (23.4%), and social impact bond (18.1%). Also, more respondents considered online crowdfunding/P2P (15.6%), charity trust fund (11.7%), and social impact bond (10.6%) as acceptable fundraising methods.

Flag-buying and organ donation register

The majority (69.7%) of respondents stated they had bought flags in the past 12 months. On average, each respondent bought flags 2.3 times and donated $10.9 per month.

Concerning organ donation registration, the majority (89.8%) of respondents indicated they were not registered organ donors. The more common reasons for not registering were “do not agree with organ donations” (37.6%) and “do not know registration methods” (32.2%).

Patterns of volunteering

Of the total number of respondents, 17.5% were current volunteers and 82.5% were non-volunteers. Among the non-volunteers, 5.2% were likely volunteers. In the past 12 months, each current volunteer spent, on average, 14.4 hours in volunteer work per month and 173.2 hours per year.

For non-volunteers, the most common reason why they had not volunteered in the past 12 months was “I have no free time” (66.6%). Other common reasons included “I have no interest in volunteering” (47.5%), “I did not know how to participate in volunteer work” (46.9%), and “there was no proper volunteer work” (42.2%).


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

15

extra money/items to given” (59.7%) and “I was not exposed to any appeal” (52.6%).

Current donors donated money through a variety of methods and the more common methods were regular donation through auto transfer (23.5%), donation box in store/street (23.4%), and fundraising activities in the street (22.8%). In the past 12 months, current donors who donated money did so, on average, 6.2 times using different donation methods and gave $1755.2. Their most common payment methods were cash (83.4%) and bank transfer (24.7%). They were also more accepting of cash (86.3%) and bank transfer (42.9%) as their donation methods.

Types/categories of organizations, causes and clients supported by donors

Regarding donating to a particular type of organization, a higher proportion of current donors donated to social service organizations (54.6%), health care organizations/hospitals (48.1%), and environmental protection organizations (19.7%). In the forthcoming 12 months, more current donors and likely donors would want to give to social service organizations (60.1%), health care organizations/hospitals (47.6%), educational organizations (23.6%), and environmental protection organizations (23.1%).

More popular causes to which current donors had donated in the last 12 months included poverty alleviation (32.8%), health care and medical service (27.9%), and environmental protection (19.9%). Furthermore, more current donors and likely donors would want to donate to poverty alleviation (39.0%), health care and medical service (34.1%), and disaster relief (33.3%) in the forthcoming 12 months.

Out of the different categories of clients, a higher proportion of current donors had given to children (40.1%), the elderly (33.3%), and teenagers (28.9%) in the past 12 months. Similarly, a higher proportion of the current donors and likely donors would want to give to children (49.4%), the elderly (47.7%), and teenagers (38.7%) in the next 12 months.

Factors of giving to an organization and reasons for giving

The top three factors that current donors took into consideration when deciding whether they would give to an organization were “purpose of fundraising” (77.3%), “mission/visions of the organization” (72.7%), and “transparency of the organization” (70.4%).

Current donors also had various reasons for giving. Over three quarters of them indicated “I like to help others” (85.7%), “giving creates a better society” (81.2%), and “giving makes me feel better about myself” (77.8%).


Many more respondents indicated they had received information about giving from the following channels compared to other channels: the community (33.3%), posters or advertisements in public places (32.5%), and friends (31.0%). Regarding the effectiveness of these channels, the top three were friends (14.7%), the community (11.3%), and schools (9.5%).


Among various emerging fundraising methods, the more popular ones included online crowdfunding/P2P (26.3%), charity trust fund (23.4%), and social impact bond (18.1%). Also, more respondents considered online crowdfunding/P2P (15.6%), charity trust fund (11.7%), and social impact bond (10.6%) as acceptable fundraising methods.

Flag-buying and organ donation register

The majority (69.7%) of respondents stated they had bought flags in the past 12 months. On average, each respondent bought flags 2.3 times and donated $10.9 per month.

Concerning organ donation registration, the majority (89.8%) of respondents indicated they were not registered organ donors. The more common reasons for not registering were “do not agree with organ donations” (37.6%) and “do not know registration methods” (32.2%).


Of the total number of respondents, 17.5% were current volunteers and 82.5% were non-volunteers. Among the non-volunteers, 5.2% were likely volunteers. In the past 12 months, each current volunteer spent, on average, 14.4 hours in volunteer work per month and 173.2 hours per year.

For non-volunteers, the most common reason why they had not volunteered in the past 12 months was “I have no free time” (66.6%). Other common reasons included “I have no interest in volunteering” (47.5%), “I did not know how to participate in volunteer work” (46.9%), and “there was no proper volunteer work” (42.2%).


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

16

Types/categories of organizations, causes and clients supported by volunteers

Regarding the types of organizations, a higher proportion of current volunteers had worked for social service organizations (51.8%), educational organizations(41.7%), and religious organizations (21.9%). In the forthcoming 12 months, more current volunteers and likely volunteers would want to serve social service organization (55.9%), educational organization (48.5%), and environmental protection organization (29.2%).

The more popular causes that current volunteers had served included education (35.4%), environmental protection (24.5%) as well as health care and medical service (20.9%). More current volunteers and likely volunteers would want to work for education (46.4%), poverty alleviation (40.8%), and health care and medical service (33.5%) in the next 12 months.

Out of the different categories of clients, a higher proportion of current volunteers had served the elderly (55.9%), children (51.3%), and teenagers (48.0%). A higher proportion of current volunteers and likely volunteers would want to serve the elderly (64.0%), children (61.5%), and teenagers (52.0%) in the next 12 months.

First volunteering experience and reasons for volunteering

About half (49.9%) of current volunteers had their first volunteering experience during school days. The three most common reasons why current volunteers participated in volunteer work were “I like to help others” (95.6%), “volunteering creates a better society” (85.3%), and “volunteering makes my life fulfilling and meaningful” (78.4%).

Experience in informal volunteer work

All respondents were asked whether they had engaged in the following four kinds of volunteer work that was not offered through an institution: offered help to friends, offered help to neighbors, participated in volunteer work that was initiated online, and participated in the online volunteer work. Survey results showed that 22.8% had done informal volunteer work in the past months and 26.1% had done it before, but not in the past 12 months. About half (51.0%) had never done informal volunteer work.

Channels of receiving volunteering information

Of all respondents, a higher proportion of them had received volunteering information from friends (32.0%), the community (28.2%), and posters or advertisements in public places (23.8%). The top three channels considered to be effective included friends (14.7%), schools (9.6%), and the community (9.4%).

CORPORATE

Using the 50 corporations that constituted the Hang Seng Index (HSI) in Hong Kong as of June 30, 2017, a database of the giving and donating patterns of the said corporations was constructed.

Financials, business focus and corporate donation

There is currently no legal requirement for corporations to disclose details of corporate donations. The table below summarizes the key financial information of the 50 HSI corporations in 2015 and 2016. Total coporate donations for 2015 and 2016 were $3.88 and 3.49 billion respectively. While the total assets generated by the largest corporations increased by 12% from 2015 to 2016, the total net profits fell by 6%. Total corporate donations fell by 10% from 2015 to 2016 despite an increase in the total corporate assets. The rate of decrease in corporate donations was larger than that of the fall in net profit. The research team speculated that when corporations made their decisions on donation, they took into consideration more of their bottom lines than asset values. It is worth noting that the gap between the most and least generous corporate donors was quite big.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

17

Types/categories of organizations, causes and clients supported by volunteers

Regarding the types of organizations, a higher proportion of current volunteers had worked for social service organizations (51.8%), educational organizations(41.7%), and religious organizations (21.9%). In the forthcoming 12 months, more current volunteers and likely volunteers would want to serve social service organization (55.9%), educational organization (48.5%), and environmental protection organization (29.2%).

The more popular causes that current volunteers had served included education (35.4%), environmental protection (24.5%) as well as health care and medical service (20.9%). More current volunteers and likely volunteers would want to work for education (46.4%), poverty alleviation (40.8%), and health care and medical service (33.5%) in the next 12 months.

Out of the different categories of clients, a higher proportion of current volunteers had served the elderly (55.9%), children (51.3%), and teenagers (48.0%). A higher proportion of current volunteers and likely volunteers would want to serve the elderly (64.0%), children (61.5%), and teenagers (52.0%) in the next 12 months.

First volunteering experience and reasons for volunteering

About half (49.9%) of current volunteers had their first volunteering experience during school days. The three most common reasons why current volunteers participated in volunteer work were “I like to help others” (95.6%), “volunteering creates a better society” (85.3%), and “volunteering makes my life fulfilling and meaningful” (78.4%).


All respondents were asked whether they had engaged in the following four kinds of volunteer work that was not offered through an institution: offered help to friends, offered help to neighbors, participated in volunteer work that was initiated online, and participated in the online volunteer work. Survey results showed that 22.8% had done informal volunteer work in the past months and 26.1% had done it before, but not in the past 12 months. About half (51.0%) had never done informal volunteer work.


Of all respondents, a higher proportion of them had received volunteering information from friends (32.0%), the community (28.2%), and posters or advertisements in public places (23.8%). The top three channels considered to be effective included friends (14.7%), schools (9.6%), and the community (9.4%).

CORPORATE

Using the 50 corporations that constituted the Hang Seng Index (HSI) in Hong Kong as of June 30, 2017, a database of the giving and donating patterns of the said corporations was constructed.


There is currently no legal requirement for corporations to disclose details of corporate donations. The table below summarizes the key financial information of the 50 HSI corporations in 2015 and 2016. Total coporate donations for 2015 and 2016 were $3.88 and 3.49 billion respectively. While the total assets generated by the largest corporations increased by 12% from 2015 to 2016, the total net profits fell by 6%. Total corporate donations fell by 10% from 2015 to 2016 despite an increase in the total corporate assets. The rate of decrease in corporate donations was larger than that of the fall in net profit. The research team speculated that when corporations made their decisions on donation, they took into consideration more of their bottom lines than asset values. It is worth noting that the gap between the most and least generous corporate donors was quite big.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

18

Table 1 50 HSI corporations: total assets, profits and donations as of June 2017

2015 2016 % change Overview Total corporate donations (HKD Billon)* 3.88 3.49 -10% Total asset (HKD Billion) 104,742 117,213 +12% Total net profits (HKD Billion) 1,672 1,578 -6% % of donation of total assets * 0.0037% 0.0030% -20% Highest % among all 0.2046% 0.1532% Median % 0.0051% 0.0057% Lowest % among all 0.000007% 0.000007% % of donation of net profit * 0.2318% 0.2208% -5% Highest % among all (excluding those who had net loss) 2.2001% 5.3374%

Median % 0.0887% 0.1162% Lowest % among all 0.0002% 0.0003% Reporting standard % of compliance with HKEx Listing Rule Appendix 27 92%

% of compliance Global Reporting Initiative G4 72%

No. of HSI companies reporting a regular volunteering team 36 Note*: two companies from the Mainland did not provide total amount of corporate giving, but they provided information of giving activities only.

CORPORATE GIVING ACTIVITIES IN 2016

In 2016, the 50 HSI corporations reported a total of 984 corporate giving activities. The nature of these activities was classified into three main types: donation in cash, donation in kind, and volunteering activities. 44.6% of corporate giving activities were donation in cash, 37.4% were donation in kind, and 18.0% were giving by volunteering.

More than one-third of corporate giving activities were focused on the Mainland (39.3%) and Hong Kong (36.8%), 19.0% were focused globally, and the remaining 4.9% were focused on Macau.

Accumulated over years, the total number of organizational beneficiaries was about 16,513 organizations among the 652 giving events while the total number of beneficiaries (households or person) was about 61.1 million among 390 giving events. In 2016, the total number of beneficiaries (households or person) was about 15.8 million among 325 giving events.

Regarding corporate contributions, at least 33.3 million items were distributed in giving events. About 1.5 million employees or volunteers were involved, spending a total of 275,725 man-hours.

Table 3.2 Number of beneficiaries and corporate contributions

Number of beneficiaries

Total number of beneficiaries (household or person) accumulated over years 1

61,067,196

Total number of beneficiaries (household or person) reported in 2016 2 15,857,701 Total number of organizational beneficiaries accumulated over years 3 16,513

Corporate contributions Number of items distributed in the giving events 4 33,339,578 Number of employees or volunteers involved in the giving events 5 1,494,424 Number of man-hours involved in the giving events 6 275,725 Note 1: 390 out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of beneficiaries were reported. The data of website clicks or views from four other giving events were excluded from the calculated. It should be noted that many corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over many years. Note 2: 325 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of beneficiaries were reported for 2016. Note 3: 652 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of organizational beneficiaries were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over years. Note 4: 91 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of organizational beneficiaries were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over many years. Note 5: 131 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of manpower were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers over years. Note 6: 11 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of manpower were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers over years.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

19

Table 1 50 HSI corporations: total assets, profits and donations as of June 2017

2015 2016 % change Overview Total corporate donations (HKD Billon)* 3.88 3.49 -10% Total asset (HKD Billion) 104,742 117,213 +12% Total net profits (HKD Billion) 1,672 1,578 -6% % of donation of total assets * 0.0037% 0.0030% -20% Highest % among all 0.2046% 0.1532% Median % 0.0051% 0.0057% Lowest % among all 0.000007% 0.000007% % of donation of net profit * 0.2318% 0.2208% -5% Highest % among all (excluding those who had net loss) 2.2001% 5.3374%

Median % 0.0887% 0.1162% Lowest % among all 0.0002% 0.0003% Reporting standard % of compliance with HKEx Listing Rule Appendix 27 92%

% of compliance Global Reporting Initiative G4 72%

No. of HSI companies reporting a regular volunteering team 36 Note*: two companies from the Mainland did not provide total amount of corporate giving, but they provided information of giving activities only.

CORPORATE GIVING ACTIVITIES IN 2016

In 2016, the 50 HSI corporations reported a total of 984 corporate giving activities. The nature of these activities was classified into three main types: donation in cash, donation in kind, and volunteering activities. 44.6% of corporate giving activities were donation in cash, 37.4% were donation in kind, and 18.0% were giving by volunteering.

More than one-third of corporate giving activities were focused on the Mainland (39.3%) and Hong Kong (36.8%), 19.0% were focused globally, and the remaining 4.9% were focused on Macau.

Accumulated over years, the total number of organizational beneficiaries was about 16,513 organizations among the 652 giving events while the total number of beneficiaries (households or person) was about 61.1 million among 390 giving events. In 2016, the total number of beneficiaries (households or person) was about 15.8 million among 325 giving events.

Regarding corporate contributions, at least 33.3 million items were distributed in giving events. About 1.5 million employees or volunteers were involved, spending a total of 275,725 man-hours.

Table 3.2 Number of beneficiaries and corporate contributions


Total number of beneficiaries (household or person) accumulated over years 1

61,067,196

Total number of beneficiaries (household or person) reported in 2016 2 15,857,701 Total number of organizational beneficiaries accumulated over years 3 16,513

Corporate contributions Number of items distributed in the giving events 4 33,339,578 Number of employees or volunteers involved in the giving events 5 1,494,424 Number of man-hours involved in the giving events 6 275,725 Note 1: 390 out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of beneficiaries were reported. The data of website clicks or views from four other giving events were excluded from the calculated. It should be noted that many corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over many years. Note 2: 325 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of beneficiaries were reported for 2016. Note 3: 652 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of organizational beneficiaries were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over years. Note 4: 91 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of organizational beneficiaries were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over many years. Note 5: 131 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of manpower were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers over years. Note 6: 11 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of manpower were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers over years.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20

Sectors and age group of beneficiaries

Corporate giving activities were classified with different sectors of beneficiaries under the International Classification of Nonprofit Organizations (ICNPO) classification. It is worth noting that each giving activity might have benefited more than one sector. The top four sectors of beneficiaries were social services (including emergency and relief and income support) (31.9%), education and research (primary, secondary and higher education, other education, and research) (16.5%), development and housing (12.8%), and environment (11.4%).

Furthermore, 49.0% of corporations reported that their activities benefited all age groups of the target beneficiaries (or the public) while 34.9% benefited mainly children and young people.

Social issues addressed

When analyzed by the social issues, of all 984 corporate giving activities, the top four social issues addressed were social well-being (18.0%), youth development (16.5%), education / research (13.4%), and environmental protection (11.6%).

Corporate roles

Among different corporate roles of giving activities, corporations mostly made their contribution by partnering with or donating to NGOs (52.7%), followed by partnership with government (16.1%), partnership with other foundations (9.7%), corporate alone (9.3%), or partnership with other businesses (4.8%).

Limitations

When interpreting the analysis of the corporate giving database, readers should bear in mind a number of limitations such as data reliability, accuracy, reporting period, and completeness. Attempts were made to alleviate the impact of those limitations.

PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS

A database of 1,808 private philanthropic foundations (or ‘philanthropic organizations’)1 that were recognized by the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) for the purpose of tax-exemption was constructed. The main sources of data included the list of charities exempted from taxation in Hong Kong provided by the IRD, records filed with the Company Registry, and websites of the organizations.

Registration of the Company Registry

A total of 1,808 philanthropic foundations were identified and 1,351 (74.7%) of them were companies registered with the Company Registry whereas 457 (25.3%) of them were not registered companies. Of those 1,351 philanthropic foundations that registered with the Company Registry, 1,219 (90.2%) had filed their financial statements to the Company Registry.

Amount of donations

In 2016, $4.47 billion donations were made by 1,213 philanthropic foundations, representing 5.6% of their total asset ($84.15 billion) and 29.8% of their total income ($15.94 billion). Of all the donations, $4.34 billion (91.5%) was for donations to other parties, including organizations and people in need; $0.32 billion (6.7%) was for sponsorships or subsidies and the remaining $0.08 billion (1.7%) was for scholarships.

Nature of philanthropic foundations

Analyzed by the nature of the 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 47.3% were NGOs, 30.8% were personal or family foundations, 13.1% were corporate foundations, 6.5% were foundations set-up by industry, professional, business, clan or universities, and 0.6% were government-linked foundations.

Types of philanthropic foundations

Analyzed by the types of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 28.1% were family associations, 14.5% were business organizations, 8.0% were social service organizations, 6.7% were

1 The terms ‘philanthropic foundations’ and ‘philanthropic organizations’ were used with the same definition in this report.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

21

Sectors and age group of beneficiaries

Corporate giving activities were classified with different sectors of beneficiaries under the International Classification of Nonprofit Organizations (ICNPO) classification. It is worth noting that each giving activity might have benefited more than one sector. The top four sectors of beneficiaries were social services (including emergency and relief and income support) (31.9%), education and research (primary, secondary and higher education, other education, and research) (16.5%), development and housing (12.8%), and environment (11.4%).

Furthermore, 49.0% of corporations reported that their activities benefited all age groups of the target beneficiaries (or the public) while 34.9% benefited mainly children and young people.


When analyzed by the social issues, of all 984 corporate giving activities, the top four social issues addressed were social well-being (18.0%), youth development (16.5%), education / research (13.4%), and environmental protection (11.6%).

Corporate roles

Among different corporate roles of giving activities, corporations mostly made their contribution by partnering with or donating to NGOs (52.7%), followed by partnership with government (16.1%), partnership with other foundations (9.7%), corporate alone (9.3%), or partnership with other businesses (4.8%).

Limitations

When interpreting the analysis of the corporate giving database, readers should bear in mind a number of limitations such as data reliability, accuracy, reporting period, and completeness. Attempts were made to alleviate the impact of those limitations.


A database of 1,808 private philanthropic foundations (or ‘philanthropic organizations’)1 that were recognized by the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) for the purpose of tax-exemption was constructed. The main sources of data included the list of charities exempted from taxation in Hong Kong provided by the IRD, records filed with the Company Registry, and websites of the organizations.


A total of 1,808 philanthropic foundations were identified and 1,351 (74.7%) of them were companies registered with the Company Registry whereas 457 (25.3%) of them were not registered companies. Of those 1,351 philanthropic foundations that registered with the Company Registry, 1,219 (90.2%) had filed their financial statements to the Company Registry.

Amount of donations

In 2016, $4.47 billion donations were made by 1,213 philanthropic foundations, representing 5.6% of their total asset ($84.15 billion) and 29.8% of their total income ($15.94 billion). Of all the donations, $4.34 billion (91.5%) was for donations to other parties, including organizations and people in need; $0.32 billion (6.7%) was for sponsorships or subsidies and the remaining $0.08 billion (1.7%) was for scholarships.


Analyzed by the nature of the 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 47.3% were NGOs, 30.8% were personal or family foundations, 13.1% were corporate foundations, 6.5% were foundations set-up by industry, professional, business, clan or universities, and 0.6% were government-linked foundations.


Analyzed by the types of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 28.1% were family associations, 14.5% were business organizations, 8.0% were social service organizations, 6.7% were



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

22

religious organizations, and 4.5% were arts, entertainment, and cultural organizations.

Region-based and region-served

Of the 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 81.9% were based in Hong Kong, 8.6% were global organizations, and 4.7% were based in Mainland China.

Regarding the region of recipients served, 80.1% were serving recipients in Hong Kong, 47.3% in Mainland China, 9.3% in other Asian regions, and 7.2% in non-Asian regions.

Age group and sectors of beneficiaries

Of the 1,808 philanthropic foundations, the majority reported their beneficiaries were children (aged under 14) (87.0%) and teenagers (aged 14 to 24) (88.5%). Over half indicated their beneficiaries were working age (62.9%) and the elderly (61.2%).

In addition, about 11.6% stated that their beneficiaries were disabled person. About 1.9%, 1.2%, and 0.9% indicated that their beneficiaries were women, new arrivals, and ethnic minorities respectively.


Of the 1,808 philanthropic foundations, the top five social issues addressed were education (64.0%), equal opportunities (such as gender, race, and disability) and social inclusion (including sexual minority interest) (36.7%), health care and medical service (physical) (31.6%), arts, culture and religion (27.0%), and poverty alleviation (23.1%).

Limitations

When interpreting the analysis of the philanthropic foundations database, readers should bear in mind a number of limitations such as definition and verification of the dataset as well as varied amount of original data for each organization. Attempts were made to alleviate the impact of those limitations.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

23

religious organizations, and 4.5% were arts, entertainment, and cultural organizations.


Of the 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 81.9% were based in Hong Kong, 8.6% were global organizations, and 4.7% were based in Mainland China.

Regarding the region of recipients served, 80.1% were serving recipients in Hong Kong, 47.3% in Mainland China, 9.3% in other Asian regions, and 7.2% in non-Asian regions.


Of the 1,808 philanthropic foundations, the majority reported their beneficiaries were children (aged under 14) (87.0%) and teenagers (aged 14 to 24) (88.5%). Over half indicated their beneficiaries were working age (62.9%) and the elderly (61.2%).

In addition, about 11.6% stated that their beneficiaries were disabled person. About 1.9%, 1.2%, and 0.9% indicated that their beneficiaries were women, new arrivals, and ethnic minorities respectively.


Of the 1,808 philanthropic foundations, the top five social issues addressed were education (64.0%), equal opportunities (such as gender, race, and disability) and social inclusion (including sexual minority interest) (36.7%), health care and medical service (physical) (31.6%), arts, culture and religion (27.0%), and poverty alleviation (23.1%).

Limitations

When interpreting the analysis of the philanthropic foundations database, readers should bear in mind a number of limitations such as definition and verification of the dataset as well as varied amount of original data for each organization. Attempts were made to alleviate the impact of those limitations.


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Giving Hong Kong Project was the first of its kind in Hong Kong to systematically chart and examine different terrains of philanthropy in the territory. The objectives of the project included mapping comprehensively the philanthropic landscape in Hong Kong, understanding the giving and volunteering behaviors and motivations of donors and volunteers, identifying factors that facilitated or hindered charitable giving and volunteering, and highlighting opportunities and strategies for better solicitation and leveraging of philanthropic resources. A major product of the project was a comprehensive longitudinal database that described and tracked the donation and voluntary work landscape in Hong Kong.

The Giving Hong Kong Report 2016-17 tracked and analyzed the giving and volunteering behaviors of three types of donors and volunteers: individuals, major corporations, and philanthropic foundations. The study results are presented in the ensuing chapters.

In this report, giving and volunteering were the two major types of behaviors examined. Giving was defined as unconditional donation of gifts such as money, blood, and goods. Volunteering was defined as voluntary contribution of time and effort by individuals or organizations without any material reward.

Chapter 2 presents the behaviours and attitudes of individuals in Hong Kong related to giving and volunteering. The foci of the study were on patterns of giving and volunteering, types/categories of organizations, causes and clients supported by donors and volunteers, reasons for giving and volunteering, reasons for not giving and volunteering, factors facilitating and hindering giving and volunteering, and also the channels of receiving giving and volunteering information. Chapter 3 provides an analysis of the giving behaviors of corporations that constituted the Hang Seng Index (HSI) in Hong Kong. Giving behaviours of those corporations were analyzed in two dimensions, namely the nature of corporations and corporate giving activities. The former showed the information of corporations, including their financials and donation amount, region of origin and region of main operations while the latter revealed information of corporate giving activities, including their types,


INTRODUCTION

25

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Giving Hong Kong Project was the first of its kind in Hong Kong to systematically chart and examine different terrains of philanthropy in the territory. The objectives of the project included mapping comprehensively the philanthropic landscape in Hong Kong, understanding the giving and volunteering behaviors and motivations of donors and volunteers, identifying factors that facilitated or hindered charitable giving and volunteering, and highlighting opportunities and strategies for better solicitation and leveraging of philanthropic resources. A major product of the project was a comprehensive longitudinal database that described and tracked the donation and voluntary work landscape in Hong Kong.

The Giving Hong Kong Report 2016-17 tracked and analyzed the giving and volunteering behaviors of three types of donors and volunteers: individuals, major corporations, and philanthropic foundations. The study results are presented in the ensuing chapters.

In this report, giving and volunteering were the two major types of behaviors examined. Giving was defined as unconditional donation of gifts such as money, blood, and goods. Volunteering was defined as voluntary contribution of time and effort by individuals or organizations without any material reward.

Chapter 2 presents the behaviours and attitudes of individuals in Hong Kong related to giving and volunteering. The foci of the study were on patterns of giving and volunteering, types/categories of organizations, causes and clients supported by donors and volunteers, reasons for giving and volunteering, reasons for not giving and volunteering, factors facilitating and hindering giving and volunteering, and also the channels of receiving giving and volunteering information. Chapter 3 provides an analysis of the giving behaviors of corporations that constituted the Hang Seng Index (HSI) in Hong Kong. Giving behaviours of those corporations were analyzed in two dimensions, namely the nature of corporations and corporate giving activities. The former showed the information of corporations, including their financials and donation amount, region of origin and region of main operations while the latter revealed information of corporate giving activities, including their types,


INTRODUCTION

26

regional focus, beneficiaries and contributions, types of social issues addressed, and corporate role. Chapter 4 attends to private philanthropic foundations in Hong Kong and their associated giving. The information focused on the philanthropic foundations’ nature, types, region-based and region-served, religious affiliation, age group and sector of beneficiaries, and the social issues addressed. On the basis of the results, Chapter 5 highlights a few observations and draws attention to issues that justify further consideration and deliberation for the advancement of the field of philanthropy.


INTRODUCTION

27

regional focus, beneficiaries and contributions, types of social issues addressed, and corporate role. Chapter 4 attends to private philanthropic foundations in Hong Kong and their associated giving. The information focused on the philanthropic foundations’ nature, types, region-based and region-served, religious affiliation, age group and sector of beneficiaries, and the social issues addressed. On the basis of the results, Chapter 5 highlights a few observations and draws attention to issues that justify further consideration and deliberation for the advancement of the field of philanthropy.


CHAPTER 2 INDIVIDUAL

2.1 BACKGROUND

Survey objectives

The research team conducted a survey on citizens’ attitudes and behaviors related to giving and volunteering in Hong Kong. It sought to understand not only citizens’ behavior, but also their incentives to give and volunteer. It also aimed to identify factors that facilitated or hindered charitable giving, formal and informal volunteering, and community involvement.

Survey methodology

The survey was conducted through household face-to-face interviews of a random sample of 1200 people in Hong Kong (either fluent in Cantonese or Putonghua or English) aged 15 and above who were living in Hong Kong at the time of the survey. The sample list was obtained from the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) based on the frame of quarters maintained by the C&SD, which included the Register of Quarters and the Register of Segments. For the present survey, a two-stage random sampling design was adopted. In the first stage, a random sample of quarters was selected and from those quarters, residing households were randomly selected for the survey. In the second stage, a person aged 15 or above living in the household was chosen randomly using the last birthday method.

A pilot survey was conducted to test the operation of the household survey and the questionnaire was further enhanced based on the feedback of the pilot survey.

Enumeration results

The main survey was conducted from January to July 2018. A total of 2600 households were randomly selected from the sample frame. Among them, 2046 were eligible living quarters from which 1201 respondents aged 15 or above residing in Hong Kong were successfully enumerated. This constituted a response rate of 58.7% as summarized in Table 2.1.


INDIVIDUAL

29

CHAPTER 2 INDIVIDUAL

2.1 BACKGROUND

Survey objectives

The research team conducted a survey on citizens’ attitudes and behaviors related to giving and volunteering in Hong Kong. It sought to understand not only citizens’ behavior, but also their incentives to give and volunteer. It also aimed to identify factors that facilitated or hindered charitable giving, formal and informal volunteering, and community involvement.

Survey methodology

The survey was conducted through household face-to-face interviews of a random sample of 1200 people in Hong Kong (either fluent in Cantonese or Putonghua or English) aged 15 and above who were living in Hong Kong at the time of the survey. The sample list was obtained from the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) based on the frame of quarters maintained by the C&SD, which included the Register of Quarters and the Register of Segments. For the present survey, a two-stage random sampling design was adopted. In the first stage, a random sample of quarters was selected and from those quarters, residing households were randomly selected for the survey. In the second stage, a person aged 15 or above living in the household was chosen randomly using the last birthday method.

A pilot survey was conducted to test the operation of the household survey and the questionnaire was further enhanced based on the feedback of the pilot survey.

Enumeration results

The main survey was conducted from January to July 2018. A total of 2600 households were randomly selected from the sample frame. Among them, 2046 were eligible living quarters from which 1201 respondents aged 15 or above residing in Hong Kong were successfully enumerated. This constituted a response rate of 58.7% as summarized in Table 2.1.


INDIVIDUAL

30

Table 2.1 Number of samples and enumeration result Number %

Total no. of living quarters (LQs) sampled 2600 100.0 No. of invalid LQs (e.g. vacant, non-residential) excluded

554 21.3

No. of eligible LQs 2046 78.7 Total no. of valid LQs 2046 100.0

No. of LQs refused to be interviewed 268 13.1 No. of non-contact LQs 577 28.2 No. of LQs successfully enumerated 1201 58.7

No. of respondents successfully interviewed 1201 Response rate 58.7%

Statistical analyses

The survey results were weighted (i.e. grossed-up) to infer the population of Hong Kong.2 On the basis of the ratio between the data collected from the survey and the data on the 2017 mid-year population released by the Census & Statistics Department, the total population aged 15 or above was estimated using the ratio estimation method. The survey data were adjusted proportionally to account for gender and age of the respondents.

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey findings. This report focused on the holistic picture of behaviours and attitudes related to giving and volunteering in Hong Kong.

Some figures might not add up to the total or 100% due to rounding. Likewise, summation of percentages might exceed 100% since some questions allowed multiple answers. In most cases, the terms “agree” presented in the report included “agree” and “strongly agree”, and “disagree” included “disagree” and “strongly disagree” unless otherwise specified. The same applied to “satisfy” and “dissatisfy”.

With an effective sample size of 1201, based on simple random sampling for the survey, the precision level of the estimates was within the range of ±2.8 percentage points at 95% confidence level.

2 The resulting estimation of total population aged 15 or above was reconciled with the mid-year

population in 2015 (i.e. 6 437 000 for those aged 15 and over). The estimated number of households was 2 431 000.

2.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Information on the demographic characteristics of individual household members such as gender, age, educational attainment, and the economic activity status was collected. 52.4% of respondents were female and 47.6% were male. About 28.1% were between the age of 15 and 34, 35.2% between the age of 35 and 54 with the remaining 36.8% being 55 or above.

Regarding educational level, 22.6% of respondents had post-secondary education or above, 54.4% attained secondary educational level, and 21.9% had primary education or below.

As to economic activity status, 47.9% of respondents were employed, and 52.1% were economically inactive such as retirees, home-markers or students and unemployed person.

About one quarter (25.9%) of respondents had religious affiliation such as Catholic, Christian, Folk religion (ancestor worship), Buddhism or other religions.

Figure 2.2 Demographic characteristics of respondents

Gender Economic

activity status

Age group Educational level

Religion

Female 52.4% Male 47.6%

Economically active 47.9% Economically inactive 52.1%

15-34 28.1% 35-54 35.2% 55 or above 36.8%

Primary or below 21.9% Secondary 54.4% Tertiary 22.6%

No religious affiliation 72.6% Had religious affiliation 25.9%


INDIVIDUAL

31

Table 2.1 Number of samples and enumeration result Number %

Total no. of living quarters (LQs) sampled 2600 100.0 No. of invalid LQs (e.g. vacant, non-residential) excluded

554 21.3

No. of eligible LQs 2046 78.7 Total no. of valid LQs 2046 100.0

No. of LQs refused to be interviewed 268 13.1 No. of non-contact LQs 577 28.2 No. of LQs successfully enumerated 1201 58.7

No. of respondents successfully interviewed 1201 Response rate 58.7%

Statistical analyses

The survey results were weighted (i.e. grossed-up) to infer the population of Hong Kong.2 On the basis of the ratio between the data collected from the survey and the data on the 2017 mid-year population released by the Census & Statistics Department, the total population aged 15 or above was estimated using the ratio estimation method. The survey data were adjusted proportionally to account for gender and age of the respondents.

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey findings. This report focused on the holistic picture of behaviours and attitudes related to giving and volunteering in Hong Kong.

Some figures might not add up to the total or 100% due to rounding. Likewise, summation of percentages might exceed 100% since some questions allowed multiple answers. In most cases, the terms “agree” presented in the report included “agree” and “strongly agree”, and “disagree” included “disagree” and “strongly disagree” unless otherwise specified. The same applied to “satisfy” and “dissatisfy”.

With an effective sample size of 1201, based on simple random sampling for the survey, the precision level of the estimates was within the range of ±2.8 percentage points at 95% confidence level.

2 The resulting estimation of total population aged 15 or above was reconciled with the mid-year

population in 2015 (i.e. 6 437 000 for those aged 15 and over). The estimated number of households was 2 431 000.

2.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Information on the demographic characteristics of individual household members such as gender, age, educational attainment, and the economic activity status was collected. 52.4% of respondents were female and 47.6% were male. About 28.1% were between the age of 15 and 34, 35.2% between the age of 35 and 54 with the remaining 36.8% being 55 or above.

Regarding educational level, 22.6% of respondents had post-secondary education or above, 54.4% attained secondary educational level, and 21.9% had primary education or below.

As to economic activity status, 47.9% of respondents were employed, and 52.1% were economically inactive such as retirees, home-markers or students and unemployed person.

About one quarter (25.9%) of respondents had religious affiliation such as Catholic, Christian, Folk religion (ancestor worship), Buddhism or other religions.

Figure 2.2 Demographic characteristics of respondents

Gender Economic

activity status

Age group Educational level

Religion

Female 52.4% Male 47.6%

Economically active 47.9% Economically inactive 52.1%

15-34 28.1% 35-54 35.2% 55 or above 36.8%

Primary or below 21.9% Secondary 54.4% Tertiary 22.6%

No religious affiliation 72.6% Had religious affiliation 25.9%


INDIVIDUAL

32

On the whole, 36.5% of respondents had a monthly personal income of less than HK$5,0003, 5.6% earned $5,000 to $9,999, 10.2% earned $10,000 to $14,999, 8.9% earned $15,000 to $19,999, and 8.8% earned $20,000 to $24,999. Finally, 6.0% of respondents earned $25,000 or above. This notwithstanding, care should be taken when interpreting the figures given that 24.1% of respondents refused to provide information on monthly personal income.

Chart 2.3 Average monthly personal income (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents About 12.3% had an average monthly household income4 of $9,999 or below, 12.4% with $10,000 to $19,999, 16.9% with $20,000 to $29,999, and 20.0% with $30,000 or more a month. It is worth noting that 38.6% of respondents refused to provide household income information. Care should be taken when interpreting the findings on income in view of the high refusal rate.

Chart 2.4 Average monthly household income (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents

3 Personal income included earnings from employment and other cash income such as rent, dividend,

cash gift received and other capital gains. 4 Monthly household income referred to the total cash income (including earnings from all jobs and

other cash incomes and not including CSSA or other assistance) received in the month before enumeration by all members of the household.

24.1%6.0%

8.8%8.9%10.2%

5.6%36.5%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Refuse to answerHK$25,000 or aboveHK$20,000 – 24,999HK$15,000 – 19,999HK$10,000 – 14,999

HK$5,000 – 9,999HK$4,999 or below

38.6%12.3%

7.7%5.3%

11.6%7.0%

5.4%3.0%

9.3%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Refuse to answerHK$35,000 or aboveHK$30,000 – 34,999HK$25,000 – 29,999HK$20,000 – 24,999HK$15,000 – 19,999HK$10,000 – 14,999

HK$5,000 – 9,999HK$4,999 or below

2.3 GIVING OF HONG KONG CITIZENS

In this section, Hong Kong citizens’ behaviours and attitudes related to giving are illustrated. Giving referred to the unconditional donation of gifts such as money, blood, and goods. Current donors referred to persons who had given in the past 12 months. Non-donors referred to persons who had not given in the past 12 months. Likely donors referred to persons who had not given in the past 12 months, but indicated they would give in the next 12 months.

Patterns of giving

43.8% of respondents stated they had given (except for flag-buying) in the past 12 months prior to enumeration (current donors). 56.2% of respondents indicated that they had not given in the past 12 months (non-donors).

Chart 2.5 Giving in the past 12 months (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents Regarding the types of donation in the past 12 months, among the current donors, 79.4% had donated money, 33.3% donated goods, and 10.8% donated blood.

Chart 2.6 Types of donation in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

Note: Based on 507 respondents

Had given, 43.8%

Had not given, 56.2%

10.8%

33.3%

79.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Blood donation

Goods donation

Money donation


INDIVIDUAL

33

On the whole, 36.5% of respondents had a monthly personal income of less than HK$5,0003, 5.6% earned $5,000 to $9,999, 10.2% earned $10,000 to $14,999, 8.9% earned $15,000 to $19,999, and 8.8% earned $20,000 to $24,999. Finally, 6.0% of respondents earned $25,000 or above. This notwithstanding, care should be taken when interpreting the figures given that 24.1% of respondents refused to provide information on monthly personal income.

Chart 2.3 Average monthly personal income (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents About 12.3% had an average monthly household income4 of $9,999 or below, 12.4% with $10,000 to $19,999, 16.9% with $20,000 to $29,999, and 20.0% with $30,000 or more a month. It is worth noting that 38.6% of respondents refused to provide household income information. Care should be taken when interpreting the findings on income in view of the high refusal rate.

Chart 2.4 Average monthly household income (%)


3 Personal income included earnings from employment and other cash income such as rent, dividend,

cash gift received and other capital gains. 4 Monthly household income referred to the total cash income (including earnings from all jobs and

other cash incomes and not including CSSA or other assistance) received in the month before enumeration by all members of the household.

24.1%6.0%

8.8%8.9%10.2%

5.6%36.5%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Refuse to answerHK$25,000 or aboveHK$20,000 – 24,999HK$15,000 – 19,999HK$10,000 – 14,999

HK$5,000 – 9,999HK$4,999 or below

38.6%12.3%

7.7%5.3%

11.6%7.0%

5.4%3.0%

9.3%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Refuse to answerHK$35,000 or aboveHK$30,000 – 34,999HK$25,000 – 29,999HK$20,000 – 24,999HK$15,000 – 19,999HK$10,000 – 14,999

HK$5,000 – 9,999HK$4,999 or below

2.3 GIVING OF HONG KONG CITIZENS

In this section, Hong Kong citizens’ behaviours and attitudes related to giving are illustrated. Giving referred to the unconditional donation of gifts such as money, blood, and goods. Current donors referred to persons who had given in the past 12 months. Non-donors referred to persons who had not given in the past 12 months. Likely donors referred to persons who had not given in the past 12 months, but indicated they would give in the next 12 months.

Patterns of giving

43.8% of respondents stated they had given (except for flag-buying) in the past 12 months prior to enumeration (current donors). 56.2% of respondents indicated that they had not given in the past 12 months (non-donors).

Chart 2.5 Giving in the past 12 months (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents Regarding the types of donation in the past 12 months, among the current donors, 79.4% had donated money, 33.3% donated goods, and 10.8% donated blood.

Chart 2.6 Types of donation in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


Had given, 43.8%

Had not given, 56.2%

10.8%

33.3%

79.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Blood donation

Goods donation

Money donation


INDIVIDUAL

34

More than half of the non-donors cited “I had no extra money/items to give” (59.7%) and “I was not exposed to any appeal” (52.6%) as reasons for not giving in the past 12 months. Other reasons included “My giving might not be used properly” (44.1%), “I did not know the giving methods” (41.2%), “I think my giving has little help to other people” (39.9%), “The administration fee of the fundraising organization was not reasonable” (36.9%), and “Giving methods were not convenient for me” (35.5%).

Chart 2.7 Reasons for not having given in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

Note: Based on 694 respondents Non-donors were also asked whether they would give in the forthcoming 12 months and only 4.0% indicated they would give (likely donors).

Chart 2.8 Willingness of non-donors to give in the forthcoming 12 months (%)


Would give, 4.0%

Would not give, 96.0%

16.5%

15.5%

22.2%

23.1%

16.6%

18.6%

17.4%

43.7%

47.7%

36.5%

41.4%

39.3%

24.7%

29.9%

39.9%

36.9%

41.2%

35.5%

44.1%

59.7%

52.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

I think my giving has little help to otherpeople

The administration fee of the fundraisingorganization was not reasonable

I did not know the giving methods

Giving methods were not convenient forme

My giving might not be used properly

I had no extra money/items to give

I was not exposed to any appeal

Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Methods of donating money

Current money donors donated money through a variety of ways. The more common methods were regular donation through auto-transfer (23.5%), donation box in store/street (23.4%), and fundraising activities in the street (22.8%).

Chart 2.9 Methods of donating money in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

Note: Based on 399 respondents The average donation frequency for each donation method and the associated average donation amount each time for each current money donor in the past 12 months were calculated. It was revealed that current money donors donated more frequently through regular auto-transfer (10.3 times), online donation (6.6 times), and other methods (6.4 times). Regarding the donation amount each time, they donated, on average, a larger amount through charity activities ($1124), other methods ($425.5), online donation ($272.8), and regular auto-transfer ($226.0).

Moreover, the average donation frequency for different donation methods and the corresponding total donation amount of each current money donor in the past 12 months were computed. In the past 12 months, the average frequency of donation through different donation methods was 6.2 times for each current money donor and the total donation amount for each current money donor was $1755.2.

13.9%

18.9%

5.4%

1.7%

4.1%

23.5%

22.8%

23.4%

15.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Others (e.g. directly giving toreligious organizations or NGOs)

Charity activities (such as charitywalk, marathon, athletics)

Give money directly to the needy

Online donation

Charity bazaar

Regular donation through auto-transfer (such as child sponsorship)

Fundraising activities in the street

Donation box in store/street

Buy lotteries/dinner party tickets


INDIVIDUAL

35

More than half of the non-donors cited “I had no extra money/items to give” (59.7%) and “I was not exposed to any appeal” (52.6%) as reasons for not giving in the past 12 months. Other reasons included “My giving might not be used properly” (44.1%), “I did not know the giving methods” (41.2%), “I think my giving has little help to other people” (39.9%), “The administration fee of the fundraising organization was not reasonable” (36.9%), and “Giving methods were not convenient for me” (35.5%).

Chart 2.7 Reasons for not having given in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

Note: Based on 694 respondents Non-donors were also asked whether they would give in the forthcoming 12 months and only 4.0% indicated they would give (likely donors).

Chart 2.8 Willingness of non-donors to give in the forthcoming 12 months (%)


Would give, 4.0%

Would not give, 96.0%

16.5%

15.5%

22.2%

23.1%

16.6%

18.6%

17.4%

43.7%

47.7%

36.5%

41.4%

39.3%

24.7%

29.9%

39.9%

36.9%

41.2%

35.5%

44.1%

59.7%

52.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

I think my giving has little help to otherpeople

The administration fee of the fundraisingorganization was not reasonable

I did not know the giving methods

Giving methods were not convenient forme

My giving might not be used properly

I had no extra money/items to give

I was not exposed to any appeal


Methods of donating money

Current money donors donated money through a variety of ways. The more common methods were regular donation through auto-transfer (23.5%), donation box in store/street (23.4%), and fundraising activities in the street (22.8%).

Chart 2.9 Methods of donating money in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

Note: Based on 399 respondents The average donation frequency for each donation method and the associated average donation amount each time for each current money donor in the past 12 months were calculated. It was revealed that current money donors donated more frequently through regular auto-transfer (10.3 times), online donation (6.6 times), and other methods (6.4 times). Regarding the donation amount each time, they donated, on average, a larger amount through charity activities ($1124), other methods ($425.5), online donation ($272.8), and regular auto-transfer ($226.0).

Moreover, the average donation frequency for different donation methods and the corresponding total donation amount of each current money donor in the past 12 months were computed. In the past 12 months, the average frequency of donation through different donation methods was 6.2 times for each current money donor and the total donation amount for each current money donor was $1755.2.

13.9%

18.9%

5.4%

1.7%

4.1%

23.5%

22.8%

23.4%

15.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Others (e.g. directly giving toreligious organizations or NGOs)

Charity activities (such as charitywalk, marathon, athletics)

Give money directly to the needy

Online donation

Charity bazaar


Fundraising activities in the street

Donation box in store/street

Buy lotteries/dinner party tickets


INDIVIDUAL

36

Table 2.10 Average donation frequency and average donation amount each time for different donation methods in the past 12 months (%)

Methods of donating money Average frequency (time/person)

Average donation amount each time ($/person)

Buy lotteries/dinner party tickets 3.0 59.7

Donation box in store/street 3.3 86.8

Fundraising activities in the street 3.1 53.2


10.3 226.0

Charity bazaar 1.9 78.3

Online donation 6.6 272.8

Give money directly to the needy 3.7 100.3

Charity activities (such as charity walk, marathon, athletics, famine fundraising, fundraising shows)

3.0 1124.0

Others (e.g. directly giving to religious organizations, NGOs or schools)

6.4 425.5

In the past 12 months

Average donation frequency for different donation methods (time/person)

6.2

Total donation amount ($/person) 1755.2


Regarding payment methods used to donate money, most current money donors used cash (83.4%) or bank transfer (24.7%). Other payment methods were not popular among current donors.


Note: Based on 399 respondents Most current money donors considered cash (86.3%) an acceptable payment method for donating money. Bank transfer (42.9%) was another more common and acceptable payment method. Apart from cash and bank transfer, current donors tended to be not so accepting of other payment methods for donations.

Chart 2.12 Acceptance of payment methods to donate money (%)


16.8%

23.3%

42.9%

24.7%

25.7%

86.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mobile payment application

Online payment

Bank transfer

Credit Card

Cheque

Cash

1.3%

3.1%

24.7%

6.6%

2.9%

83.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Online payment

Bank transfer

Credit Card

Cheque

Cash


INDIVIDUAL

37

Table 2.10 Average donation frequency and average donation amount each time for different donation methods in the past 12 months (%)

Methods of donating money Average frequency (time/person)

Average donation amount each time ($/person)

Buy lotteries/dinner party tickets 3.0 59.7

Donation box in store/street 3.3 86.8

Fundraising activities in the street 3.1 53.2


10.3 226.0

Charity bazaar 1.9 78.3

Online donation 6.6 272.8

Give money directly to the needy 3.7 100.3

Charity activities (such as charity walk, marathon, athletics, famine fundraising, fundraising shows)

3.0 1124.0

Others (e.g. directly giving to religious organizations, NGOs or schools)

6.4 425.5

In the past 12 months

Average donation frequency for different donation methods (time/person)

6.2

Total donation amount ($/person) 1755.2


Regarding payment methods used to donate money, most current money donors used cash (83.4%) or bank transfer (24.7%). Other payment methods were not popular among current donors.


Note: Based on 399 respondents Most current money donors considered cash (86.3%) an acceptable payment method for donating money. Bank transfer (42.9%) was another more common and acceptable payment method. Apart from cash and bank transfer, current donors tended to be not so accepting of other payment methods for donations.

Chart 2.12 Acceptance of payment methods to donate money (%)


16.8%

23.3%

42.9%

24.7%

25.7%

86.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Online payment

Bank transfer

Credit Card

Cheque

Cash

1.3%

3.1%

24.7%

6.6%

2.9%

83.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Online payment

Bank transfer

Credit Card

Cheque

Cash


INDIVIDUAL

38

Types of organizations supported by donors

In the past 12 months, current donors had given to a variety of organizations. A higher proportion of them had given to social service organizations (54.6%, where 21.1% gave regularly and 33.5% were one-off payments), health care organizations / hospitals (38.1%, where 15.0% gave regularly and 23.1% were one-off payments), and environmental protection organizations (19.7% where 6.2% gave regularly and 13.5% were one-off payments).

Chart 2.13 Types of organizations that current donors had given to in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


1.2%

1.3%

3.9%

0.2%

2.4%

1.2%

1.4%

5.0%

13.5%

7.7%

2.7%

5.3%

11.2%

23.1%

33.5%

0.9%

0.0%

1.2%

1.2%

1.6%

1.2%

1.3%

2.0%

6.2%

3.4%

2.6%

9.8%

5.7%

15.0%

21.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Others

Business organization

Self-organized organization

Professional organization

Political organization

Family association

Labor organization

Uniform organization

Environmental protectionorganization

District organization

Arts, entertainment, and culturalorganization

Religious organization

Educational organization

Health care organization/Hospital

Social service organization

Regular One-off

Current donors and likely donors5 were asked which types of organizations they would give to in the forthcoming 12 months. More of them stated they would give to social service organizations (60.1%), health care organizations/hospitals (47.6%), educational organizations (23.6%), and environmental protection organizations (23.1%).

Chart 2.14 Types of organizations that current donors and likely donors would give to in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


5 Likely donors referred to non-donors who would give in the forthcoming 12 months

(please refer to Chart 2.8).

1.2%

0.8%

7.2%

3.1%

4.9%

4.2%

5.4%

8.1%

23.1%

13.4%

10.0%

15.6%

23.6%

47.6%

60.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Others





Family association

Labor organization










INDIVIDUAL

39

Types of organizations supported by donors

In the past 12 months, current donors had given to a variety of organizations. A higher proportion of them had given to social service organizations (54.6%, where 21.1% gave regularly and 33.5% were one-off payments), health care organizations / hospitals (38.1%, where 15.0% gave regularly and 23.1% were one-off payments), and environmental protection organizations (19.7% where 6.2% gave regularly and 13.5% were one-off payments).

Chart 2.13 Types of organizations that current donors had given to in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


1.2%

1.3%

3.9%

0.2%

2.4%

1.2%

1.4%

5.0%

13.5%

7.7%

2.7%

5.3%

11.2%

23.1%

33.5%

0.9%

0.0%

1.2%

1.2%

1.6%

1.2%

1.3%

2.0%

6.2%

3.4%

2.6%

9.8%

5.7%

15.0%

21.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Others





Family association

Labor organization









Regular One-off

Current donors and likely donors5 were asked which types of organizations they would give to in the forthcoming 12 months. More of them stated they would give to social service organizations (60.1%), health care organizations/hospitals (47.6%), educational organizations (23.6%), and environmental protection organizations (23.1%).

Chart 2.14 Types of organizations that current donors and likely donors would give to in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


5 Likely donors referred to non-donors who would give in the forthcoming 12 months


1.2%

0.8%

7.2%

3.1%

4.9%

4.2%

5.4%

8.1%

23.1%

13.4%

10.0%

15.6%

23.6%

47.6%

60.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Others





Family association

Labor organization










INDIVIDUAL

40

Categories of causes supported by donors

Current donors gave to various causes in the past 12 months. More current donors had given for poverty alleviation (32.8%, where 10.9% gave regularly and 21.9% were one-off payments), health care and medical service (27.9%, where 7.8% gave regularly and 20.1% were one-off payments), and environmental protection (19.9%, where 4.1% gave regularly and 15.8% were one-off payments).



0.7%

1.2%

1.5%

4.1%

12.6%

21.9%

1.0%

20.1%

6.2%

15.8%

8.6%

2.9%

1.6%

0.8%

0.0%

0.5%

4.8%

10.9%

0.9%

7.8%

2.0%

4.1%

1.7%

1.5%

0% 10% 20% 30%

Others (such as religions)

Mental health

Right of sexual minorities

Equal opportunities (such asgender, race, disability)

Disaster relief

Poverty alleviation

Legal aid

Health care and medical service

Animal rights protection

Environmental protection

Education

Arts and culture

Regular One-off

Current donors and likely donors were asked which categories of causes they would give in the forthcoming 12 months. The three most popular categories were poverty alleviation (39.0%), health care and medical service (34.1%), and disaster relief (33.3%).

Chart 2.16 Categories of causes that current donors and likely donors would give to in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


0.4%

8.0%

6.2%

10.5%

33.3%

39.0%

6.3%

34.1%

16.4%

27.2%

18.7%

12.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%


Mental health



Disaster relief

Poverty alleviation

Legal aid




Education

Arts and culture


INDIVIDUAL

41

Categories of causes supported by donors

Current donors gave to various causes in the past 12 months. More current donors had given for poverty alleviation (32.8%, where 10.9% gave regularly and 21.9% were one-off payments), health care and medical service (27.9%, where 7.8% gave regularly and 20.1% were one-off payments), and environmental protection (19.9%, where 4.1% gave regularly and 15.8% were one-off payments).



0.7%

1.2%

1.5%

4.1%

12.6%

21.9%

1.0%

20.1%

6.2%

15.8%

8.6%

2.9%

1.6%

0.8%

0.0%

0.5%

4.8%

10.9%

0.9%

7.8%

2.0%

4.1%

1.7%

1.5%

0% 10% 20% 30%


Mental health



Disaster relief

Poverty alleviation

Legal aid




Education

Arts and culture

Regular One-off

Current donors and likely donors were asked which categories of causes they would give in the forthcoming 12 months. The three most popular categories were poverty alleviation (39.0%), health care and medical service (34.1%), and disaster relief (33.3%).

Chart 2.16 Categories of causes that current donors and likely donors would give to in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


0.4%

8.0%

6.2%

10.5%

33.3%

39.0%

6.3%

34.1%

16.4%

27.2%

18.7%

12.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%


Mental health



Disaster relief

Poverty alleviation

Legal aid




Education

Arts and culture


INDIVIDUAL

42

Categories of clients supported by donors

Current donors had given to different categories of clients in the past 12 months. A higher proportion of them had given to the children (40.1%, where 29.3% gave regularly and 10.8% were one-off payments), elderly (33.3%, where 27.0% gave regularly and 6.3% were one-off payments), and teenagers (28.9%, where 23.2% gave regularly and 5.7% were one-off payments).



0.7%

2.8%

1.3%

1.5%

4.3%

6.3%

5.7%

10.8%

2.1%

10.2%

3.5%

3.8%

10.0%

27.0%

23.2%

29.3%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Others (such as disaster victims, animals,artists)

The disabled

New arrivals

Ethnic minorities

Women

Elderly

Teenagers (14-24 years old)

Children (under 14 years old)

Regular One-off

Current donors and likely donors were asked which categories of clients they would give to in the forthcoming 12 months. The three most popular groups were children (49.4%), the elderly (47.7%), and teenagers (38.7%).

Chart 2.18 Categories of clients that current donors and likely donors would give to in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


2.6%

29.7%

13.6%

14.8%

29.0%

47.7%

38.7%

49.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Others (such as disaster victims,animals, artists)

The disabled

New arrivals

Ethnic minorities

Women

Elderly




INDIVIDUAL

43

Categories of clients supported by donors

Current donors had given to different categories of clients in the past 12 months. A higher proportion of them had given to the children (40.1%, where 29.3% gave regularly and 10.8% were one-off payments), elderly (33.3%, where 27.0% gave regularly and 6.3% were one-off payments), and teenagers (28.9%, where 23.2% gave regularly and 5.7% were one-off payments).



0.7%

2.8%

1.3%

1.5%

4.3%

6.3%

5.7%

10.8%

2.1%

10.2%

3.5%

3.8%

10.0%

27.0%

23.2%

29.3%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Others (such as disaster victims, animals,artists)

The disabled

New arrivals

Ethnic minorities

Women

Elderly



Regular One-off

Current donors and likely donors were asked which categories of clients they would give to in the forthcoming 12 months. The three most popular groups were children (49.4%), the elderly (47.7%), and teenagers (38.7%).

Chart 2.18 Categories of clients that current donors and likely donors would give to in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


2.6%

29.7%

13.6%

14.8%

29.0%

47.7%

38.7%

49.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Others (such as disaster victims,animals, artists)

The disabled

New arrivals

Ethnic minorities

Women

Elderly




INDIVIDUAL

44

Factors of giving to an organization

Current donors were asked the factors they would normally consider when giving to an organization. The three factors that most current donors considered important were “purpose of fundraising” (77.3%), “mission/visions of the organization” (72.7%), and “transparency of the organization” (70.4%). In addition, over 60% of current donors thought “brand popularity of the organization” (67.8%) and “convenience of giving methods” (64.1%) were also important.

Chart 2.19 Factors of giving to organizations (multiple answers) (%)


9.5%

20.1%

7.5%

4.2%

6.5%

4.3%

5.3%

9.0%

28.4%

41.4%

24.6%

14.7%

29.5%

21.5%

18.2%

19.6%

58.3%

34.8%

64.1%

77.3%

59.9%

70.4%

72.7%

67.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reasonable administration fee

Appeal from public figures orfriends

Convenience of giving methods

Purpose of fundraising

Internal management of theorganization

Transparency of the organization

Missions/visions of theorganization

Brand popularity of theorganization

Important Neither important nor unimportant Unimportant

Reasons for giving

Current donors were also asked to explain their reasons for giving. Over three quarters of them chose “I like to help others” (85.7%), “giving creates a better society” (81.2%), and “giving makes me feel better about myself” (77.8%) as their reasons for giving. Also, more than half stated they gave because “giving gives me peace of mind” (60.7%).

Chart 2.20 Reasons for giving (multiple answers) (%)


56.6%

14.8%

4.8%

2.6%

1.3%

15.6%

19.0%

12.2%

10.8%

7.0%

22.5%

60.7%

77.8%

81.2%

85.7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I can practise my religious belief

Giving gives me peace of mind

Giving makes me feel better aboutmyself

Giving creates a better society

I like to help others



INDIVIDUAL

45

Factors of giving to an organization

Current donors were asked the factors they would normally consider when giving to an organization. The three factors that most current donors considered important were “purpose of fundraising” (77.3%), “mission/visions of the organization” (72.7%), and “transparency of the organization” (70.4%). In addition, over 60% of current donors thought “brand popularity of the organization” (67.8%) and “convenience of giving methods” (64.1%) were also important.

Chart 2.19 Factors of giving to organizations (multiple answers) (%)


9.5%

20.1%

7.5%

4.2%

6.5%

4.3%

5.3%

9.0%

28.4%

41.4%

24.6%

14.7%

29.5%

21.5%

18.2%

19.6%

58.3%

34.8%

64.1%

77.3%

59.9%

70.4%

72.7%

67.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reasonable administration fee

Appeal from public figures orfriends

Convenience of giving methods

Purpose of fundraising

Internal management of theorganization

Transparency of the organization

Missions/visions of theorganization

Brand popularity of theorganization

Important Neither important nor unimportant Unimportant

Reasons for giving

Current donors were also asked to explain their reasons for giving. Over three quarters of them chose “I like to help others” (85.7%), “giving creates a better society” (81.2%), and “giving makes me feel better about myself” (77.8%) as their reasons for giving. Also, more than half stated they gave because “giving gives me peace of mind” (60.7%).

Chart 2.20 Reasons for giving (multiple answers) (%)


56.6%

14.8%

4.8%

2.6%

1.3%

15.6%

19.0%

12.2%

10.8%

7.0%

22.5%

60.7%

77.8%

81.2%

85.7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Giving gives me peace of mind

Giving makes me feel better aboutmyself

Giving creates a better society




INDIVIDUAL

46


All respondents were asked whether they had received information about giving from different channels in the past 12 months and if yes, whether those channels were effective. A higher proportion of respondents stated that they had received the information from the community (33.3%), posters or advertisements in public places (32.5%), and friends (31.0%). However, it is noted that the prevalence of these channels was not directly associated with their perceived effectiveness. Although most respondents had received the information from posters or advertisements in public places, only 5.4% deemed this channel effective. The top three channels that were considered effective were friends (14.7%), the community (11.3%), and schools (9.5%)

Table 2.21 Channels of receiving information about giving in the past 12 months (%) Channels Yes, and

effective Yes, but not effective

Never

Friend 14.7% 16.3% 68.3%

Community 11.3% 22.0% 66.0%

Company 4.7% 8.2% 86.4%

Mail 2.8% 10.4% 86.0%

Email 2.1% 9.2% 88.0%

Family 8.1% 8.5% 82.7%

School 9.5% 10.4% 79.2%

Poster or advertisement in public place

5.4% 27.1% 66.8%

Poster or advertisement on website

4.6% 18.0% 76.7%

Social network site (such as Facebook)

6.3% 15.7% 77.3%

Instant messaging software (such as WhatsApp)

3.3% 8.4% 86.7%


When analyzed by the type of donors, the proportion of current donors who had received information from various channels in the past 12 months was significantly higher than non-donors. Moreover, the current donors were more likely than the non-donors to consider information from friends, the community, family, and posters or advertisements in public places effective.

Table 2.22 Channels of receiving information about giving in the past 12 months analyzed by the types of donors (%)

Channels Donors Non-donors

Yes, and effective

Yes, not effective

Never Yes, and effective

Yes, not effective

Never

Friend 26.9% 16.2% 56.6% 5.2% 16.4% 77.4%

Community 19.0% 19.3% 61.4% 5.4% 24.1% 69.5%

Company 5.7% 10.8% 83.2% 4.0% 6.1% 88.9%

Mail 4.5% 11.9% 83.2% 1.6% 9.3% 88.2%

Email 3.0% 11.1% 85.5% 1.3% 7.7% 90.0%

Family 13.0% 8.6% 77.8% 4.2% 8.4% 86.5%

School 15.6% 9.9% 74.2% 4.8% 10.9% 83.2%


10.0% 28.3% 61.3% 1.9% 26.1% 71.1%


7.8% 21.0% 70.7% 2.1% 15.6% 81.3%

Social network site

10.8% 18.1% 70.9% 2.9% 13.8% 82.4%

Instant messaging software

5.2% 9.1% 83.7% 1.9% 7.8% 89.1%



INDIVIDUAL

47


All respondents were asked whether they had received information about giving from different channels in the past 12 months and if yes, whether those channels were effective. A higher proportion of respondents stated that they had received the information from the community (33.3%), posters or advertisements in public places (32.5%), and friends (31.0%). However, it is noted that the prevalence of these channels was not directly associated with their perceived effectiveness. Although most respondents had received the information from posters or advertisements in public places, only 5.4% deemed this channel effective. The top three channels that were considered effective were friends (14.7%), the community (11.3%), and schools (9.5%)

Table 2.21 Channels of receiving information about giving in the past 12 months (%) Channels Yes, and


Never

Friend 14.7% 16.3% 68.3%

Community 11.3% 22.0% 66.0%

Company 4.7% 8.2% 86.4%

Mail 2.8% 10.4% 86.0%

Email 2.1% 9.2% 88.0%

Family 8.1% 8.5% 82.7%

School 9.5% 10.4% 79.2%


5.4% 27.1% 66.8%


4.6% 18.0% 76.7%

Social network site (such as Facebook)

6.3% 15.7% 77.3%

Instant messaging software (such as WhatsApp)

3.3% 8.4% 86.7%


When analyzed by the type of donors, the proportion of current donors who had received information from various channels in the past 12 months was significantly higher than non-donors. Moreover, the current donors were more likely than the non-donors to consider information from friends, the community, family, and posters or advertisements in public places effective.

Table 2.22 Channels of receiving information about giving in the past 12 months analyzed by the types of donors (%)

Channels Donors Non-donors

Yes, and effective

Yes, not effective


Yes, not effective

Never

Friend 26.9% 16.2% 56.6% 5.2% 16.4% 77.4%

Community 19.0% 19.3% 61.4% 5.4% 24.1% 69.5%

Company 5.7% 10.8% 83.2% 4.0% 6.1% 88.9%

Mail 4.5% 11.9% 83.2% 1.6% 9.3% 88.2%

Email 3.0% 11.1% 85.5% 1.3% 7.7% 90.0%

Family 13.0% 8.6% 77.8% 4.2% 8.4% 86.5%

School 15.6% 9.9% 74.2% 4.8% 10.9% 83.2%


10.0% 28.3% 61.3% 1.9% 26.1% 71.1%


7.8% 21.0% 70.7% 2.1% 15.6% 81.3%

Social network site

10.8% 18.1% 70.9% 2.9% 13.8% 82.4%


5.2% 9.1% 83.7% 1.9% 7.8% 89.1%



INDIVIDUAL

48


All respondents were asked whether they had heard of a number of emerging fundraising methods and if yes, whether those methods were acceptable to them. About one-fourth had heard of online crowdfunding / P2P (26.3%), and charity trust fund (23.4%). The relatively less popular fundraising methods were social impact bond (18.1%), socially responsible purchasing (14.7%), and socially responsible investment (14.0%). More respondents considered online crowdfunding / PSP (15.6%), charity trust fund (11.7%), and social impact bond (10.6%) acceptable.

Table 2.23 Knowledge and acceptance of emerging fundraising methods (%) Emerging fundraising methods

Have heard of, acceptable

Have heard of, not acceptable

Never heard of

Social Impact Bond 10.6% 7.5% 81.1%

Online crowdfunding/P2P (such as JustGiving, Facebook Causes)

15.6% 10.7% 72.8%

Charity trust fund 11.7% 11.7% 75.6%

Socially responsible investment

7.5% 6.5% 85.2%

Socially responsible purchasing (such as green purchasing, fair trade)

9.3% 5.4% 84.3%

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents When analyzed by the types of donors, the proportion of current donors who had heard of these emerging fundraising methods was significantly higher than non-donors. Among those who had heard of these emerging fundraising methods, the current donors were more likely than non-donors to accept the social impact bond, online crowding/P2P, and socially responsible investment as emerging fundraising methods.

Table 2.24 Knowledge and acceptance of emerging fundraising methods analyzed by the types of donors (%) Emerging fundraising methods

Donors Non-donors

Acceptable Not acceptable

Never Acceptable Not acceptable

Never

Social impact bond 11.6% 12.2% 75.5% 9.8% 3.8% 85.4% Online crowdfunding/ P2P

17.1% 18.2% 64.0% 14.4% 4.9% 79.7%

Charity trust fund 15.7% 16.8% 66.6% 8.6% 7.8% 82.7% Socially responsible investment

8.8% 9.3% 81.2% 6.5% 4.3% 88.3%

Socially responsible purchasing

9.2% 10.3% 79.7% 9.4% 1.7% 87.9%


Behaviours of flag-buying

All respondents were asked whether they had bought flags in the past 12 months. The majority (69.7%) stated they had bought flags in the past 12 months. When analyzed by the types of donors, the proportion of current donors (77.5%) who had bought flags in the past months was significantly higher than non-donors (63.6%). Among those who had bought flags in the past 12 months, they, on average, bought flags 2.3 times and in doing so, donated 10.9 dollars each month.

Chart 2.25 Buying flags in the past 12 months (%)


69.7%

30.3%

77.5%

22.5%

63.6%

36.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Had bought Had not boughtAll respondents Current donors Non-donors


INDIVIDUAL

49


All respondents were asked whether they had heard of a number of emerging fundraising methods and if yes, whether those methods were acceptable to them. About one-fourth had heard of online crowdfunding / P2P (26.3%), and charity trust fund (23.4%). The relatively less popular fundraising methods were social impact bond (18.1%), socially responsible purchasing (14.7%), and socially responsible investment (14.0%). More respondents considered online crowdfunding / PSP (15.6%), charity trust fund (11.7%), and social impact bond (10.6%) acceptable.

Table 2.23 Knowledge and acceptance of emerging fundraising methods (%) Emerging fundraising methods

Have heard of, acceptable

Have heard of, not acceptable

Never heard of

Social Impact Bond 10.6% 7.5% 81.1%

Online crowdfunding/P2P (such as JustGiving, Facebook Causes)

15.6% 10.7% 72.8%

Charity trust fund 11.7% 11.7% 75.6%

Socially responsible investment

7.5% 6.5% 85.2%

Socially responsible purchasing (such as green purchasing, fair trade)

9.3% 5.4% 84.3%

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents When analyzed by the types of donors, the proportion of current donors who had heard of these emerging fundraising methods was significantly higher than non-donors. Among those who had heard of these emerging fundraising methods, the current donors were more likely than non-donors to accept the social impact bond, online crowding/P2P, and socially responsible investment as emerging fundraising methods.

Table 2.24 Knowledge and acceptance of emerging fundraising methods analyzed by the types of donors (%) Emerging fundraising methods

Donors Non-donors

Acceptable Not acceptable

Never Acceptable Not acceptable

Never

Social impact bond 11.6% 12.2% 75.5% 9.8% 3.8% 85.4% Online crowdfunding/ P2P

17.1% 18.2% 64.0% 14.4% 4.9% 79.7%

Charity trust fund 15.7% 16.8% 66.6% 8.6% 7.8% 82.7% Socially responsible investment

8.8% 9.3% 81.2% 6.5% 4.3% 88.3%

Socially responsible purchasing

9.2% 10.3% 79.7% 9.4% 1.7% 87.9%


Behaviours of flag-buying

All respondents were asked whether they had bought flags in the past 12 months. The majority (69.7%) stated they had bought flags in the past 12 months. When analyzed by the types of donors, the proportion of current donors (77.5%) who had bought flags in the past months was significantly higher than non-donors (63.6%). Among those who had bought flags in the past 12 months, they, on average, bought flags 2.3 times and in doing so, donated 10.9 dollars each month.

Chart 2.25 Buying flags in the past 12 months (%)


69.7%

30.3%

77.5%

22.5%

63.6%

36.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Had bought Had not boughtAll respondents Current donors Non-donors


INDIVIDUAL

50

Among respondents who had bought flags in the past 12 months, 21.7% of them always paid attention to the flag-selling organizations, 37.8% sometimes, 24.7% seldom, and 14.7% never.

Chart 2.26 Frequency of paying attention to flag-selling organizations (%)


Organ donation register

All respondents were asked whether they were registered organ donors. The majority (89.8%) of them indicated they were not registered organ donors. Analyzed by the types of donors, the proportion of current donors (18.5%) having registered as organ donors was significantly higher than non-donors (3.7%).

Chart 2.27 Organ donation register (%)


10.2%

89.8%

18.5%

81.5%

3.7%

96.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Had registered Had not registered

All respondents Current donors Non-donors

21.7%

37.8%

24.7%14.7%

28.7%

39.1%

19.9%12.0%15.0%

36.6%29.2%

17.3%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Always Sometimes Seldom Never


Among respondents who had not registered as organ donors, the more common reasons for not doing so were “do not agree with organ donation” (37.6%) and “do not know registration methods” (32.2%). When analyzed by the types of donors, the most common reason for not registering for current donors was “do not know the registration methods” (36.4%), while for non-donors, the most common reason was “do not agree with organ donation” (42.2%).

Chart 2.28 Reasons for not registering as organ donors (multiple answers) (%)


16.2%

42.2%

29.3%

13.4%

18.8%

30.7%

36.4%

7.5%

17.2%

37.6%

32.2%

11.1%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Opposed by family member

Do not agree with organ donation

Do not know the registration methods

Never heard of



INDIVIDUAL

51

Among respondents who had bought flags in the past 12 months, 21.7% of them always paid attention to the flag-selling organizations, 37.8% sometimes, 24.7% seldom, and 14.7% never.

Chart 2.26 Frequency of paying attention to flag-selling organizations (%)


Organ donation register

All respondents were asked whether they were registered organ donors. The majority (89.8%) of them indicated they were not registered organ donors. Analyzed by the types of donors, the proportion of current donors (18.5%) having registered as organ donors was significantly higher than non-donors (3.7%).

Chart 2.27 Organ donation register (%)


10.2%

89.8%

18.5%

81.5%

3.7%

96.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Had registered Had not registered


21.7%

37.8%

24.7%14.7%

28.7%

39.1%

19.9%12.0%15.0%

36.6%29.2%

17.3%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Always Sometimes Seldom Never


Among respondents who had not registered as organ donors, the more common reasons for not doing so were “do not agree with organ donation” (37.6%) and “do not know registration methods” (32.2%). When analyzed by the types of donors, the most common reason for not registering for current donors was “do not know the registration methods” (36.4%), while for non-donors, the most common reason was “do not agree with organ donation” (42.2%).

Chart 2.28 Reasons for not registering as organ donors (multiple answers) (%)


16.2%

42.2%

29.3%

13.4%

18.8%

30.7%

36.4%

7.5%

17.2%

37.6%

32.2%

11.1%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Opposed by family member

Do not agree with organ donation

Do not know the registration methods

Never heard of



INDIVIDUAL

52

2.4 VOLUNTEERING OF HONG KONG CITIZENS

In this section, the behaviours and attitudes related to volunteering in Hong Kong are illustrated. Volunteering referred to contribution of time and effort out of one’s volition without any material reward. Current volunteers referred to persons who had volunteered in the past 12 months. Non-volunteers referred to persons who had not volunteered in the past 12 months. Likely volunteers referred to persons who had not volunteered in the past 12 months, but indicated they would volunteer in the next 12 months.


Only 17.5% of respondents stated they had done volunteer work in the past 12 months prior to enumeration (current volunteers). 82.5% of respondents indicated they had not done volunteer work in the past 12 months (non-volunteers).

Chart 2.29 Volunteering in the past 12 months (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents Concerning the reasons for not volunteering in the past 12 months, most (66.6%) of them chose “I have no free time” while other common reasons included “I have no interest in volunteering” (47.5%), “I did not know how to participate in volunteer work” (46.9%), and “there was no proper volunteer work” (42.2%).

Had volunteered,

17.5%

Had not volunteered,

82.5%

Chart 2.30 Reasons for not volunteering in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

Note: Based on 991 respondents When non-volunteers were asked whether they would volunteer in the forthcoming 12 months, only 5.2% indicated they would do so (likely volunteers).

Chart 2.31 Willingness of non-volunteers to volunteer in the forthcoming 12 months (%)


Would volunteer,

5.2%

Would not volunteer,

94.8%

17.3%

57.9%

55.0%

24.4%

25.6%

21.3%

15.1%

21.7%

19.9%

27.7%

31.2%

30.1%

66.6%

19.4%

24.1%

46.9%

42.2%

47.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

I have no free time

Transportation was notconvenient

Health problem

I did not know how to participatein volunteer work

There was no proper volunteerwork

I have no interest in volunteering



INDIVIDUAL

53

2.4 VOLUNTEERING OF HONG KONG CITIZENS

In this section, the behaviours and attitudes related to volunteering in Hong Kong are illustrated. Volunteering referred to contribution of time and effort out of one’s volition without any material reward. Current volunteers referred to persons who had volunteered in the past 12 months. Non-volunteers referred to persons who had not volunteered in the past 12 months. Likely volunteers referred to persons who had not volunteered in the past 12 months, but indicated they would volunteer in the next 12 months.


Only 17.5% of respondents stated they had done volunteer work in the past 12 months prior to enumeration (current volunteers). 82.5% of respondents indicated they had not done volunteer work in the past 12 months (non-volunteers).

Chart 2.29 Volunteering in the past 12 months (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents Concerning the reasons for not volunteering in the past 12 months, most (66.6%) of them chose “I have no free time” while other common reasons included “I have no interest in volunteering” (47.5%), “I did not know how to participate in volunteer work” (46.9%), and “there was no proper volunteer work” (42.2%).

Had volunteered,

17.5%

Had not volunteered,

82.5%

Chart 2.30 Reasons for not volunteering in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)

Note: Based on 991 respondents When non-volunteers were asked whether they would volunteer in the forthcoming 12 months, only 5.2% indicated they would do so (likely volunteers).

Chart 2.31 Willingness of non-volunteers to volunteer in the forthcoming 12 months (%)


Would volunteer,

5.2%

Would not volunteer,

94.8%

17.3%

57.9%

55.0%

24.4%

25.6%

21.3%

15.1%

21.7%

19.9%

27.7%

31.2%

30.1%

66.6%

19.4%

24.1%

46.9%

42.2%

47.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

I have no free time

Transportation was notconvenient

Health problem

I did not know how to participatein volunteer work

There was no proper volunteerwork

I have no interest in volunteering



INDIVIDUAL

54

Types of organizations served by volunteers

In the past 12 months, current volunteers had served a variety of organizations. The three most popular types of volunteer organizations were social service organizations (51.8%, of which 22.9% were regular volunteers and 28.9% were onetime volunteers), educational organizations (41.7%, of which 16.3% were regular volunteers and 25.4% were onetime volunteers), and religious organizations (21.9%, of which 11.0% were regular volunteers and 10.9% were onetime volunteers).



0.0%

3.2%

5.2%

1.4%

2.6%

3.5%

3.1%

4.3%

16.3%

4.2%

6.6%

10.9%

25.4%

7.6%

28.9%

0.4%

1.0%

2.6%

1.7%

4.6%

1.5%

0.8%

1.6%

4.6%

3.4%

2.9%

11.0%

16.3%

11.4%

22.9%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Others





Family association

Labor organization


Environmental protection organization


Arts, entertainment, and cultural organization





Regular One-off

Current volunteers and likely volunteers6 were asked which types of organizations they would work for in the forthcoming 12 months. More members from both groups indicated they would work for social service organizations (55.9%), educational organizations (48.5%), healthcare organizations or hospitals (29.7%), as well as environmental protection organizations (29.2%).

Chart 2.33 Types of organizations that current volunteers and likely volunteers would serve in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


6 “Likely volunteers” referred to non-volunteers who would volunteer in the forthcoming 12 months


5.8%

10.5%

5.3%

7.3%

5.7%

7.2%

8.8%

29.2%

12.0%

15.9%

21.7%

48.5%

29.7%

55.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%





Family association

Labor organization










INDIVIDUAL

55

Types of organizations served by volunteers

In the past 12 months, current volunteers had served a variety of organizations. The three most popular types of volunteer organizations were social service organizations (51.8%, of which 22.9% were regular volunteers and 28.9% were onetime volunteers), educational organizations (41.7%, of which 16.3% were regular volunteers and 25.4% were onetime volunteers), and religious organizations (21.9%, of which 11.0% were regular volunteers and 10.9% were onetime volunteers).



0.0%

3.2%

5.2%

1.4%

2.6%

3.5%

3.1%

4.3%

16.3%

4.2%

6.6%

10.9%

25.4%

7.6%

28.9%

0.4%

1.0%

2.6%

1.7%

4.6%

1.5%

0.8%

1.6%

4.6%

3.4%

2.9%

11.0%

16.3%

11.4%

22.9%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Others





Family association

Labor organization


Environmental protection organization


Arts, entertainment, and cultural organization





Regular One-off

Current volunteers and likely volunteers6 were asked which types of organizations they would work for in the forthcoming 12 months. More members from both groups indicated they would work for social service organizations (55.9%), educational organizations (48.5%), healthcare organizations or hospitals (29.7%), as well as environmental protection organizations (29.2%).

Chart 2.33 Types of organizations that current volunteers and likely volunteers would serve in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


6 “Likely volunteers” referred to non-volunteers who would volunteer in the forthcoming 12 months


5.8%

10.5%

5.3%

7.3%

5.7%

7.2%

8.8%

29.2%

12.0%

15.9%

21.7%

48.5%

29.7%

55.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%





Family association

Labor organization










INDIVIDUAL

56

Categories of causes supported by volunteers

In the past 12 months, current volunteers had served various causes. A higher proportion of them had worked for education (35.4%, of which 10.8% were regular volunteers and 24.6% were onetime volunteers), environmental protection (24.5%, of which 4.4% were regular volunteers and 20.1% were onetime volunteers), and poverty alleviation (26.2%, of which 11.9% were regular volunteers and 14.3% were onetime volunteers).

Chart 2.34 Categories of causes that current volunteers had served in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


1.7%

2.3%

1.4%

3.1%

8.5%

14.3%

2.8%

9.9%

8.5%

20.1%

24.6%

8.5%

2.0%

2.2%

1.1%

2.1%

3.8%

11.9%

2.2%

11.0%

3.2%

4.4%

10.8%

3.7%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


Mental health


Equal opportunities (such as gender, race,disability)

Disaster relief

Poverty alleviation

Legal aid




Education

Arts and culture

Regular One-off

Current volunteers and likely volunteers were asked which categories of causes they would work for in the forthcoming 12 months. The three most popular categories of causes were education (46.4%), poverty alleviation (40.8%), and health care and medical service (33.5%).

Chart 2.35 Categories of causes that current volunteers and likely volunteers would serve in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


2.5%

16.0%

11.9%

16.1%

28.2%

40.8%

13.5%

33.5%

22.3%

32.7%

46.4%

23.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%


Mental health



Disaster relief

Poverty alleviation

Legal aid




Education

Arts and culture


INDIVIDUAL

57

Categories of causes supported by volunteers

In the past 12 months, current volunteers had served various causes. A higher proportion of them had worked for education (35.4%, of which 10.8% were regular volunteers and 24.6% were onetime volunteers), environmental protection (24.5%, of which 4.4% were regular volunteers and 20.1% were onetime volunteers), and poverty alleviation (26.2%, of which 11.9% were regular volunteers and 14.3% were onetime volunteers).

Chart 2.34 Categories of causes that current volunteers had served in the past 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


1.7%

2.3%

1.4%

3.1%

8.5%

14.3%

2.8%

9.9%

8.5%

20.1%

24.6%

8.5%

2.0%

2.2%

1.1%

2.1%

3.8%

11.9%

2.2%

11.0%

3.2%

4.4%

10.8%

3.7%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


Mental health


Equal opportunities (such as gender, race,disability)

Disaster relief

Poverty alleviation

Legal aid




Education

Arts and culture

Regular One-off

Current volunteers and likely volunteers were asked which categories of causes they would work for in the forthcoming 12 months. The three most popular categories of causes were education (46.4%), poverty alleviation (40.8%), and health care and medical service (33.5%).

Chart 2.35 Categories of causes that current volunteers and likely volunteers would serve in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


2.5%

16.0%

11.9%

16.1%

28.2%

40.8%

13.5%

33.5%

22.3%

32.7%

46.4%

23.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%


Mental health



Disaster relief

Poverty alleviation

Legal aid




Education

Arts and culture


INDIVIDUAL

58

Categories of clients served by volunteers

Current volunteers had served different categories of clients in the past 12 months. More current volunteers served the elderly (55.9%, of which 24.9% were regular volunteers and 31.0% were onetime volunteers), children (51.3%, of which 20.7% were regular volunteers and 30.6% were onetime volunteers), and teenagers (48.0%, of which 14.4% were regular volunteers and 33.6% were onetime volunteers).



0.3%

12.7%

6.8%

7.7%

8.0%

31.0%

33.6%

30.6%

0.7%

3.9%

2.1%

3.3%

9.8%

24.9%

14.4%

20.7%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Others (such as the poor)

The disabled

New arrivals

Ethnic minorities

Women

Elderly



Regular One-off

Current volunteers and likely volunteers were asked which categories of clients they would serve in the forthcoming 12 months. A higher proportion of them stated the elderly (64.0%), children (61.5%), and teenagers (52.0%).

Chart 2.37 Categories of clients that current volunteers and likely volunteers would serve in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


Time spent in volunteer work

Current volunteers were asked about the average number of hours spent in volunteer work every month in the past 12 months. In the past 12 months, each current volunteer spent 14.4 hours in volunteer work per month and 173.2 hours in volunteer work per year.

Table 2.38 Average monthly hours and annual hours spent in volunteer work by each current volunteer in the past 12 months Period Hours

Average hours spent in volunteer work per month 14.4 Average hours spent in volunteer work per year 173.2 Note: Based on 210 respondents

1.3%

31.7%

20.4%

23.2%

35.2%

64.0%

52.0%

61.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%


The disabled

New arrivals

Ethnic minorities

Women

Elderly




INDIVIDUAL

59

Categories of clients served by volunteers

Current volunteers had served different categories of clients in the past 12 months. More current volunteers served the elderly (55.9%, of which 24.9% were regular volunteers and 31.0% were onetime volunteers), children (51.3%, of which 20.7% were regular volunteers and 30.6% were onetime volunteers), and teenagers (48.0%, of which 14.4% were regular volunteers and 33.6% were onetime volunteers).



0.3%

12.7%

6.8%

7.7%

8.0%

31.0%

33.6%

30.6%

0.7%

3.9%

2.1%

3.3%

9.8%

24.9%

14.4%

20.7%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


The disabled

New arrivals

Ethnic minorities

Women

Elderly



Regular One-off

Current volunteers and likely volunteers were asked which categories of clients they would serve in the forthcoming 12 months. A higher proportion of them stated the elderly (64.0%), children (61.5%), and teenagers (52.0%).

Chart 2.37 Categories of clients that current volunteers and likely volunteers would serve in the forthcoming 12 months (multiple answers) (%)


Time spent in volunteer work

Current volunteers were asked about the average number of hours spent in volunteer work every month in the past 12 months. In the past 12 months, each current volunteer spent 14.4 hours in volunteer work per month and 173.2 hours in volunteer work per year.

Table 2.38 Average monthly hours and annual hours spent in volunteer work by each current volunteer in the past 12 months Period Hours

Average hours spent in volunteer work per month 14.4 Average hours spent in volunteer work per year 173.2 Note: Based on 210 respondents

1.3%

31.7%

20.4%

23.2%

35.2%

64.0%

52.0%

61.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%


The disabled

New arrivals

Ethnic minorities

Women

Elderly




INDIVIDUAL

60

First volunteering experience

About half (49.9%) of current volunteers had their first volunteering experience during school days, i.e. primary school (17.6%), secondary school (29.0%), and university/college (3.3%). It is noteworthy that a considerable proportion of current volunteers started volunteering after retirement (10.6%).

Chart 2.39 Period of the first volunteering experience (%)


Reasons for volunteering Current volunteers did volunteer work for various reasons. The three most common reasons were “I like to help others” (95.6%), “volunteering creates a better society” (85.3%), and “volunteering makes my life fulfilling and meaningful” (78.4%). Other common reasons were “I feel a sense of achievement in volunteering” (75.2%), “volunteering enhances self-understanding and helps develop new interests” (61.6%), “I can make friends” (61.6%), “I can exert my skills and experience” (58.8%), and “I can gain hands-on working or social experience” (53.8%).

17.6%

29.0%

3.3% 4.5%

29.8%

10.6%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

During primaryschool

During secondaryschool

Duringuniversity/college

Betweengraduation andemployment

Duringemployment

After retirement

Chart 2.40 Reasons for volunteering (multiple answers) (%)


5.1%

61.4%

12.7%

32.2%

34.4%

48.2%

11.0%

20.9%

19.2%

13.3%

8.5%

4.0%

1.2%

15.9%

11.9%

25.1%

28.5%

30.3%

24.7%

29.5%

31.3%

26.3%

24.4%

15.6%

10.2%

2.5%

78.4%

26.1%

61.6%

38.6%

34.7%

26.5%

58.8%

47.1%

53.8%

61.6%

75.2%

85.3%

95.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Volunteering makes my lifefulfilling and meaningful


I can make friends

I can gain new information in thesociety

Volunteering relieves me of stress

Volunteering experience will lookgood on my résumé for my future

study or career

I can exert my skills andexperience

I can gain knowledge or skills

I can gain hands-on working orsocial experience

Volunteering enahnces self-understanding and helps develop

new interests

I feel a sense of achievement involunteering

Volunteering creates a bettersociety




INDIVIDUAL

61

First volunteering experience

About half (49.9%) of current volunteers had their first volunteering experience during school days, i.e. primary school (17.6%), secondary school (29.0%), and university/college (3.3%). It is noteworthy that a considerable proportion of current volunteers started volunteering after retirement (10.6%).

Chart 2.39 Period of the first volunteering experience (%)


Reasons for volunteering Current volunteers did volunteer work for various reasons. The three most common reasons were “I like to help others” (95.6%), “volunteering creates a better society” (85.3%), and “volunteering makes my life fulfilling and meaningful” (78.4%). Other common reasons were “I feel a sense of achievement in volunteering” (75.2%), “volunteering enhances self-understanding and helps develop new interests” (61.6%), “I can make friends” (61.6%), “I can exert my skills and experience” (58.8%), and “I can gain hands-on working or social experience” (53.8%).

17.6%

29.0%

3.3% 4.5%

29.8%

10.6%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

During primaryschool

During secondaryschool

Duringuniversity/college

Betweengraduation andemployment

Duringemployment

After retirement

Chart 2.40 Reasons for volunteering (multiple answers) (%)


5.1%

61.4%

12.7%

32.2%

34.4%

48.2%

11.0%

20.9%

19.2%

13.3%

8.5%

4.0%

1.2%

15.9%

11.9%

25.1%

28.5%

30.3%

24.7%

29.5%

31.3%

26.3%

24.4%

15.6%

10.2%

2.5%

78.4%

26.1%

61.6%

38.6%

34.7%

26.5%

58.8%

47.1%

53.8%

61.6%

75.2%

85.3%

95.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Volunteering makes my lifefulfilling and meaningful


I can make friends

I can gain new information in thesociety

Volunteering relieves me of stress

Volunteering experience will lookgood on my résumé for my future

study or career

I can exert my skills andexperience

I can gain knowledge or skills

I can gain hands-on working orsocial experience

Volunteering enahnces self-understanding and helps develop

new interests

I feel a sense of achievement involunteering

Volunteering creates a bettersociety




INDIVIDUAL

62


All respondents were asked whether they had engaged in informal volunteer work including voluntarily offering help to friends or neighbors, participating in volunteer work that was initiated online, and participating in online volunteer work. Respondents were given four answer choices, namely “Yes, I have done in the past 12 months, but never did it more than 12 months ago”, “Yes, I always do, not only in the past 12 months”, “Yes, I did it more than 12 months ago, but have not done it in the past 12 months”, and “Never”.

Close to half (47.4%) indicated that they had voluntarily offered help to their friends. When analyzed by the types of volunteers, the proportion of current volunteers (71.0%) who had offered help to their friends was significantly higher than non-volunteers (42.3%).

Chart 2.41 Experience in voluntarily offering help to friends (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents 31.5% of respondents expressed they had voluntarily offered help to their neighbors. When analyzed by the types of volunteers, the proportion of current volunteers (49.1%) who had offered help to their neighbors was significantly higher than non-volunteers (27.8%).

3.4%

17.7%26.3%

52.6%

6.4%

35.4%29.2% 29.0%

2.8%

13.9%

25.7%

57.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Have done in thepast 12 months

Always do Did it more than 12months ago

Never

All respondents Current volunteers Non-volunteers

Chart 2.42 Experience in voluntarily offering help to neighbors (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents The vast majority (96.2%) of respondents had never participated in volunteer work that was initiated online.

Chart 2.43 Experience in participating in volunteer work that was initiated online (%)


1.5%10.1%

19.9%

68.5%

2.6%

20.3%26.2%

50.9%

1.3%7.9%

18.6%

72.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Never


0.6% 1.0% 2.3%

96.2%

3.4% 5.6% 5.5%

85.4%

0.0% 0.0% 1.6%

98.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Never



INDIVIDUAL

63


All respondents were asked whether they had engaged in informal volunteer work including voluntarily offering help to friends or neighbors, participating in volunteer work that was initiated online, and participating in online volunteer work. Respondents were given four answer choices, namely “Yes, I have done in the past 12 months, but never did it more than 12 months ago”, “Yes, I always do, not only in the past 12 months”, “Yes, I did it more than 12 months ago, but have not done it in the past 12 months”, and “Never”.

Close to half (47.4%) indicated that they had voluntarily offered help to their friends. When analyzed by the types of volunteers, the proportion of current volunteers (71.0%) who had offered help to their friends was significantly higher than non-volunteers (42.3%).

Chart 2.41 Experience in voluntarily offering help to friends (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents 31.5% of respondents expressed they had voluntarily offered help to their neighbors. When analyzed by the types of volunteers, the proportion of current volunteers (49.1%) who had offered help to their neighbors was significantly higher than non-volunteers (27.8%).

3.4%

17.7%26.3%

52.6%

6.4%

35.4%29.2% 29.0%

2.8%

13.9%

25.7%

57.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Never


Chart 2.42 Experience in voluntarily offering help to neighbors (%)

Note: Based on 1,201 respondents The vast majority (96.2%) of respondents had never participated in volunteer work that was initiated online.

Chart 2.43 Experience in participating in volunteer work that was initiated online (%)


1.5%10.1%

19.9%

68.5%

2.6%

20.3%26.2%

50.9%

1.3%7.9%

18.6%

72.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Never


0.6% 1.0% 2.3%

96.2%

3.4% 5.6% 5.5%

85.4%

0.0% 0.0% 1.6%

98.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Never



INDIVIDUAL

64

An overwhelming majority (97.7%) of respondents had never participated in the online volunteer work.

Chart 2.44 Experience in participating in online volunteer work (%)


Combining all the four types of informal volunteer work, results showed that 22.8% of respondents had engaged in informal volunteer work in the past 12 months and 26.1% had done it more than 12 months ago, but had not done it in the past 12 months. When analyzed by the types of volunteers, current volunteers (44.4%) were more likely to engage in informal volunteer work than non-volunteers (18.2%).

Chart 2.45 Experience in engaging in informal volunteer work (%)


0.3% 0.9% 1.1%

97.7%

1.2%5.3% 2.7%

90.8%

.1% 0.0% .7%

99.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Never


22.8% 26.1%

51.0%44.4%

28.6% 27.0%18.2%

25.6%

56.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Engaged in informalvolunteer work in the

past 12 months

Engaged in informalvolunteer work morethan 12 months ago

Never



All respondents were asked whether they had received volunteering information from different channels in the past 12 months and if yes, whether those channels were effective. A higher proportion indicated that they had received volunteering information from friends (32.0%), the community (28.2%), and posters or advertisements in public places (22.8%). However, it is noted that the prevalence of these channels was not directly associated with their perceived effectiveness. The top three channels that were considered effective were friends (14.2%), schools (9.6%), and the community (9.4%)

Table 2.46 Channels of receiving volunteering information in the past 12 months (%) Channels Yes, and


Never

Friend 14.2% 17.8% 68.0%

Community 9.4% 18.8% 71.8%

Company 4.4% 6.8% 88.8%

Mail 2.2% 6.7% 91.0%

Email 2.0% 6.5% 91.5%

Family 6.4% 7.8% 85.9%

School 9.6% 11.2% 79.2%

Poster or advertisement in public place 3.2% 19.6% 77.2%

Poster or advertisement on website 1.6% 17.6% 80.7%

Social network site 4.9% 16.2% 78.9%

Instant messaging software 4.2% 10.4% 85.4%

Volunteer matching app 4.1% 5.4% 90.5% Online volunteering recruitment platform

4.1% 5.4% 90.6%



INDIVIDUAL

65

An overwhelming majority (97.7%) of respondents had never participated in the online volunteer work.

Chart 2.44 Experience in participating in online volunteer work (%)


Combining all the four types of informal volunteer work, results showed that 22.8% of respondents had engaged in informal volunteer work in the past 12 months and 26.1% had done it more than 12 months ago, but had not done it in the past 12 months. When analyzed by the types of volunteers, current volunteers (44.4%) were more likely to engage in informal volunteer work than non-volunteers (18.2%).

Chart 2.45 Experience in engaging in informal volunteer work (%)


0.3% 0.9% 1.1%

97.7%

1.2%5.3% 2.7%

90.8%

.1% 0.0% .7%

99.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Never


22.8% 26.1%

51.0%44.4%

28.6% 27.0%18.2%

25.6%

56.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Engaged in informalvolunteer work in the

past 12 months

Engaged in informalvolunteer work morethan 12 months ago

Never



All respondents were asked whether they had received volunteering information from different channels in the past 12 months and if yes, whether those channels were effective. A higher proportion indicated that they had received volunteering information from friends (32.0%), the community (28.2%), and posters or advertisements in public places (22.8%). However, it is noted that the prevalence of these channels was not directly associated with their perceived effectiveness. The top three channels that were considered effective were friends (14.2%), schools (9.6%), and the community (9.4%)

Table 2.46 Channels of receiving volunteering information in the past 12 months (%) Channels Yes, and


Never

Friend 14.2% 17.8% 68.0%

Community 9.4% 18.8% 71.8%

Company 4.4% 6.8% 88.8%

Mail 2.2% 6.7% 91.0%

Email 2.0% 6.5% 91.5%

Family 6.4% 7.8% 85.9%

School 9.6% 11.2% 79.2%

Poster or advertisement in public place 3.2% 19.6% 77.2%

Poster or advertisement on website 1.6% 17.6% 80.7%

Social network site 4.9% 16.2% 78.9%

Instant messaging software 4.2% 10.4% 85.4%

Volunteer matching app 4.1% 5.4% 90.5% Online volunteering recruitment platform

4.1% 5.4% 90.6%



INDIVIDUAL

66

When analyzed by the types of volunteers, the proportion of current volunteers who had received volunteering information from various channels in the past 12 months was significantly higher than non-volunteers. Among respondents who had received volunteering information in the past 12 months, current volunteers were more likely than non-volunteers to consider the information from friends, the community, family, schools, volunteer matching apps, and online volunteering recruitment platforms as effective.

Table 2.47 Channels of receiving volunteering information in the past 12 months analyzed by the types of volunteers (%)

Channels Current volunteers Non-volunteers

Yes, and effective

Yes, not effective


Yes, not effective

Never

Friend 51.7% 15.9% 32.4% 6.3% 18.1% 75.6% Community 30.4% 21.1% 48.5% 5.0% 18.3% 76.8% Company 11.4% 8.7% 79.9% 2.9% 6.3% 90.7% Mail 7.6% 9.1% 83.3% 1.1% 6.2% 92.7% Email 6.0% 9.0% 85.1% 1.2% 5.9% 92.9% Family 23.1% 12.2% 64.7% 2.8% 6.8% 90.4% School 34.9% 16.5% 48.6% 4.2% 10.1% 85.7% Poster or advertisement in public place

8.4% 25.5% 66.1% 2.1% 18.3% 79.6%


5.5% 27.5% 67.1% 0.8% 15.6% 83.6%

Social network site

13.5% 17.7% 68.7% 3.1% 15.9% 81.0%


11.8% 13.5% 74.7% 2.6% 9.8% 87.6%

Volunteer matching app

14.2% 7.8% 78.0% 2.0% 4.9% 93.1%

Online volunteering recruitment platform

13.8% 9.0% 77.2% 2.0% 4.6% 93.4%



INDIVIDUAL

67

When analyzed by the types of volunteers, the proportion of current volunteers who had received volunteering information from various channels in the past 12 months was significantly higher than non-volunteers. Among respondents who had received volunteering information in the past 12 months, current volunteers were more likely than non-volunteers to consider the information from friends, the community, family, schools, volunteer matching apps, and online volunteering recruitment platforms as effective.

Table 2.47 Channels of receiving volunteering information in the past 12 months analyzed by the types of volunteers (%)

Channels Current volunteers Non-volunteers

Yes, and effective

Yes, not effective


Yes, not effective

Never

Friend 51.7% 15.9% 32.4% 6.3% 18.1% 75.6% Community 30.4% 21.1% 48.5% 5.0% 18.3% 76.8% Company 11.4% 8.7% 79.9% 2.9% 6.3% 90.7% Mail 7.6% 9.1% 83.3% 1.1% 6.2% 92.7% Email 6.0% 9.0% 85.1% 1.2% 5.9% 92.9% Family 23.1% 12.2% 64.7% 2.8% 6.8% 90.4% School 34.9% 16.5% 48.6% 4.2% 10.1% 85.7% Poster or advertisement in public place

8.4% 25.5% 66.1% 2.1% 18.3% 79.6%


5.5% 27.5% 67.1% 0.8% 15.6% 83.6%

Social network site

13.5% 17.7% 68.7% 3.1% 15.9% 81.0%


11.8% 13.5% 74.7% 2.6% 9.8% 87.6%

Volunteer matching app

14.2% 7.8% 78.0% 2.0% 4.9% 93.1%

Online volunteering recruitment platform

13.8% 9.0% 77.2% 2.0% 4.6% 93.4%



CHAPTER 3 CORPORATE

3.1 RESEARCH METHOD

The research team constructed a database of giving behaviours of the 50 listed corporations which constituted the Hang Seng Index (HSI) in Hong Kong. The database, which contained mainly quantitative data and numeric codes, provided information to analyze patterns of corporate giving behaviour and the relationship among various factors affecting giving.

Scarcity of corporate giving data

Currently, there are only a few laws and regulations on company disclosure that concern broader policies of corporate-community relationship. For example, under the Companies Ordinance, incorporated companies are required to disclose their environmental policies and give an account of their relationship with key stakeholders in an annual business review. 7 However, there is no legal requirement for corporations to disclose details of corporate giving in Hong Kong.8

In December 2015, the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEx) updated a listing rule that required all listed companies to disclose the “Environment, Social and Governance” (ESG) annually.9 The HKEx’s most recent ESG guide (also known as “Appendix 27” to the list rulings) included a section on “community investment” that required compliance of a “general disclosure” of the listed companies’ policies on civic engagement and recommends disclosure of “focus areas of contribution and resources contributed” in community investment. 10 As such, most corporations (including listed companies) were not compelled to provide detailed account of their giving activities and contributions to the community. Meanwhile, listed companies

7 Legislative Council Secretariat, HKSAR. (2016). “Environment, Social and Governance Disclosure Requirements of Listed Companies.” May 2016. (Accessible at: http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr15-16/english/panels/fa/papers/fa20160606cb1-994-4-e.pdf) 8 In the UK, until 2013 the Companies Act required mandatory disclosure of corporate donations to charities exceeding a certain amount. See Charities Aid Foundation. (2016). Corporate Giving By The FTSE 100. March 2016. In the US, there is no mandatory requirement to disclose charitable donations. Shapira, R. (2012). “Corporate Philanthropy as Signaling and Co-Optation,” Discussion Paper No. 44. 04/2012. Harvard Law School: Cambridge. 9 See note 7 10 Hong Kong Exchange and Clearing Limited. (2017). Listing Rule. Appendix 27 Environmental, Social and Governance Reporting Guide (Accessible at: http://en-rules.hkex.com.hk/net_file_store/new_rulebooks/h/k/HKEX4476_3841_VER10.pdf)


CORPORATE

69

CHAPTER 3 CORPORATE

3.1 RESEARCH METHOD

The research team constructed a database of giving behaviours of the 50 listed corporations which constituted the Hang Seng Index (HSI) in Hong Kong. The database, which contained mainly quantitative data and numeric codes, provided information to analyze patterns of corporate giving behaviour and the relationship among various factors affecting giving.

Scarcity of corporate giving data

Currently, there are only a few laws and regulations on company disclosure that concern broader policies of corporate-community relationship. For example, under the Companies Ordinance, incorporated companies are required to disclose their environmental policies and give an account of their relationship with key stakeholders in an annual business review. 7 However, there is no legal requirement for corporations to disclose details of corporate giving in Hong Kong.8

In December 2015, the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEx) updated a listing rule that required all listed companies to disclose the “Environment, Social and Governance” (ESG) annually.9 The HKEx’s most recent ESG guide (also known as “Appendix 27” to the list rulings) included a section on “community investment” that required compliance of a “general disclosure” of the listed companies’ policies on civic engagement and recommends disclosure of “focus areas of contribution and resources contributed” in community investment. 10 As such, most corporations (including listed companies) were not compelled to provide detailed account of their giving activities and contributions to the community. Meanwhile, listed companies

7 Legislative Council Secretariat, HKSAR. (2016). “Environment, Social and Governance Disclosure Requirements of Listed Companies.” May 2016. (Accessible at: http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr15-16/english/panels/fa/papers/fa20160606cb1-994-4-e.pdf) 8 In the UK, until 2013 the Companies Act required mandatory disclosure of corporate donations to charities exceeding a certain amount. See Charities Aid Foundation. (2016). Corporate Giving By The FTSE 100. March 2016. In the US, there is no mandatory requirement to disclose charitable donations. Shapira, R. (2012). “Corporate Philanthropy as Signaling and Co-Optation,” Discussion Paper No. 44. 04/2012. Harvard Law School: Cambridge. 9 See note 7 10 Hong Kong Exchange and Clearing Limited. (2017). Listing Rule. Appendix 27 Environmental, Social and Governance Reporting Guide (Accessible at: http://en-rules.hkex.com.hk/net_file_store/new_rulebooks/h/k/HKEX4476_3841_VER10.pdf)


CORPORATE

70

could voluntarily provide information about their corporate donations and giving activities in their annual reports according to the non-mandatory section in the ESG guide.

Larger companies such as the largest listed companies might find an incentive to voluntarily disclose or publicize their philanthropic activities in order to “signal” to the market their strengths in finance, product quality, and corporate image.11 The listed companies that disclosed details of their charitable donation and other giving events generally adopted the HKEx’s ESG guidelines. In addition to the HKEx’s guideline, many of those who reported their community relations and investment also followed the G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines published by the Global Reporting Initiatives in reporting the corporations’ contribution to the community.12 Some corporations, in particular those originated in Mainland China, adopted reporting guidelines issued by Mainland’s regulatory bodies or industry associations.

Scope and sources of data

The 50 HSI corporations defined our scope of the Hong Kong corporate giving database. (Appendix 1 lists out the names and stock codes of the 50 corporations as of June 30, 2017). The reasons of choosing the HSI corporations were two-fold: data availability and market significance. Whereas corporate giving data was scarce elsewhere in Hong Kong, the 50 HSI corporations provided publicly accessible documentation of their donation and giving activities. The constituent stocks in the Hang Seng Index were the listed companies with the largest market capitalization in Hong Kong. They were the largest businesses in the city in terms of asset base and financial incomes; hence, represented presumably a significant proportion in the realm of corporate giving in Hong Kong. It is noted that the Charity Aid Foundation also reported annually on the corporate giving in the UK on the basis of the 100 constituent stocks of the Financial Times Stock Exchange index (FTSE 100).13

In the current study, we extracted data of corporate donations and giving activities mainly from the annual reports and annual sustainability reports (also known as “annual corporate social responsibilities reports”) published by the 50 corporations for the year 2016. Our data collection was supplemented by other online materials, namely, the organization websites of the 50 corporations, the beneficiaries and 11 Shapira. (2012). 12 From June 2018, the G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines will be replaced by the GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards. See: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/g4/Pages/default.aspx 13 Charities Aid Foundation. (2016).

partnering organizations in the corporate giving events, and also news archives.

Data collection process and data format

Our corporate giving database recorded the basic financial data as well as all the corporate donations and giving events reported by each of the 50 corporations. In their annual reports and sustainability reports, the corporations often called the giving events as “community investment”, “community participation / contribution”, and “community engagement”.

The data format in our database was mainly in numerals, which made data sorting, statistical, and other quantitative analysis possible. In addition to recording the quantitative figures (mainly financials) in the annual reports, the research team also recorded the description of each and every giving event reported by the HSI corporations. After analyzing the description of each giving event (i.e. raw data in text form), the research team assigned numeric codes to a list of variables relevant to the giving behaviours described in the corporation’s description of the event.

Variables identified

The following are the key variables relevant to corporate giving behaviours recorded in the database.

Table 3.1 Variables identified Variables Explanation

1. Company-level variables

Total corporate donation amount

The total annual amounts of donation as reported by the company concerned in 2015 and 2016 respectively. The amount might cover all donations for local, Mainland or global causes.

Total assets A measure of financial strength of the company. A possible factor affecting the level of corporate donation and other giving activities.


CORPORATE

71

could voluntarily provide information about their corporate donations and giving activities in their annual reports according to the non-mandatory section in the ESG guide.

Larger companies such as the largest listed companies might find an incentive to voluntarily disclose or publicize their philanthropic activities in order to “signal” to the market their strengths in finance, product quality, and corporate image.11 The listed companies that disclosed details of their charitable donation and other giving events generally adopted the HKEx’s ESG guidelines. In addition to the HKEx’s guideline, many of those who reported their community relations and investment also followed the G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines published by the Global Reporting Initiatives in reporting the corporations’ contribution to the community.12 Some corporations, in particular those originated in Mainland China, adopted reporting guidelines issued by Mainland’s regulatory bodies or industry associations.

Scope and sources of data

The 50 HSI corporations defined our scope of the Hong Kong corporate giving database. (Appendix 1 lists out the names and stock codes of the 50 corporations as of June 30, 2017). The reasons of choosing the HSI corporations were two-fold: data availability and market significance. Whereas corporate giving data was scarce elsewhere in Hong Kong, the 50 HSI corporations provided publicly accessible documentation of their donation and giving activities. The constituent stocks in the Hang Seng Index were the listed companies with the largest market capitalization in Hong Kong. They were the largest businesses in the city in terms of asset base and financial incomes; hence, represented presumably a significant proportion in the realm of corporate giving in Hong Kong. It is noted that the Charity Aid Foundation also reported annually on the corporate giving in the UK on the basis of the 100 constituent stocks of the Financial Times Stock Exchange index (FTSE 100).13

In the current study, we extracted data of corporate donations and giving activities mainly from the annual reports and annual sustainability reports (also known as “annual corporate social responsibilities reports”) published by the 50 corporations for the year 2016. Our data collection was supplemented by other online materials, namely, the organization websites of the 50 corporations, the beneficiaries and 11 Shapira. (2012). 12 From June 2018, the G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines will be replaced by the GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards. See: https://www.globalreporting.org/information/g4/Pages/default.aspx 13 Charities Aid Foundation. (2016).

partnering organizations in the corporate giving events, and also news archives.

Data collection process and data format

Our corporate giving database recorded the basic financial data as well as all the corporate donations and giving events reported by each of the 50 corporations. In their annual reports and sustainability reports, the corporations often called the giving events as “community investment”, “community participation / contribution”, and “community engagement”.

The data format in our database was mainly in numerals, which made data sorting, statistical, and other quantitative analysis possible. In addition to recording the quantitative figures (mainly financials) in the annual reports, the research team also recorded the description of each and every giving event reported by the HSI corporations. After analyzing the description of each giving event (i.e. raw data in text form), the research team assigned numeric codes to a list of variables relevant to the giving behaviours described in the corporation’s description of the event.

Variables identified

The following are the key variables relevant to corporate giving behaviours recorded in the database.

Table 3.1 Variables identified Variables Explanation

1. Company-level variables

Total corporate donation amount

The total annual amounts of donation as reported by the company concerned in 2015 and 2016 respectively. The amount might cover all donations for local, Mainland or global causes.

Total assets A measure of financial strength of the company. A possible factor affecting the level of corporate donation and other giving activities.


CORPORATE

72

Variables Explanation

Total net profit A measure of financial strength of the company. A possible factor affecting the level of corporate donation and other giving activities.

Reporting guidelines used

The disclosure guideline(s) adopted in the annual report by the company concerned.

Region of main operations

A company’s main region of operation / business focus, might be in Hong Kong, Mainland, Macau, Greater China (i.e. Hong Kong, Mainland and Macau) or global. This record was either reported by the company or a judgement on the basis of the business operations described in the annual report concerned.

2. Variables of giving activities

Giving activity types

The corporate giving activities. The five types included: giving in cash, giving in kind, volunteering, giving events or functions, and giving in other formats.

Regional focus of giving activities

A company’s main region of giving might be in Hong Kong, Mainland, Macau, Greater China (i.e. Hong Kong, Mainland and Macau) or global. This record was either reported by the company or identified via the information from other online sources about the event concerned.

Sector(s) of beneficiaries:

The top three sector(s) of beneficiaries in each giving event or donation concerned. The coding system of this variable followed strictly the International Classification of Non-profit Organizations (ICNPOs) adopted by the United Nations.14


The top three social issues addressed in each giving event or donation concerned.

14 United Nations. (2003). Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts. New York: United Nations.


The social issues include: environmental protection, unemployment/ basic poverty, housing/ infrastructure, ageing society, food and hunger, refugee / disaster relief, education/ research, sports development, public health, equality/social well-being, religion, youth development, arts development, support for the disabled and rehabilitation, etc.

Age/Lifecycle of beneficiaries

The age groups of beneficiaries. The categories include: children / teenagers / students, working age, retirees / elderly, and combinations of the above age groups.


The number(s) of the beneficiaries (in terms of persons, organizations or both) as reported in each giving event.

Amount or numbers of items involved

The amount(s) involved in the giving activity (in terms of cash, kind or both) as reported in each giving event. Where the giving was in kind without information of monetary value, the number of items was reported.

Manpower involved

The number(s) of personnel and man-hours, including voluntary working hours, in the giving activity as reported in each giving event. Generally speaking, the companies provided only information about volunteers or personnel who participated or provided voluntary service in a giving event but not the number of administrative staff in organizing the event.

Corporate roles The role(s) of the company in organizing or being involved in the giving activity concerned. The roles include: the corporate alone (i.e. sole organizer), partnership with or donation to NGO(s), partnership with government, partnership with other corporates or business community, sole sponsorship of or donation to NGO-organized event(s), or co-sponsorship of NGO-organized event(s).


CORPORATE

73


Total net profit A measure of financial strength of the company. A possible factor affecting the level of corporate donation and other giving activities.

Reporting guidelines used

The disclosure guideline(s) adopted in the annual report by the company concerned.

Region of main operations

A company’s main region of operation / business focus, might be in Hong Kong, Mainland, Macau, Greater China (i.e. Hong Kong, Mainland and Macau) or global. This record was either reported by the company or a judgement on the basis of the business operations described in the annual report concerned.

2. Variables of giving activities

Giving activity types

The corporate giving activities. The five types included: giving in cash, giving in kind, volunteering, giving events or functions, and giving in other formats.

Regional focus of giving activities

A company’s main region of giving might be in Hong Kong, Mainland, Macau, Greater China (i.e. Hong Kong, Mainland and Macau) or global. This record was either reported by the company or identified via the information from other online sources about the event concerned.

Sector(s) of beneficiaries:

The top three sector(s) of beneficiaries in each giving event or donation concerned. The coding system of this variable followed strictly the International Classification of Non-profit Organizations (ICNPOs) adopted by the United Nations.14


The top three social issues addressed in each giving event or donation concerned.

14 United Nations. (2003). Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts. New York: United Nations.


The social issues include: environmental protection, unemployment/ basic poverty, housing/ infrastructure, ageing society, food and hunger, refugee / disaster relief, education/ research, sports development, public health, equality/social well-being, religion, youth development, arts development, support for the disabled and rehabilitation, etc.

Age/Lifecycle of beneficiaries

The age groups of beneficiaries. The categories include: children / teenagers / students, working age, retirees / elderly, and combinations of the above age groups.


The number(s) of the beneficiaries (in terms of persons, organizations or both) as reported in each giving event.

Amount or numbers of items involved

The amount(s) involved in the giving activity (in terms of cash, kind or both) as reported in each giving event. Where the giving was in kind without information of monetary value, the number of items was reported.

Manpower involved

The number(s) of personnel and man-hours, including voluntary working hours, in the giving activity as reported in each giving event. Generally speaking, the companies provided only information about volunteers or personnel who participated or provided voluntary service in a giving event but not the number of administrative staff in organizing the event.

Corporate roles The role(s) of the company in organizing or being involved in the giving activity concerned. The roles include: the corporate alone (i.e. sole organizer), partnership with or donation to NGO(s), partnership with government, partnership with other corporates or business community, sole sponsorship of or donation to NGO-organized event(s), or co-sponsorship of NGO-organized event(s).


CORPORATE

74

Limitations

When interpreting the analysis of the corporate giving database, readers should bear in mind a number of limitations and the attempts to alleviate the impact of those limitations.

o Data reliability: All the information in our database was based on self-reported data in the corporations’ annual reports.

o Data accuracy: The research team could not verify the accuracy of data as

reported by the corporations nor could the research team challenge if a reported event was, in our concept of philanthropy, a genuine giving or business activity. For example, some corporation reported their loans to green businesses as a kind of corporate giving. In this circumstance, the research team could only record the corporate data as reported.

o Data reporting period: Corporations sometimes presented the accumulated

numbers of a project over a long period of time instead of a single year. In such a case, the research team attempted to adjust the data in the quantitative analysis, for example, by separately compiling the data that were accumulated over years and those that were reported in a single year.

o Data completeness: Where the information about a giving event was

incomplete, the research team tried to obtain additional data from online research to supplement the understanding of the event concerned. There would be judgment in locating reliable raw data.

o Varied amount of original data: Each corporation reported their donations

and giving activities in various details styles. They might report certain giving events in great detail, but provided little information on other events or even missed some events. As such, not all behavioral variables could be identified from each and every giving event.

3.2 CORPORATE GIVING IN HONG KONG IN 2016


There is currently no legal requirement for corporations to disclose details of corporate giving. The table below summarizes the key financials of the 50 HSI corporations in 2015 and 2016. While total assets generated by the largest corporations increased by 12% from 2015 to 2016, the total net profits fell by 6%. Total corporate donations fell by 10% from 2015 to 2016 despite the increase in the total corporate assets. The rate of decrease in corporate donations was larger than that of the fall in net profit. The research team speculated that when corporations made their decisions on donation, they took into consideration more of their bottom lines than asset values. It is worth noting that the gap between the most and least generous corporate donors was quite large.

Table 3.2 50 HSI Corporations: Total Assets, Profits and Donations as of June 2017 2015 2016 % change

Overview Total corporate donations (HKD Billon)* 3.88 3.49 -10% Total asset (HKD Billion) 104,742 117,213 +12% Total net profits (HKD Billion) 1,672 1,578 -6% % of donation of total assets * 0.0037% 0.0030% -20% Highest % among all 0.2046% 0.1532% Median % 0.0051% 0.0057% Lowest % among all 0.000007% 0.000007% % of donation of net profit * 0.2318% 0.2208% -5% Highest % among all (excluding those who had net loss)

2.2001% 5.3374%

Median % 0.0887% 0.1162% Lowest % among all 0.0002% 0.0003% Reporting standard % of compliance with HKEx Listing Rule Appendix 27

92%

% of compliance Global Reporting Initiative G4

72%

No. of HSI companies reporting a regular volunteering team

36

Note*: two companies from the Mainland did not provide total amount of corporate giving, but they provided information of giving activities only.


CORPORATE

75

Limitations

When interpreting the analysis of the corporate giving database, readers should bear in mind a number of limitations and the attempts to alleviate the impact of those limitations.

o Data reliability: All the information in our database was based on self-reported data in the corporations’ annual reports.

o Data accuracy: The research team could not verify the accuracy of data as

reported by the corporations nor could the research team challenge if a reported event was, in our concept of philanthropy, a genuine giving or business activity. For example, some corporation reported their loans to green businesses as a kind of corporate giving. In this circumstance, the research team could only record the corporate data as reported.

o Data reporting period: Corporations sometimes presented the accumulated

numbers of a project over a long period of time instead of a single year. In such a case, the research team attempted to adjust the data in the quantitative analysis, for example, by separately compiling the data that were accumulated over years and those that were reported in a single year.

o Data completeness: Where the information about a giving event was

incomplete, the research team tried to obtain additional data from online research to supplement the understanding of the event concerned. There would be judgment in locating reliable raw data.

o Varied amount of original data: Each corporation reported their donations

and giving activities in various details styles. They might report certain giving events in great detail, but provided little information on other events or even missed some events. As such, not all behavioral variables could be identified from each and every giving event.

3.2 CORPORATE GIVING IN HONG KONG IN 2016


There is currently no legal requirement for corporations to disclose details of corporate giving. The table below summarizes the key financials of the 50 HSI corporations in 2015 and 2016. While total assets generated by the largest corporations increased by 12% from 2015 to 2016, the total net profits fell by 6%. Total corporate donations fell by 10% from 2015 to 2016 despite the increase in the total corporate assets. The rate of decrease in corporate donations was larger than that of the fall in net profit. The research team speculated that when corporations made their decisions on donation, they took into consideration more of their bottom lines than asset values. It is worth noting that the gap between the most and least generous corporate donors was quite large.

Table 3.2 50 HSI Corporations: Total Assets, Profits and Donations as of June 2017 2015 2016 % change

Overview Total corporate donations (HKD Billon)* 3.88 3.49 -10% Total asset (HKD Billion) 104,742 117,213 +12% Total net profits (HKD Billion) 1,672 1,578 -6% % of donation of total assets * 0.0037% 0.0030% -20% Highest % among all 0.2046% 0.1532% Median % 0.0051% 0.0057% Lowest % among all 0.000007% 0.000007% % of donation of net profit * 0.2318% 0.2208% -5% Highest % among all (excluding those who had net loss)

2.2001% 5.3374%

Median % 0.0887% 0.1162% Lowest % among all 0.0002% 0.0003% Reporting standard % of compliance with HKEx Listing Rule Appendix 27

92%

% of compliance Global Reporting Initiative G4

72%

No. of HSI companies reporting a regular volunteering team

36

Note*: two companies from the Mainland did not provide total amount of corporate giving, but they provided information of giving activities only.


CORPORATE

76

Region of origin

The 50 HSI corporations in Hong Kong could be categorized by their region of origin (where they were from). The total amounts and percentage distribution of corporate donations according to these two sets of categorization were analyzed.

Analyzed by region of origin, 27 were Mainland companies, 20 were Hong Kong companies, two were Macau companies, and one was a global company.

Chart 3.3 Percentage distribution of HSI corporations by region of origin

The decrease in corporate donations among Hong Kong companies from 2015 to 2016 was smaller than that among Mainland companies.

Chart 3.4 Total amount of corporate giving by region of origin in 2015 and 2016

Hong Kong (20 companies),

40.0%Mainland (27 companies),

54.0%

Global (1 company), 2.0%

Macau (2 companies),

4.0%

1988 1853

36

18371609

390

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

HK (20 companies) Mainland (27companies)

Global and Macau (3companies)

in m

illio

ns

20152016

It is observed that corporations originated from Hong Kong represented a slightly higher proportion of total corporate donations than companies originated from the Mainland in both 2015 and 2016. This was despite the fact that there were fewer Hong Kong companies than Mainland companies in the stock index.

Chart 3.5 Percentage distribution of total corporate giving by region of origin in 2015 and 2016

Total corporate giving in 2016


HK (20 companies), 51.3%

Mainland (27 companies), 47.8%

Global (1 company), 0.4% Macau (2 companies), 0.5%

(HK$3.88 billion)


Mainland (27 companies),

46.2%


(HK$3.49 billion)


CORPORATE

77

Region of origin

The 50 HSI corporations in Hong Kong could be categorized by their region of origin (where they were from). The total amounts and percentage distribution of corporate donations according to these two sets of categorization were analyzed.

Analyzed by region of origin, 27 were Mainland companies, 20 were Hong Kong companies, two were Macau companies, and one was a global company.

Chart 3.3 Percentage distribution of HSI corporations by region of origin

The decrease in corporate donations among Hong Kong companies from 2015 to 2016 was smaller than that among Mainland companies.

Chart 3.4 Total amount of corporate giving by region of origin in 2015 and 2016


40.0%Mainland (27 companies),

54.0%

Global (1 company), 2.0%

Macau (2 companies),

4.0%

1988 1853

36

18371609

390

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

HK (20 companies) Mainland (27companies)

Global and Macau (3companies)

in m

illio

ns

20152016

It is observed that corporations originated from Hong Kong represented a slightly higher proportion of total corporate donations than companies originated from the Mainland in both 2015 and 2016. This was despite the fact that there were fewer Hong Kong companies than Mainland companies in the stock index.

Chart 3.5 Percentage distribution of total corporate giving by region of origin in 2015 and 2016




Mainland (27 companies), 47.8%


(HK$3.88 billion)



46.2%


(HK$3.49 billion)


CORPORATE

78

Regional focus of operation

The 50 HSI corporations in Hong Kong could be categorized by their current regional focus of operation. The total amounts and percentage distribution of corporate donations according to such a categorization were analyzed.

Analyzed by regional focus of operaton, 26 companies focused their businesses in the Mainland, 19 in Hong Kong, three globally, and two in Macau.

Chart 3.6 Percentage distribution of HSI corporations by regional focus of operation

There was a decrease in corporate donations among companies that focused their businesses in the Mainland and globally from 2015 to 2016 whereas there was an increase among companies that focused their businesses in Hong Kong and Macau.

Chart 3.7 Total amount of corporate giving by regional focus of operation in 2015 and 2016


38.0%


52.0%

Global (3 companies), 6.0%

Macau (2 companies), 4.0%

405

18441607

21

783

1600

1079

240

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

HK (19companies)

Mainland (26companies)

Global (3companies)

Macau (2companies)

in m

illio

ns

20152016

The HSI corporations that focused on global business represented a far higher proportion of total corporate giving than companies that focused in Hong Kong or Macau. The three HSI corporations with a global business focus contributed 41.4% and 31.0% of total corporate donations in 2015 and 2016 respectively.

Two of these three corporations with a global outlook were actually originated from Hong Kong. They made a relatively higher contribution to the total corporate giving than other Hong Kong companies that remained local. It is therefore reasonable to speculate that a corporation’s tendency to donate was related to how global its business outlook was regardless of its original place of establishment.


10.4%

47.6%41.4%

0.5%

22.5%

45.9%

31.0%

0.7%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Hong Kong Mainland Global Macau

20152016


CORPORATE

79

Regional focus of operation

The 50 HSI corporations in Hong Kong could be categorized by their current regional focus of operation. The total amounts and percentage distribution of corporate donations according to such a categorization were analyzed.

Analyzed by regional focus of operaton, 26 companies focused their businesses in the Mainland, 19 in Hong Kong, three globally, and two in Macau.

Chart 3.6 Percentage distribution of HSI corporations by regional focus of operation

There was a decrease in corporate donations among companies that focused their businesses in the Mainland and globally from 2015 to 2016 whereas there was an increase among companies that focused their businesses in Hong Kong and Macau.

Chart 3.7 Total amount of corporate giving by regional focus of operation in 2015 and 2016


38.0%


52.0%

Global (3 companies), 6.0%

Macau (2 companies), 4.0%

405

18441607

21

783

1600

1079

240

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

HK (19companies)

Mainland (26companies)

Global (3companies)

Macau (2companies)

in m

illio

ns

20152016

The HSI corporations that focused on global business represented a far higher proportion of total corporate giving than companies that focused in Hong Kong or Macau. The three HSI corporations with a global business focus contributed 41.4% and 31.0% of total corporate donations in 2015 and 2016 respectively.

Two of these three corporations with a global outlook were actually originated from Hong Kong. They made a relatively higher contribution to the total corporate giving than other Hong Kong companies that remained local. It is therefore reasonable to speculate that a corporation’s tendency to donate was related to how global its business outlook was regardless of its original place of establishment.


10.4%

47.6%41.4%

0.5%

22.5%

45.9%

31.0%

0.7%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Hong Kong Mainland Global Macau

20152016


CORPORATE

80

3.3 CORPORATE GIVING ACTIVITIES IN 2016

Types of corporate giving activities

In 2016, the 50 HSI corporations reported a total of 984 corporate giving activities. The nature of giving activities could be classified into three main types: donation in cash, donation in kind, and volunteering activities. 44.6% of corporate giving activities were donations in cash, 37.4% were donations in kind, and 18.0% were giving by volunteering.

Chart 3.9 Percentage distribution of giving activities by type in 2016

When analyzed by two major segments:15 companies that originated from Hong Kong (20 companies, 471 giving activities) and those that originated from the Mainland (27 companies, 438 giving activities), more from the former segment (48.4%) than the latter segment (40.9%) indicated their giving activities were donations by cash. With regards to donations by kind, the opposite was true: more companies with a Mainland origin (42.7%) than those with a Hong Kong origin (32.7%) donated by kind. The proportions of giving by volunteering were similar among two major segments.

15 No separate analysis was conducted on the companies of global and / or Macau origin because the number of cases - 75 giving activities of three companies in total were relatively small.

Giving in cash, 44.6%

Giving in kind, 37.4%

Giving by volunteering,

18.0%

Chart 3.10 Percentage distribution of giving activities by type and origins of the corporations in 2016

Regional focus of corporate giving activities

More than one-third of the corporate giving activities were held with the focus on the Mainland (39.3%) and Hong Kong (36.8%), while those with a global (19.0%), or Macau (4.9%) focus was comparatively lower.


HK, 36.8%

Mainland, 39.3%

Macau, 4.9%

Global, 19.0%

48.4%

32.7%

18.9%

40.9% 42.7%

16.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Giving by cash Giving by kind Giving by volunteering

Hong Kong origin Mainland origin


CORPORATE

81

3.3 CORPORATE GIVING ACTIVITIES IN 2016

Types of corporate giving activities

In 2016, the 50 HSI corporations reported a total of 984 corporate giving activities. The nature of giving activities could be classified into three main types: donation in cash, donation in kind, and volunteering activities. 44.6% of corporate giving activities were donations in cash, 37.4% were donations in kind, and 18.0% were giving by volunteering.

Chart 3.9 Percentage distribution of giving activities by type in 2016

When analyzed by two major segments:15 companies that originated from Hong Kong (20 companies, 471 giving activities) and those that originated from the Mainland (27 companies, 438 giving activities), more from the former segment (48.4%) than the latter segment (40.9%) indicated their giving activities were donations by cash. With regards to donations by kind, the opposite was true: more companies with a Mainland origin (42.7%) than those with a Hong Kong origin (32.7%) donated by kind. The proportions of giving by volunteering were similar among two major segments.


Giving in cash, 44.6%

Giving in kind, 37.4%

Giving by volunteering,

18.0%

Chart 3.10 Percentage distribution of giving activities by type and origins of the corporations in 2016

Regional focus of corporate giving activities

More than one-third of the corporate giving activities were held with the focus on the Mainland (39.3%) and Hong Kong (36.8%), while those with a global (19.0%), or Macau (4.9%) focus was comparatively lower.


HK, 36.8%

Mainland, 39.3%

Macau, 4.9%

Global, 19.0%

48.4%

32.7%

18.9%

40.9% 42.7%

16.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Giving by cash Giving by kind Giving by volunteering



CORPORATE

82

When analyzed by two major segments,16 companies that were originated from Hong Kong indicated their giving activities were focused on Hong Kong (67.5%), globally (20.0%) and in the Mainland (11.9%), whereas companies with a Mainland origin stated their giving activities were focused on Mainland (75.3%), globally (15.5%), and Hong Kong (9.1%).



67.5%

11.9%

0.6%

20.0%

9.1%

75.3%

0.0%

15.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hong Kong Mainland Macau Global


Beneficiaries and contributions of corporate giving activities

Accumulated over years, the total number of organizational beneficiaries was about 16,513 organizations among the 652 giving events and the total number of beneficiaries (households or person) was about 61.1 million among 390 giving events. In 2016, the total number of beneficiaries (households or person) was about 15.9 million among 325 giving events.

Regarding the corporate contributions, at least 33.3 million items were distributed in the giving events. About 1.5 million employees or volunteers were involved in these giving events. The number of man-hours involved was 275,725 hours.

Table 3.13 Number of beneficiaries and corporate contributions Number of beneficiaries Total number of beneficiaries (household or person)

accumulated over years 1 61,067,196

Total number of beneficiaries (household or person) reported in 2016 2

15,857,701

Total number of organizational beneficiaries accumulated over years 3

16,513

Corporate contributions Number of items distributed in the giving events 4 33,339,578

Number of employees or volunteers involved in the giving events 5

1,494,424

Number of man-hours involved in the giving events 6 275,725 Note 1: 390 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of beneficiaries were reported. The data of website clicks or views from 4 other giving events were excluded from the calculated. It should be noted that many corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over many years. Note 2: 325 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of beneficiaries were reported for 2016 or the numbers were not specified as cumulative over years. Note 3: 652 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of organizational beneficiaries were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over years. Note 4: 91 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of organizational beneficiaries were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over many years. Note 5: 131 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of manpower were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers over years. Note 6: 11 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of manpower were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers over years.


CORPORATE

83

When analyzed by two major segments,16 companies that were originated from Hong Kong indicated their giving activities were focused on Hong Kong (67.5%), globally (20.0%) and in the Mainland (11.9%), whereas companies with a Mainland origin stated their giving activities were focused on Mainland (75.3%), globally (15.5%), and Hong Kong (9.1%).



67.5%

11.9%

0.6%

20.0%

9.1%

75.3%

0.0%

15.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hong Kong Mainland Macau Global


Beneficiaries and contributions of corporate giving activities

Accumulated over years, the total number of organizational beneficiaries was about 16,513 organizations among the 652 giving events and the total number of beneficiaries (households or person) was about 61.1 million among 390 giving events. In 2016, the total number of beneficiaries (households or person) was about 15.9 million among 325 giving events.

Regarding the corporate contributions, at least 33.3 million items were distributed in the giving events. About 1.5 million employees or volunteers were involved in these giving events. The number of man-hours involved was 275,725 hours.

Table 3.13 Number of beneficiaries and corporate contributions Number of beneficiaries Total number of beneficiaries (household or person)

accumulated over years 1 61,067,196

Total number of beneficiaries (household or person) reported in 2016 2

15,857,701

Total number of organizational beneficiaries accumulated over years 3

16,513

Corporate contributions Number of items distributed in the giving events 4 33,339,578

Number of employees or volunteers involved in the giving events 5

1,494,424

Number of man-hours involved in the giving events 6 275,725 Note 1: 390 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of beneficiaries were reported. The data of website clicks or views from 4 other giving events were excluded from the calculated. It should be noted that many corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over many years. Note 2: 325 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of beneficiaries were reported for 2016 or the numbers were not specified as cumulative over years. Note 3: 652 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of organizational beneficiaries were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over years. Note 4: 91 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of organizational beneficiaries were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over many years. Note 5: 131 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of manpower were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers over years. Note 6: 11 giving events out of 984 giving events in which the numbers of manpower were reported. Some corporations provided only the accumulated numbers over years.


CORPORATE

84

Sectors of beneficiaries of corporate giving activities

Corporate giving activities were classified with different sectors of beneficiaries under the ICNPO classification. It is worth noting that each giving activity might benefit more than one sector.

The top four sectors of beneficiaries were social services (including emergency and relief and income support) (31.9%), education and research (primary, secondary and higher education, other education, and research) (16.5%), development and housing (12.8%), and environment (11.4%).

Chart 3.14 Sectors of beneficiaries of giving activities in 2016

Note: 1600 data points because each giving activity could benefit more than one sector. Analyzed by the sector of beneficiaries by the two major segments,17 giving activities for both Hong Kong origin and China origin companies concentrated the most on the social service sector. Giving activites in the education and research sector were also popular for companies in Hong Kong (ranked second) and the Mainland (ranked third). Whereas the Hong Kong companies placed higher importance on the


6.0%

6.7%

7.3%

7.4%

11.4%

12.8%

16.5%

31.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Advocacy / International /Religion / Business association

Culture and arts

Health

Philanthropic intermediaries andvoluntarism promotion

Environment

Development and housing

Education and research

Social services

environment sector (ranked third), the Mainland companies focused more on the development and housing sector (ranked second).

Chart 3.15 Percentage distribution of giving activities by sectors of beneficiaries and origins of the corporations in 2016

Note: Hong Kong origin - based on 740 data points in companies of Hong Kong as multiple sectors were possible; and Mainland origin - based on 741 data points in companies of Mainland origin as multiple sectors were possible.

8.0%

5.5%

6.2%

7.2%

9.4%

17.7%

16.9%

30.0%

6.4%

7.2%

6.9%

8.2%

14.2%

8.5%

16.9%

33.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%


Culture and arts

Health


Environment



Social services

Hong Kong origin

Mainland origin


CORPORATE

85

Sectors of beneficiaries of corporate giving activities

Corporate giving activities were classified with different sectors of beneficiaries under the ICNPO classification. It is worth noting that each giving activity might benefit more than one sector.

The top four sectors of beneficiaries were social services (including emergency and relief and income support) (31.9%), education and research (primary, secondary and higher education, other education, and research) (16.5%), development and housing (12.8%), and environment (11.4%).

Chart 3.14 Sectors of beneficiaries of giving activities in 2016

Note: 1600 data points because each giving activity could benefit more than one sector. Analyzed by the sector of beneficiaries by the two major segments,17 giving activities for both Hong Kong origin and China origin companies concentrated the most on the social service sector. Giving activites in the education and research sector were also popular for companies in Hong Kong (ranked second) and the Mainland (ranked third). Whereas the Hong Kong companies placed higher importance on the


6.0%

6.7%

7.3%

7.4%

11.4%

12.8%

16.5%

31.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%


Culture and arts

Health


Environment



Social services

environment sector (ranked third), the Mainland companies focused more on the development and housing sector (ranked second).

Chart 3.15 Percentage distribution of giving activities by sectors of beneficiaries and origins of the corporations in 2016

Note: Hong Kong origin - based on 740 data points in companies of Hong Kong as multiple sectors were possible; and Mainland origin - based on 741 data points in companies of Mainland origin as multiple sectors were possible.

8.0%

5.5%

6.2%

7.2%

9.4%

17.7%

16.9%

30.0%

6.4%

7.2%

6.9%

8.2%

14.2%

8.5%

16.9%

33.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%


Culture and arts

Health


Environment



Social services

Hong Kong origin

Mainland origin


CORPORATE

86


Similarly, when analyzed by social issues, of all the 984 corporate giving activities, the top four social issues addressed were social well-being (18.0%), youth development (16.5%), education / research (13.4%), and environmental protection (11.6%).

Chart 3.16 Social issues addressed of giving activities in 2016

Note: 1464 data points because each giving activity could address more than one issue.

When analyzed by the two major segments,18 the most important social issue was youth development for companies originated from Hong Kong and China alike. Similarly, the second and third most important social issues were equality and social well-being, and environmental protection for both Hong Kong and China origin companies.


0.3%

2.1%

2.3%

3.1%

3.6%

4.7%

4.7%

5.1%

5.5%

9.2%

11.6%

13.4%

16.5%

18.0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Religion

Food and hunger

Refugees/ disaster relief

Sports development

Arts

Ageing society

Housing/ Infrastructure

Disability & rehabilitation

Public health

Unemployment/ Basic poverty


Education/ research

Youth development

Equality/Social well-being

Chart 3.17 Percentage distribution of giving activities by social issues and origins of the corporations in 2016

Note: Hong Kong origin - based on 680 data points and Mainland origin - based on 668 data points because each giving activity might address more than one issue.

Age group of beneficiaries

Corporations usually reported that their activities benefited all age groups of the target beneficiaries (or the public) (49.0%) or mainly the children and young people (34.9%).

0.1%

0.9%

2.4%

2.3%

2.9%

3.1%

4.2%

5.9%

8.5%

9.7%

10.6%

14.5%

16.5%

18.4%

0.3%

0.6%

1.6%

2.1%

3.1%

4.6%

5.0%

5.6%

7.2%

8.5%

12.9%

14.4%

16.9%

17.2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Religion



Sports development

Food and hunger

Public health

Arts


Ageing society


Education/ research



Youth development

Hong Kong origin

Mainland origin


CORPORATE

87


Similarly, when analyzed by social issues, of all the 984 corporate giving activities, the top four social issues addressed were social well-being (18.0%), youth development (16.5%), education / research (13.4%), and environmental protection (11.6%).

Chart 3.16 Social issues addressed of giving activities in 2016

Note: 1464 data points because each giving activity could address more than one issue.

When analyzed by the two major segments,18 the most important social issue was youth development for companies originated from Hong Kong and China alike. Similarly, the second and third most important social issues were equality and social well-being, and environmental protection for both Hong Kong and China origin companies.


0.3%

2.1%

2.3%

3.1%

3.6%

4.7%

4.7%

5.1%

5.5%

9.2%

11.6%

13.4%

16.5%

18.0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Religion

Food and hunger


Sports development

Arts

Ageing society



Public health



Education/ research

Youth development


Chart 3.17 Percentage distribution of giving activities by social issues and origins of the corporations in 2016

Note: Hong Kong origin - based on 680 data points and Mainland origin - based on 668 data points because each giving activity might address more than one issue.

Age group of beneficiaries

Corporations usually reported that their activities benefited all age groups of the target beneficiaries (or the public) (49.0%) or mainly the children and young people (34.9%).

0.1%

0.9%

2.4%

2.3%

2.9%

3.1%

4.2%

5.9%

8.5%

9.7%

10.6%

14.5%

16.5%

18.4%

0.3%

0.6%

1.6%

2.1%

3.1%

4.6%

5.0%

5.6%

7.2%

8.5%

12.9%

14.4%

16.9%

17.2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Religion



Sports development

Food and hunger

Public health

Arts


Ageing society


Education/ research



Youth development

Hong Kong origin

Mainland origin


CORPORATE

88


Analyzed by two major segments, the distributions of age group of beneficiaries were similar.


Note: 390 giving events in which the numbers of beneficiaries were reported. The data of website clicks or views from four other giving events were excluded from the calculated. It should be noted that quite many corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over many years.

All age groups, 49.0%

Children and youth, 34.9%

Working age, 6.5%

Elderly and retirees, 4.9%

Two different age groups, 4.3%

No information, 0.4%

4.6%

2.3%

9.4%

34.5%

49.0%

3.8%

4.3%

7.4%

36.1%

47.8%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Working age

Two different age groups

Elderly and retirees

Children and youth

All age groups

Hong Kong originMainland origin

Corporate roles

Among different corporate roles of the giving activities, corporations mostly made their contribution by partnering with or donating to NGOs (52.7%), followed by partnership with government (16.1%), partnership with other foundations (9.7%), corporate alone (9.3%), and partnership with other business (4.8%).

Table 3.20 Percentage distribution of corporate roles of the giving activities in 2016

Note: Based on 1,151 data points because corporations could have multiple roles in each giving activity.

Partnership with or donation to NGO, 52.7%

Partnership with Government,

16.1%

Partnership with other

foundations, 9.7%

Corporate alone, 9.3%

Partnership with other business,

4.8%



CORPORATE

89


Analyzed by two major segments, the distributions of age group of beneficiaries were similar.


Note: 390 giving events in which the numbers of beneficiaries were reported. The data of website clicks or views from four other giving events were excluded from the calculated. It should be noted that quite many corporations provided only the accumulated numbers of beneficiaries of programmes over many years.

All age groups, 49.0%

Children and youth, 34.9%

Working age, 6.5%

Elderly and retirees, 4.9%

Two different age groups, 4.3%


4.6%

2.3%

9.4%

34.5%

49.0%

3.8%

4.3%

7.4%

36.1%

47.8%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

Working age

Two different age groups

Elderly and retirees

Children and youth

All age groups


Corporate roles

Among different corporate roles of the giving activities, corporations mostly made their contribution by partnering with or donating to NGOs (52.7%), followed by partnership with government (16.1%), partnership with other foundations (9.7%), corporate alone (9.3%), and partnership with other business (4.8%).

Table 3.20 Percentage distribution of corporate roles of the giving activities in 2016

Note: Based on 1,151 data points because corporations could have multiple roles in each giving activity.

Partnership with or donation to NGO, 52.7%

Partnership with Government,

16.1%

Partnership with other

foundations, 9.7%

Corporate alone, 9.3%

Partnership with other business,

4.8%



CORPORATE

90

Analyzed by the two major segments, a higher percentage of the companies originated from Hong Kong made their contribution by partnering with or donating to NGOs than their Mainland counterpart. Meanwhile, companies originated from the Mainland partnered with the government more often than their Hong Kong counterpart.

Table 3.21 Percentage distribution of corporate roles of the giving activities by origins of the corporations in 2016

Note: Hong Kong origin - based on 534 data points and Mainland origin - based on 526 data points because corporations could have multiple roles in each giving activity.

5.9%

9.9%

22.4%

9.5%

9.1%

43.2%

3.8%

6.2%

9.7%

10.3%

11.0%

59.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Partnership with otherbusiness

No information

Partnership with Government

Corporate alone

Partnership with otherfoundations

Partnership with or donationto NGO



CORPORATE

91

Analyzed by the two major segments, a higher percentage of the companies originated from Hong Kong made their contribution by partnering with or donating to NGOs than their Mainland counterpart. Meanwhile, companies originated from the Mainland partnered with the government more often than their Hong Kong counterpart.

Table 3.21 Percentage distribution of corporate roles of the giving activities by origins of the corporations in 2016

Note: Hong Kong origin - based on 534 data points and Mainland origin - based on 526 data points because corporations could have multiple roles in each giving activity.

5.9%

9.9%

22.4%

9.5%

9.1%

43.2%

3.8%

6.2%

9.7%

10.3%

11.0%

59.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Partnership with otherbusiness

No information

Partnership with Government

Corporate alone

Partnership with otherfoundations

Partnership with or donationto NGO



CHAPTER 4 PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS

4.1 RESEARCH METHOD

The research team constructed a database of 1,808 private philanthropic foundations (or ‘philanthropic organizations’)19 that were recognized by the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) for the purpose of tax-exemption. The main sources of data included the list of charities exempted from taxation in Hong Kong, records filed with the Company Registry, and websites of organizations.

In view of the large amount of potentially useful data, the data collection process took place in three phases.

Phase 1: Defining and locating private philanthropic foundations in Hong Kong

Phase 2: Collecting basic financial data Phase 3: Collecting basic organization and giving data




93

CHAPTER 4 PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATIONS

4.1 RESEARCH METHOD

The research team constructed a database of 1,808 private philanthropic foundations (or ‘philanthropic organizations’)19 that were recognized by the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) for the purpose of tax-exemption. The main sources of data included the list of charities exempted from taxation in Hong Kong, records filed with the Company Registry, and websites of organizations.

In view of the large amount of potentially useful data, the data collection process took place in three phases.

Phase 1: Defining and locating private philanthropic foundations in Hong Kong

Phase 2: Collecting basic financial data Phase 3: Collecting basic organization and giving data




94

Phase 1: Defining and locating philanthropic foundations

The research team largely followed the broad definition of “Group 8: philanthropic intermediaries and voluntarism promotion” in the International Classification of Non-Profit Organizations (ICNPO)20 that was adopted by the United Nations. ICNPO defined them as “philanthropic organizations and organizations promoting charity and charitable activities.”21 Such organizations included (a) grant-making foundations: private foundations; including corporate foundations, community foundations and independent public law foundations, as well as (b) organization of voluntarism promotion and support: organizations that recruited, trained, and placed volunteers, and promoted volunteering.22 Grant-making both in cash or kind was included in our definition of philanthropic foundations.

The first challenge in the study was to locate all the private philanthropic foundations as Hong Kong was without any official registration of philanthropic foundations. The most relevant source for locating them was the list of charitable institutions and trusts of a public character that were exempted from tax under section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (“S88 List”). The list was publicly available and updated regularly.

As of April 30, 2017, there were 15,471 tax-exempted organizations on the S88 List, which covered different kinds of non-profit organizations engaging in various kinds of activities, such as social services, religion, education, sports, conservation, arts and culture, in addition to the philanthropic and grant-making purposes.23 The official list provided very little information of each organization: registered Chinese name and / or English name, and the effective date of tax-exemption status. From the S88 List, potential philanthropic organizations were identified using a key word search. Then, the details were screened and validated with information from the Internet and the Company Registry. Eventually, a list of tax-exempted organizations was compiled for the study.

20 Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1997). Defining the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross-national Analysis. New York: Manchester University Press. See also, United Nations (2003), Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts. (https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesf/seriesf_91e.pdf) 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Inland Revenue Department, “List of charitable institutions and trusts of a public character, which are exempt from tax under section 88 of the inland revenue ordinance as at 30 April 2017.” (http://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/pdf/e_s88list_emb.pdf)

Three steps were taken in the research process.

Step 1 Key word search About 2,900 potential philanthropic organizations from the S88 List contained at least one of the following key words. The potential list also included several organizations that did not contain any key words, but were known to the research team to be philanthropic organizations.

English key words: Charity, Charitable Fund, Charitable Foundation, Charitable Trust, Foundation, Fund, Philanthropy, Philanthropic Trust, Trust Fund,

Chinese key words: 基金，基金會，信託，信託基金，慈善，慈善基金，公益，功德

Step 2 Shortlisting All potential philanthropic organizations’ websites and Facebook pages were examined. The basic information on the located websites (e.g. “About us”) and the relevant information of the potential organizations were browsed and checked, particularly those organizations that did not make grant or promote volunteerism.

About 2,500 potential philanthropic organizations were included in the database after shortlisting. Step 3 Validation Each of the shortlisted organizations was checked with regard to whether they were registered companies and whether they had filed financial statements with the Company Registry. The latest financial statements, where available, were retrieved. Further, other reference materials including news and acknowledgement of donors by beneficiary organizations (e.g. universities, social service agencies etc.) were collected.

Each shortlisted organization was reviewed using the organizational websites and / or Facebook, online references, and financial statements.

After the validation process, a total of 1,808 tax-exempted organizations were included in the final list of non-governmental philanthropic organizations in Hong Kong.



95

Phase 1: Defining and locating philanthropic foundations

The research team largely followed the broad definition of “Group 8: philanthropic intermediaries and voluntarism promotion” in the International Classification of Non-Profit Organizations (ICNPO)20 that was adopted by the United Nations. ICNPO defined them as “philanthropic organizations and organizations promoting charity and charitable activities.”21 Such organizations included (a) grant-making foundations: private foundations; including corporate foundations, community foundations and independent public law foundations, as well as (b) organization of voluntarism promotion and support: organizations that recruited, trained, and placed volunteers, and promoted volunteering.22 Grant-making both in cash or kind was included in our definition of philanthropic foundations.

The first challenge in the study was to locate all the private philanthropic foundations as Hong Kong was without any official registration of philanthropic foundations. The most relevant source for locating them was the list of charitable institutions and trusts of a public character that were exempted from tax under section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (“S88 List”). The list was publicly available and updated regularly.

As of April 30, 2017, there were 15,471 tax-exempted organizations on the S88 List, which covered different kinds of non-profit organizations engaging in various kinds of activities, such as social services, religion, education, sports, conservation, arts and culture, in addition to the philanthropic and grant-making purposes.23 The official list provided very little information of each organization: registered Chinese name and / or English name, and the effective date of tax-exemption status. From the S88 List, potential philanthropic organizations were identified using a key word search. Then, the details were screened and validated with information from the Internet and the Company Registry. Eventually, a list of tax-exempted organizations was compiled for the study.

20 Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1997). Defining the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross-national Analysis. New York: Manchester University Press. See also, United Nations (2003), Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts. (https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesf/seriesf_91e.pdf) 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Inland Revenue Department, “List of charitable institutions and trusts of a public character, which are exempt from tax under section 88 of the inland revenue ordinance as at 30 April 2017.” (http://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/pdf/e_s88list_emb.pdf)

Three steps were taken in the research process.

Step 1 Key word search About 2,900 potential philanthropic organizations from the S88 List contained at least one of the following key words. The potential list also included several organizations that did not contain any key words, but were known to the research team to be philanthropic organizations.

English key words: Charity, Charitable Fund, Charitable Foundation, Charitable Trust, Foundation, Fund, Philanthropy, Philanthropic Trust, Trust Fund,

Chinese key words: 基金，基金會，信託，信託基金，慈善，慈善基金，公益，功德

Step 2 Shortlisting All potential philanthropic organizations’ websites and Facebook pages were examined. The basic information on the located websites (e.g. “About us”) and the relevant information of the potential organizations were browsed and checked, particularly those organizations that did not make grant or promote volunteerism.

About 2,500 potential philanthropic organizations were included in the database after shortlisting. Step 3 Validation Each of the shortlisted organizations was checked with regard to whether they were registered companies and whether they had filed financial statements with the Company Registry. The latest financial statements, where available, were retrieved. Further, other reference materials including news and acknowledgement of donors by beneficiary organizations (e.g. universities, social service agencies etc.) were collected.

Each shortlisted organization was reviewed using the organizational websites and / or Facebook, online references, and financial statements.

After the validation process, a total of 1,808 tax-exempted organizations were included in the final list of non-governmental philanthropic organizations in Hong Kong.



96

Phase 2: Collecting basic financial data

In phase 2, the following basic financial data were collected from the latest available financial statements filed by the philanthropic foundations to the Company Registry. Most of the financial information was extracted from the financial statements in 2017 (some in 2016). The following information was extracted from the financial statements:

Total asset Total liabilities Total annual revenue Total annual expenditure Total annual donation income Total annual donation / scholarship / sponsorship / subsidies paid

(expenditure)

Phase 3: Collecting basic organizational and giving data

In phase 3, the following basic organization and giving data were collected from the philanthropic foundations that had a website and / or Facebook page.

Nature and types Region-based and region-served Religious affiliation Age group and sectors of beneficiaries Social issues addressed

Limitations

When interpreting the analysis of the philanthropic foundations database, readers should bear in mind a number of limitations and the attempts to alleviate the impact of those limitations.

o Definition and verification: The key words used in the matching process were terminologies that gave clues about the legal status of the organizations. However, key words such as “foundations” did not necessarily mean that organizations made grants for charity purposes. In the database, the research team could not find any online information or Company Registry record of 85 organizations that contained the key words (“foundations”, etc.): 39 of them suggested that they were individual or family foundations or trust funds while 46 of them did not indicate their nature of operation. Even for those with websites, some provided insufficient information about the nature of their work and the research team could not verify if the missions of these ‘foundations’ fitted the definition of philanthropic grant-making. On the other hand, it was possible that not all philanthropic organizations contained the key words. Also, there was the possibility that some philanthropic foundations did not apply for or were not granted tax-exemption. The research team made the best effort to identify and validate the organizations in the database; however, the list might include foundations whose main mission was not philanthropic grant-making or promotion of voluntarism, or might exclude some true philanthropic foundations.

o Varied amount of original data for each organization: The philanthropic

organizations in the database did not provide the same amount of information. 57% of the philanthropic foundations in the database did not provide their organization websites or Facebook pages.



97

Phase 2: Collecting basic financial data

In phase 2, the following basic financial data were collected from the latest available financial statements filed by the philanthropic foundations to the Company Registry. Most of the financial information was extracted from the financial statements in 2017 (some in 2016). The following information was extracted from the financial statements:

Total asset Total liabilities Total annual revenue Total annual expenditure Total annual donation income Total annual donation / scholarship / sponsorship / subsidies paid

(expenditure)

Phase 3: Collecting basic organizational and giving data

In phase 3, the following basic organization and giving data were collected from the philanthropic foundations that had a website and / or Facebook page.

Nature and types Region-based and region-served Religious affiliation Age group and sectors of beneficiaries Social issues addressed

Limitations

When interpreting the analysis of the philanthropic foundations database, readers should bear in mind a number of limitations and the attempts to alleviate the impact of those limitations.

o Definition and verification: The key words used in the matching process were terminologies that gave clues about the legal status of the organizations. However, key words such as “foundations” did not necessarily mean that organizations made grants for charity purposes. In the database, the research team could not find any online information or Company Registry record of 85 organizations that contained the key words (“foundations”, etc.): 39 of them suggested that they were individual or family foundations or trust funds while 46 of them did not indicate their nature of operation. Even for those with websites, some provided insufficient information about the nature of their work and the research team could not verify if the missions of these ‘foundations’ fitted the definition of philanthropic grant-making. On the other hand, it was possible that not all philanthropic organizations contained the key words. Also, there was the possibility that some philanthropic foundations did not apply for or were not granted tax-exemption. The research team made the best effort to identify and validate the organizations in the database; however, the list might include foundations whose main mission was not philanthropic grant-making or promotion of voluntarism, or might exclude some true philanthropic foundations.

o Varied amount of original data for each organization: The philanthropic

organizations in the database did not provide the same amount of information. 57% of the philanthropic foundations in the database did not provide their organization websites or Facebook pages.



98

4.2 FOUNDATION GIVING IN HONG KONG IN 2016

Donations

A total of 1,808 philanthropic foundations were identified. The table below summarizes the key financials of the philanthropic foundations in 2015 and 2016.

In 2015, HK$4.95 billion donations were made by 1,133 philanthropic foundations, representing 6.7% of the total asset (HK$73.82 billion) and 42.7% of the total income (HK$11.61 billion). Of all the donations, HK$4.62 billion (93.3%) was for donations to other parties, including organizations and people in need; HK$0.25 billion (4.9%) was for sponsorships or subsidies, and the remaining HK$0.09 billion (1.7%) was for scholarships.

In 2016, HK$4.47 billion donations were made by 1,213 philanthropic foundations, representing 5.6% of the total asset (HK$84.15 billion) and 29.8% of the total income (HK$15.94 billion). Of all the donations, HK$4.34 billion (91.5%) was for donations to other parties, including organizations and people in need; HK$0.32 billion (6.7%) was for sponsorships or subsidies and the remaining HK$0.08 billion (1.7%) was for scholarships.

Table 4.1 Reported Donations in 2015 and 2016 Types 2015 2016

Total amount of donations (HKD Billion) 4.95 (100.0%) 4.47 (100.0%) Donations 4.62 (93.3%) 4.34 (91.5%) Scholarship 0.09 (1.7%) 0.08 (1.7%) Sponsorship or subsidies 0.25 (4.9%) 0.32 (6.7%) Total asset (HKD Billion) 73.82 84.15 % of donation of total assets 6.7% 5.6% Total income (HKD Billion) 11.61 15.94 % of donation of total income 42.7% 29.8% Base * 1,133 1,213 Note*: In 2015, 675 out of 1,808 philanthropic foundations did not provide amount of donations. In 2016, 595 out of 1,808 philanthropic foundations did not provide amount of donations.

4.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF PHILANTHROPIC

FOUNDATIONS


Out of the 1,808 identified philanthropic foundations, 1,351 (74.7%) were registered with the Company Registry, while 457 (25.3%) were not.

Of those 1,351 philanthropic foundations that were registered with the Company Registry, 1,219 (90.2%) had filed their financial statements to the Company Registry.

Table 4.2 Registration of the Company Registry Types n (%)

Legal establishment Registered companies with the Company Registry 1,351 (74.7%)

Not registered companies with the Company Registry 457 (25.3%) Total number of philanthropic foundations 1,808 (100.0%)

Financial statement Filed financial statements to the Company Registry 1,219 (90.2%)

Not filed financial statements to the Company Registry 132 (9.8%) Total number of philanthropic foundations which are registered companies with the Company Registry

1,351 (100.0%)

With online information

Of those 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 786 (43.5%) had websites and / or Facebook pages and the research team could verify their philanthropic missions according to the online information. 1,022 (56.5%) philanthropic foundations did not have any online information.

Table 4.3 Philanthropic foundations with online information Types n (%)

With websites and / or Facebook pages With websites and / or Facebook pages 786 (43.5%) Online information is not available 1,022 (56.5%) Total number of philanthropic foundations 1,808 (100.0%)



99

4.2 FOUNDATION GIVING IN HONG KONG IN 2016

Donations

A total of 1,808 philanthropic foundations were identified. The table below summarizes the key financials of the philanthropic foundations in 2015 and 2016.

In 2015, HK$4.95 billion donations were made by 1,133 philanthropic foundations, representing 6.7% of the total asset (HK$73.82 billion) and 42.7% of the total income (HK$11.61 billion). Of all the donations, HK$4.62 billion (93.3%) was for donations to other parties, including organizations and people in need; HK$0.25 billion (4.9%) was for sponsorships or subsidies, and the remaining HK$0.09 billion (1.7%) was for scholarships.

In 2016, HK$4.47 billion donations were made by 1,213 philanthropic foundations, representing 5.6% of the total asset (HK$84.15 billion) and 29.8% of the total income (HK$15.94 billion). Of all the donations, HK$4.34 billion (91.5%) was for donations to other parties, including organizations and people in need; HK$0.32 billion (6.7%) was for sponsorships or subsidies and the remaining HK$0.08 billion (1.7%) was for scholarships.

Table 4.1 Reported Donations in 2015 and 2016 Types 2015 2016

Total amount of donations (HKD Billion) 4.95 (100.0%) 4.47 (100.0%) Donations 4.62 (93.3%) 4.34 (91.5%) Scholarship 0.09 (1.7%) 0.08 (1.7%) Sponsorship or subsidies 0.25 (4.9%) 0.32 (6.7%) Total asset (HKD Billion) 73.82 84.15 % of donation of total assets 6.7% 5.6% Total income (HKD Billion) 11.61 15.94 % of donation of total income 42.7% 29.8% Base * 1,133 1,213 Note*: In 2015, 675 out of 1,808 philanthropic foundations did not provide amount of donations. In 2016, 595 out of 1,808 philanthropic foundations did not provide amount of donations.

4.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF PHILANTHROPIC

FOUNDATIONS


Out of the 1,808 identified philanthropic foundations, 1,351 (74.7%) were registered with the Company Registry, while 457 (25.3%) were not.

Of those 1,351 philanthropic foundations that were registered with the Company Registry, 1,219 (90.2%) had filed their financial statements to the Company Registry.

Table 4.2 Registration of the Company Registry Types n (%)

Legal establishment Registered companies with the Company Registry 1,351 (74.7%)

Not registered companies with the Company Registry 457 (25.3%) Total number of philanthropic foundations 1,808 (100.0%)

Financial statement Filed financial statements to the Company Registry 1,219 (90.2%)

Not filed financial statements to the Company Registry 132 (9.8%) Total number of philanthropic foundations which are registered companies with the Company Registry

1,351 (100.0%)

With online information

Of those 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 786 (43.5%) had websites and / or Facebook pages and the research team could verify their philanthropic missions according to the online information. 1,022 (56.5%) philanthropic foundations did not have any online information.

Table 4.3 Philanthropic foundations with online information Types n (%)

With websites and / or Facebook pages With websites and / or Facebook pages 786 (43.5%) Online information is not available 1,022 (56.5%) Total number of philanthropic foundations 1,808 (100.0%)



100


When analyzed by the nature of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 47.3% were NGOs, 30.8% were personal or family foundations, 13.1% were corporate foundations, 6.5% were foundations set-up by industry, professional, business, clan or universities, and 0.6% were government-linked foundations.

Chart 4.4 The nature of Philanthropic Foundations

Note: Based on 1,808 Philanthropic Foundations.

Personal/ Family foundation,

30.8%

Corporate foundation,

13.1%

Industry/ professional/ business/ clan association/

universities, 6.5%

NGOs, 47.3%

Government-linked, 0.6%



When analyzed by the types of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 28.1% were family associations, 14.5% were business organizations, 8.0% were social service organizations, 6.7% were religious organizations, and 4.5% were arts, entertainment, and cultural organizations. Close to a quarter of these foundations did not fall into the classification. Examples of these “other organizations” included scholarship related foundations, poverty relief foundations, research foundations, and philanthropic foundations.

Chart 4.5 The types of Philanthropic Foundations

Note: Based on 1,808 Philanthropic Foundations; multiple types were allowed.

23.2%

0.1%

0.8%

1.2%

1.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.7%

3.4%

4.5%

6.7%

8.0%

14.5%

28.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Others organization

Labor organization



Health care /Hospital organization









Family association organization



101


When analyzed by the nature of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 47.3% were NGOs, 30.8% were personal or family foundations, 13.1% were corporate foundations, 6.5% were foundations set-up by industry, professional, business, clan or universities, and 0.6% were government-linked foundations.

Chart 4.4 The nature of Philanthropic Foundations

Note: Based on 1,808 Philanthropic Foundations.

Personal/ Family foundation,

30.8%

Corporate foundation,

13.1%

Industry/ professional/ business/ clan association/

universities, 6.5%

NGOs, 47.3%

Government-linked, 0.6%



When analyzed by the types of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 28.1% were family associations, 14.5% were business organizations, 8.0% were social service organizations, 6.7% were religious organizations, and 4.5% were arts, entertainment, and cultural organizations. Close to a quarter of these foundations did not fall into the classification. Examples of these “other organizations” included scholarship related foundations, poverty relief foundations, research foundations, and philanthropic foundations.

Chart 4.5 The types of Philanthropic Foundations


23.2%

0.1%

0.8%

1.2%

1.2%

2.2%

2.2%

2.7%

3.4%

4.5%

6.7%

8.0%

14.5%

28.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Others organization

Labor organization



Health care /Hospital organization









Family association organization



102


Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 81.9% were based in Hong Kong, 8.6% were global organizations, and 4.7% were based in Mainland China.

Chart 4.6 Region-based of Philanthropic Foundations

Note: Based on 1,808 Philanthropic Foundations; multiple types were allowed. Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 80.1% were serving recipients in Hong Kong, 47.3% in Mainland China, 9.3% in other Asian regions, and 7.2% in non-Asian regions.

Chart 4.7 Region-served of Philanthropic Foundations


4.3%

8.6%

0.4%

0.1%

4.7%

81.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No information

Global

Taiwan

Macau

Mainland China

Hong Kong

7.2%

9.3%

2.5%

2.4%

47.3%

80.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-Asian region

Other Asian regions

Taiwan

Macau

Mainland China

Hong Kong

Religious affiliation

Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 82.7% were non-religious philanthropic foundations, 6.4% were Christian organizations, and 4.9% were Buddhist organizations.

Chart 4.8 Religious affiliation of Philanthropic Foundations


4.8%

82.7%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

4.9%

0.8%

6.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No information

Non-religious

Judaism

Hinduism

Islam

Taoism

Buddhism

Catholicity

Christianity



103


Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 81.9% were based in Hong Kong, 8.6% were global organizations, and 4.7% were based in Mainland China.

Chart 4.6 Region-based of Philanthropic Foundations

Note: Based on 1,808 Philanthropic Foundations; multiple types were allowed. Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 80.1% were serving recipients in Hong Kong, 47.3% in Mainland China, 9.3% in other Asian regions, and 7.2% in non-Asian regions.

Chart 4.7 Region-served of Philanthropic Foundations


4.3%

8.6%

0.4%

0.1%

4.7%

81.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No information

Global

Taiwan

Macau

Mainland China

Hong Kong

7.2%

9.3%

2.5%

2.4%

47.3%

80.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non-Asian region

Other Asian regions

Taiwan

Macau

Mainland China

Hong Kong

Religious affiliation

Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, 82.7% were non-religious philanthropic foundations, 6.4% were Christian organizations, and 4.9% were Buddhist organizations.

Chart 4.8 Religious affiliation of Philanthropic Foundations


4.8%

82.7%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

4.9%

0.8%

6.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No information

Non-religious

Judaism

Hinduism

Islam

Taoism

Buddhism

Catholicity

Christianity



104


Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, the majority reported that their beneficiaries were children (aged under 14) (87.0%) and teenagers (aged 14 to 24) (88.5%). Over half indicated that their beneficiaries were working age (62.9%) and the elderly (61.2%).

Chart 4.9 Age group of beneficiaries of Philanthropic Foundations

Note: Based on 1,808 Philanthropic Foundations; multiple types were allowed. Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, about 11.6% stated that their beneficiaries were disabled person. About 1.9%, 1.2% and 0.9% of philanthropic foundations indicated that their beneficiaries were women, new arrivals, and ethnic minorities respectively.

Chart 4.10 Sectors of beneficiaries of Philanthropic Foundations


61.2%

62.9%

88.5%

87.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Elderly

Working age

Teenagers (14-24)

Children (under 14)

0.9%

1.2%

1.9%

11.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ethnic minorities

New arrivals

Women

The disabled


Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, the top five social issues addressed were education (64.0%), equal opportunities (such as gender, race, and disability) and social inclusion (including sexual minority interest) (36.7%), health care and medical service (physical) (31.6%), arts, culture and religion (27.0%), and poverty alleviation (23.1%).

Chart 4.11 Social issues addressed by Philanthropic Foundations


0.1%

0.6%

1.1%

3.1%

5.1%

6.3%

10.7%

12.1%

23.1%

27.0%

31.6%

36.7%

64.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Others

Legal aid


Sports

Mental health


Research/Science

Disaster relief

Poverty alleviation

Arts, culture & religion

Health care and medical service (physical)

Equal opportunities (such as gender, race,disability) & social inclusion (including

sexual minority interest)

Education



105


Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, the majority reported that their beneficiaries were children (aged under 14) (87.0%) and teenagers (aged 14 to 24) (88.5%). Over half indicated that their beneficiaries were working age (62.9%) and the elderly (61.2%).

Chart 4.9 Age group of beneficiaries of Philanthropic Foundations

Note: Based on 1,808 Philanthropic Foundations; multiple types were allowed. Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, about 11.6% stated that their beneficiaries were disabled person. About 1.9%, 1.2% and 0.9% of philanthropic foundations indicated that their beneficiaries were women, new arrivals, and ethnic minorities respectively.

Chart 4.10 Sectors of beneficiaries of Philanthropic Foundations


61.2%

62.9%

88.5%

87.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Elderly

Working age

Teenagers (14-24)

Children (under 14)

0.9%

1.2%

1.9%

11.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ethnic minorities

New arrivals

Women

The disabled


Of 1,808 philanthropic foundations, the top five social issues addressed were education (64.0%), equal opportunities (such as gender, race, and disability) and social inclusion (including sexual minority interest) (36.7%), health care and medical service (physical) (31.6%), arts, culture and religion (27.0%), and poverty alleviation (23.1%).

Chart 4.11 Social issues addressed by Philanthropic Foundations


0.1%

0.6%

1.1%

3.1%

5.1%

6.3%

10.7%

12.1%

23.1%

27.0%

31.6%

36.7%

64.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Others

Legal aid


Sports

Mental health


Research/Science

Disaster relief

Poverty alleviation

Arts, culture & religion

Health care and medical service (physical)

Equal opportunities (such as gender, race,disability) & social inclusion (including

sexual minority interest)

Education


CHAPTER 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

This report attempts to provide a more complete portrayal of giving and volunteering in Hong Kong. It includes relevant information on the individuals, corporations, and charitable foundations. The results are presented in Chapters 2 to 4, while the main findings are summarized in the Executive Summary. On the basis of the results and the research process, this final chapter aims to draw attention to a few points that warrant further consideration and deliberation. Points of interest: 1. Giving remains irrelevant to the majority of the population

It is rather alarming that most people in Hong Kong were not givers in terms of money, goods or blood (56%). Many more were stringent with their use of time in volunteering (83% non-volunteers), and a vast majority had not registered as organ donors (90%).

2. Much more outreach efforts are needed There were of course various reasons why people had not given. Some were resource-related, such as shortness of means or the lack of time. Yet, deficient information had been a rather substantial reason. Around half of the respondents (52.6%) did not recall receiving any information about donating or volunteering; about one-third (32.2%) did not know how to register as organ donors; and a little less than half (46.9%) did not know how to take part in volunteer work. In view of such findings, more efforts should be spent to effectively reach out to potential givers.

3. Mindsets need to be changed Other than having little giving and volunteering information, our data suggest that the mindsets of the respondents needed to be changed. Close to half of the individuals (47.5%) said they had no interest in volunteering; and over one-third of individuals (37.6%) did not agree with organ donation. To encourage volunteering, it will be necessary to find out the reasons behind “no interest”. Could it be due to previous unpleasant experience from a mismatch between the volunteer’s interest and volunteering work? Could it be based on a misunderstanding of the type and work of volunteering? Further research is necessary to ascertain the underlying reasons.


CONCLUDING REMARKS

107

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

This report attempts to provide a more complete portrayal of giving and volunteering in Hong Kong. It includes relevant information on the individuals, corporations, and charitable foundations. The results are presented in Chapters 2 to 4, while the main findings are summarized in the Executive Summary. On the basis of the results and the research process, this final chapter aims to draw attention to a few points that warrant further consideration and deliberation. Points of interest: 1. Giving remains irrelevant to the majority of the population

It is rather alarming that most people in Hong Kong were not givers in terms of money, goods or blood (56%). Many more were stringent with their use of time in volunteering (83% non-volunteers), and a vast majority had not registered as organ donors (90%).

2. Much more outreach efforts are needed There were of course various reasons why people had not given. Some were resource-related, such as shortness of means or the lack of time. Yet, deficient information had been a rather substantial reason. Around half of the respondents (52.6%) did not recall receiving any information about donating or volunteering; about one-third (32.2%) did not know how to register as organ donors; and a little less than half (46.9%) did not know how to take part in volunteer work. In view of such findings, more efforts should be spent to effectively reach out to potential givers.

3. Mindsets need to be changed Other than having little giving and volunteering information, our data suggest that the mindsets of the respondents needed to be changed. Close to half of the individuals (47.5%) said they had no interest in volunteering; and over one-third of individuals (37.6%) did not agree with organ donation. To encourage volunteering, it will be necessary to find out the reasons behind “no interest”. Could it be due to previous unpleasant experience from a mismatch between the volunteer’s interest and volunteering work? Could it be based on a misunderstanding of the type and work of volunteering? Further research is necessary to ascertain the underlying reasons.


CONCLUDING REMARKS

108

4. NGO governance is important to the donor’s decision to give The decision to give is obviously determined by a number of factors, not least in relation to the causes (77.3%) or the missions and visions (72.7%) of the NGO in question. In addition, our findings underscored the donors’ concerns with good governance, such as the transparency of the organization (70.4%), internal management (59.9%), and reasonable administration fee (58.3%) were important considerations for donors.

5. Mobilize social network for fundraising Publicity normally occupies a key role in NGO fundraising campaigns, because of its presumed effectiveness. Yet, the high-cost of publicity puts the smaller and resource-deficient NGOs in a quandary. By separating the awareness and effectiveness of fundraising information, our findings supply a different perspective. A considerable portion of both donors and non-donors who came across fundraising information from posters or advertisements in public places, on websites, and social media found them not effective. In contrast, whether donors or non-donors, volunteers or non-volunteers, information reached them more effectively through a channel with which they had more personal relationships, such as friends, community, family or school. In brief, while posters or advertisements in public spaces, or websites did reach a much higher percentage of respondents, they were less effective than through one’s social network.

6. Cash is by far the most popular donation payment method

Hong Kong society is still rather traditional with regard to donation payment methods. The most popular (83.4%) and acceptable (86.3%) donation payment methods were cash and to a lesser extent, bank transfer (24.7% and 42.9% respectively). Online payment (23.3%) and mobile payment application (18.8%) were becoming more acceptable, but were still seldom used (3.1% and 1.3% respectively).

7. Offer more payment channels might attract more donors Considering that cash is the predominant means of donation in Hong Kong society, it follows that the convenience of making the donation is central in fundraising. Our findings confirmed such a view, as over one-third of individuals did not give because the giving methods were unknown (41.2%) or inconvenient (35.5%) to them. Hence, providing easy and adequate giving venues would attract more

donations. 8. Different NGOs might have higher payoffs targeting different donor types

Individual donors, corporations, and foundations were attracted to different causes. The three most popular causes for individual donors were poverty alleviation (32.8%), health care and medical services (27.9%), and environmental protection (19.9%); for corporations, social services (31.9%), education and research (16.5%), and development and housing (12.8%); and for charitable foundations, education (64.0%), equal opportunity and social inclusion (36.7%), and health care and medical service (31.6%). Thus, it will be more efficient for NGOs to target different donor types based on the causes.

9. Different NGOs might have higher payoffs in mobilizing volunteers OR funds Healthcare and medical services, and environment protection were among the top four causes that attracted both donors and volunteers. However, the most popular cause that donors gave to was poverty relief (32.8%), while volunteers were most enticed to serving the education sector (35.4%). Likewise, whereas disaster relief (17.4%) appealed to donors, it was less so than poverty relief (26.2%) among volunteers. Our findings suggested that some NGOs attracted more donation than volunteer, and vice versa

10. There are potential volunteers waiting to be mobilized

Expressed interest in volunteering in almost all categories of causes or clients was significantly higher than current volunteering rates. Coupled with the high portion of the respondents (46.9%) citing the lack of knowledge in ways to partake in volunteering as the reason for nonparticipation, there is a great potential to increase volunteer participation.

11. It is difficult to collect information on grantmaking foundations and corporate

giving For charitable grantmaking foundations, identification of these organizations was a problem as there is not a central registry. Compiling basic financial data of these foundations was similarly difficult. It may be true that most of them obtained tax exemption status from the Inland Revenue Department (IRD), but IRD only confers tax exemption status without also stipulating financial reporting. For charitable organizations that are registered as company limited, an annual financial statement has to be filed with the Company Registry. However, the amount of information varies as there is neither a standard reporting form, nor a


CONCLUDING REMARKS

109

4. NGO governance is important to the donor’s decision to give The decision to give is obviously determined by a number of factors, not least in relation to the causes (77.3%) or the missions and visions (72.7%) of the NGO in question. In addition, our findings underscored the donors’ concerns with good governance, such as the transparency of the organization (70.4%), internal management (59.9%), and reasonable administration fee (58.3%) were important considerations for donors.

5. Mobilize social network for fundraising Publicity normally occupies a key role in NGO fundraising campaigns, because of its presumed effectiveness. Yet, the high-cost of publicity puts the smaller and resource-deficient NGOs in a quandary. By separating the awareness and effectiveness of fundraising information, our findings supply a different perspective. A considerable portion of both donors and non-donors who came across fundraising information from posters or advertisements in public places, on websites, and social media found them not effective. In contrast, whether donors or non-donors, volunteers or non-volunteers, information reached them more effectively through a channel with which they had more personal relationships, such as friends, community, family or school. In brief, while posters or advertisements in public spaces, or websites did reach a much higher percentage of respondents, they were less effective than through one’s social network.

6. Cash is by far the most popular donation payment method

Hong Kong society is still rather traditional with regard to donation payment methods. The most popular (83.4%) and acceptable (86.3%) donation payment methods were cash and to a lesser extent, bank transfer (24.7% and 42.9% respectively). Online payment (23.3%) and mobile payment application (18.8%) were becoming more acceptable, but were still seldom used (3.1% and 1.3% respectively).

7. Offer more payment channels might attract more donors Considering that cash is the predominant means of donation in Hong Kong society, it follows that the convenience of making the donation is central in fundraising. Our findings confirmed such a view, as over one-third of individuals did not give because the giving methods were unknown (41.2%) or inconvenient (35.5%) to them. Hence, providing easy and adequate giving venues would attract more

donations. 8. Different NGOs might have higher payoffs targeting different donor types

Individual donors, corporations, and foundations were attracted to different causes. The three most popular causes for individual donors were poverty alleviation (32.8%), health care and medical services (27.9%), and environmental protection (19.9%); for corporations, social services (31.9%), education and research (16.5%), and development and housing (12.8%); and for charitable foundations, education (64.0%), equal opportunity and social inclusion (36.7%), and health care and medical service (31.6%). Thus, it will be more efficient for NGOs to target different donor types based on the causes.

9. Different NGOs might have higher payoffs in mobilizing volunteers OR funds Healthcare and medical services, and environment protection were among the top four causes that attracted both donors and volunteers. However, the most popular cause that donors gave to was poverty relief (32.8%), while volunteers were most enticed to serving the education sector (35.4%). Likewise, whereas disaster relief (17.4%) appealed to donors, it was less so than poverty relief (26.2%) among volunteers. Our findings suggested that some NGOs attracted more donation than volunteer, and vice versa

10. There are potential volunteers waiting to be mobilized

Expressed interest in volunteering in almost all categories of causes or clients was significantly higher than current volunteering rates. Coupled with the high portion of the respondents (46.9%) citing the lack of knowledge in ways to partake in volunteering as the reason for nonparticipation, there is a great potential to increase volunteer participation.

11. It is difficult to collect information on grantmaking foundations and corporate

giving For charitable grantmaking foundations, identification of these organizations was a problem as there is not a central registry. Compiling basic financial data of these foundations was similarly difficult. It may be true that most of them obtained tax exemption status from the Inland Revenue Department (IRD), but IRD only confers tax exemption status without also stipulating financial reporting. For charitable organizations that are registered as company limited, an annual financial statement has to be filed with the Company Registry. However, the amount of information varies as there is neither a standard reporting form, nor a


110

CONCLUDING REMARKS

set of required data items. In view of these challenges and despite the best efforts of this study, it is not possible to pin down the exact number of grantmaking foundations as well as information about their giving. Taking into account the exploratory nature of this research, only publicly listed companies constituting the Hang Seng Index were included. Although publicly listed companies are required to produce an annual sustainability report, disclosure of the details of corporate donations and giving activities is voluntary. Information on giving and volunteering is therefore different from company to company, making it hard to discern annual giving behavior. Some companies, for example, opted to report cumulated donations and beneficiary numbers over a period of time. Similar to the situation found for charitable foundations, unless and until a uniform reporting requirement is mandated, gathering complete and accurate, giving information of charitable foundations and corporations will remain a colossal challenge.

This report is the first landscape study of giving and volunteering in Hong Kong. It is an initial attempt and by no means do we claim that the depiction is complete. As explained in the relevant chapters, data collection posed an enormous constraint. Nonetheless, we hope that the findings will be useful to NGOs for leveraging fundraising efforts and volunteer recruitment, and to donors and corporations with regard to the general philanthropic landscape. One of the goals of this research is to locate places where improvement and development is required. We have highlighted a few observations in this chapter. Some of the improvements call for collective efforts of the civil society, such as making volunteering more of a community building activity and civic duty; and of NGOs, like increasing the variety of volunteering work and donation channels. Others, however, entail efforts of the concerned authorities in the form of putting in place rules and regulations. As we have repeatedly pointed out, a major difficulty in the research process was the lack of uniform information. Such information is needed not only for the sake of research, but for transparency, a principle of the utmost importance to a mature civil society. Finally, we hope that identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the philanthropic sphere of Hong Kong will facilitate its advancement, and make Hong Kong a more caring community.

APPENDIX 1 LIST OF HANG SENG INDEX CONSTITUENT STOCK

COMPANIES (AS OF 30 JUNE 2017)

No Stock Code Chinese Name English Name 1 00001 長江和記實業 Cheung Kong Hutchison Holdings Limited 2 00002 中電控股 CLP Holdings 3 00003 香港中華煤氣 Hong Kong & China Gas 4 00004 九龍倉 Wharf Holdings 5 00005 匯豐控股 HSBC Holdings 6 00006 電能實業 Power Assets 7 00011 恒生銀行 Hang Seng Bank 8 00012 恒基兆業地產 Henderson Land Development 9 00016 新鴻基地產 Sun Hung Kai Properties 10 00017 新世界發展 New World Properties 11 00019 太古公司Ａ Swire Pacific A 12 00023 東亞銀行 Bank East Asia 13 00027 銀河娛樂 Galaxy Entertainment 14 00066 港鐵公司 MTR Corporation 15 00083 信和置業 Sino Land 16 00101 恆隆地產 Hang Lung Properties 17 00135 昆侖能源 Kunlun Energy 18 00144 招商局港口 China Merchant Port 19 00151 中國旺旺 China Want Want 20 00175 吉利汽車 Geely Motors 21 00267 中信股份 Citic Group 22 00293 國泰航空 Cathay Pacific 23 00386 中國石化 Sinopec 24 00388 香港交易所 Hong Kong Stock Exchange 25 00688 中國海外 China Overseas Land & Investment Limited 26 00700 騰訊控股 Tencent Holdings 27 00762 中國聯通 China Unicom 28 00823 領展信託基金 Link REIT 29 00836 華潤電力 China Resource Power 30 00857 中國石油 China Petroleum 31 00883 中國海洋石油 CNOOC 32 00939 中國建設銀行 China Construction Bank 33 00941 中國移動 China Mobile 34 00992 聯想集團 Lenovo Group 35 001038 長江基建 Cheung Kong Infrastructure 36 001044 恆安集團 Heng An Group 37 001088 中國神華 China Shenhua 38 001109 華潤置地 China Resource Land 39 001113 長實地產 Cheung Kong Properties 40 001299 友邦保險 AIA Group 41 001398 工商銀行 ICBC 42 001880 百麗國際 Belle International * 43 001928 金沙中國 Gold Sands China 44 002018 瑞聲科技 AAC Technologies 45 002318 中國平安 Ping An Insurance 46 002319 蒙牛乳業 Mengniu Diary 47 002388 中銀香港 BOC Hong Kong 48 002628 中國人壽 China Life Insurance 49 003328 交通銀行 Bank of Communication 50 003988 中國銀行 Bank of China

* Deleted from Hang Seng Index on 19 July 2017, which was after our data collection process started


111

set of required data items. In view of these challenges and despite the best efforts of this study, it is not possible to pin down the exact number of grantmaking foundations as well as information about their giving. Taking into account the exploratory nature of this research, only publicly listed companies constituting the Hang Seng Index were included. Although publicly listed companies are required to produce an annual sustainability report, disclosure of the details of corporate donations and giving activities is voluntary. Information on giving and volunteering is therefore different from company to company, making it hard to discern annual giving behavior. Some companies, for example, opted to report cumulated donations and beneficiary numbers over a period of time. Similar to the situation found for charitable foundations, unless and until a uniform reporting requirement is mandated, gathering complete and accurate, giving information of charitable foundations and corporations will remain a colossal challenge.

This report is the first landscape study of giving and volunteering in Hong Kong. It is an initial attempt and by no means do we claim that the depiction is complete. As explained in the relevant chapters, data collection posed an enormous constraint. Nonetheless, we hope that the findings will be useful to NGOs for leveraging fundraising efforts and volunteer recruitment, and to donors and corporations with regard to the general philanthropic landscape. One of the goals of this research is to locate places where improvement and development is required. We have highlighted a few observations in this chapter. Some of the improvements call for collective efforts of the civil society, such as making volunteering more of a community building activity and civic duty; and of NGOs, like increasing the variety of volunteering work and donation channels. Others, however, entail efforts of the concerned authorities in the form of putting in place rules and regulations. As we have repeatedly pointed out, a major difficulty in the research process was the lack of uniform information. Such information is needed not only for the sake of research, but for transparency, a principle of the utmost importance to a mature civil society. Finally, we hope that identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the philanthropic sphere of Hong Kong will facilitate its advancement, and make Hong Kong a more caring community.

APPENDIX 1 LIST OF HANG SENG INDEX CONSTITUENT STOCK

COMPANIES (AS OF 30 JUNE 2017)

No Stock Code Chinese Name English Name 1 00001 長江和記實業 Cheung Kong Hutchison Holdings Limited 2 00002 中電控股 CLP Holdings 3 00003 香港中華煤氣 Hong Kong & China Gas 4 00004 九龍倉 Wharf Holdings 5 00005 匯豐控股 HSBC Holdings 6 00006 電能實業 Power Assets 7 00011 恒生銀行 Hang Seng Bank 8 00012 恒基兆業地產 Henderson Land Development 9 00016 新鴻基地產 Sun Hung Kai Properties 10 00017 新世界發展 New World Properties 11 00019 太古公司Ａ Swire Pacific A 12 00023 東亞銀行 Bank East Asia 13 00027 銀河娛樂 Galaxy Entertainment 14 00066 港鐵公司 MTR Corporation 15 00083 信和置業 Sino Land 16 00101 恆隆地產 Hang Lung Properties 17 00135 昆侖能源 Kunlun Energy 18 00144 招商局港口 China Merchant Port 19 00151 中國旺旺 China Want Want 20 00175 吉利汽車 Geely Motors 21 00267 中信股份 Citic Group 22 00293 國泰航空 Cathay Pacific 23 00386 中國石化 Sinopec 24 00388 香港交易所 Hong Kong Stock Exchange 25 00688 中國海外 China Overseas Land & Investment Limited 26 00700 騰訊控股 Tencent Holdings 27 00762 中國聯通 China Unicom 28 00823 領展信託基金 Link REIT 29 00836 華潤電力 China Resource Power 30 00857 中國石油 China Petroleum 31 00883 中國海洋石油 CNOOC 32 00939 中國建設銀行 China Construction Bank 33 00941 中國移動 China Mobile 34 00992 聯想集團 Lenovo Group 35 001038 長江基建 Cheung Kong Infrastructure 36 001044 恆安集團 Heng An Group 37 001088 中國神華 China Shenhua 38 001109 華潤置地 China Resource Land 39 001113 長實地產 Cheung Kong Properties 40 001299 友邦保險 AIA Group 41 001398 工商銀行 ICBC 42 001880 百麗國際 Belle International * 43 001928 金沙中國 Gold Sands China 44 002018 瑞聲科技 AAC Technologies 45 002318 中國平安 Ping An Insurance 46 002319 蒙牛乳業 Mengniu Diary 47 002388 中銀香港 BOC Hong Kong 48 002628 中國人壽 China Life Insurance 49 003328 交通銀行 Bank of Communication 50 003988 中國銀行 Bank of China

* Deleted from Hang Seng Index on 19 July 2017, which was after our data collection process started


112

APPENDIX 2 The Doing Good and Citizenship Survey

Questionnaire Sample Code: ____________________ Enumerator No. _________________ Date: ____________________ Time: ___________________ Introduction: Good morning/afternoon/evening, we are interviewers from the Policy 21 Limited. Commissioned by the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, we are conducting a survey on Hong Kong citizens’ philanthropic acts and civic awareness. The interview will take approximately 50 minutes. All information collected in this survey will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous, and will only be reported in aggregate form. Personal information will not be disclosed. S1. Is there anyone in this household who is 15 years old or above?

1 □ Yes. If more than one, who has just passed his/her birthday? Can we interview this person, please?

2 □ No (not target respondent) S2. Are you a Hong Kong permanent resident?

1 □ Yes 2 □ No (not target respondent)

Part I: Giving Q1. Except for flag-buying, have you taken part in any of the following giving behaviors in the past 12

months? (Multiple answers are allowed, except for option 4) (Note: Giving is defined as an unconditional donation of gifts) 1□ Monetary donation (except for Flag-buying) (go to Q4) 2□ Blood donation 3□ Goods donation (such as food, clothes or books) 4□ Never gave (continue to answer Q2)

[Note: Any respondents who have donated money should also answer Q4 and Q5]

If choose only 2 and/or 3,

go to Q6

Q2. To what extent do you agree that the following statements describe your reason(s) for not giving in the past 12 months?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

a) I was not exposed to any appeal (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) I had no extra money/items to

give (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) My giving might not be used

properly (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) d) Giving methods were not

convenient for me (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) I did not know the giving

methods (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) f) The administrative fee of the

fundraising organization was not reasonable

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

g) My giving was of little help to other people (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

h) Others, please indicate: _________________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q3. Will you give in the forthcoming 12 months?

1 □ Yes (go to Q6) 2 □ No (go to Q11)

Q4. Through which methods did you donate money in the past 12 months? What was the approximated frequency? On average, how much did you donate each time (HK dollar)? (i) Frequency (ii) Donation amount

each time (on average) a) □ Buy lotteries/dinner party tickets b) □ Donation box in the store/on the street c) □ Fundraising activities on the street d) □ Regular donation through auto-transfer (such as

child sponsorship)

e) □ Charity bazaar f) □ Online donation g) □ Give money directly to the needy h) □ Charity activities (such as charity walk,

marathon, athletics, famine fundraising, fundraising shows)

i) □ Others, please indicate:__________________


113

APPENDIX 2 The Doing Good and Citizenship Survey

Questionnaire Sample Code: ____________________ Enumerator No. _________________ Date: ____________________ Time: ___________________ Introduction: Good morning/afternoon/evening, we are interviewers from the Policy 21 Limited. Commissioned by the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, we are conducting a survey on Hong Kong citizens’ philanthropic acts and civic awareness. The interview will take approximately 50 minutes. All information collected in this survey will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous, and will only be reported in aggregate form. Personal information will not be disclosed. S1. Is there anyone in this household who is 15 years old or above?

1 □ Yes. If more than one, who has just passed his/her birthday? Can we interview this person, please?

2 □ No (not target respondent) S2. Are you a Hong Kong permanent resident?

1 □ Yes 2 □ No (not target respondent)

Part I: Giving Q1. Except for flag-buying, have you taken part in any of the following giving behaviors in the past 12

months? (Multiple answers are allowed, except for option 4) (Note: Giving is defined as an unconditional donation of gifts) 1□ Monetary donation (except for Flag-buying) (go to Q4) 2□ Blood donation 3□ Goods donation (such as food, clothes or books) 4□ Never gave (continue to answer Q2)

[Note: Any respondents who have donated money should also answer Q4 and Q5]

If choose only 2 and/or 3,

go to Q6

Q2. To what extent do you agree that the following statements describe your reason(s) for not giving in the past 12 months?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) I was not exposed to any appeal (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) I had no extra money/items to

give (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) My giving might not be used

properly (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) d) Giving methods were not

convenient for me (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) I did not know the giving

methods (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) f) The administrative fee of the

fundraising organization was not reasonable

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

g) My giving was of little help to other people (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

h) Others, please indicate: _________________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q3. Will you give in the forthcoming 12 months?

1 □ Yes (go to Q6) 2 □ No (go to Q11)

Q4. Through which methods did you donate money in the past 12 months? What was the approximated frequency? On average, how much did you donate each time (HK dollar)? (i) Frequency (ii) Donation amount

each time (on average) a) □ Buy lotteries/dinner party tickets b) □ Donation box in the store/on the street c) □ Fundraising activities on the street d) □ Regular donation through auto-transfer (such as

child sponsorship)

e) □ Charity bazaar f) □ Online donation g) □ Give money directly to the needy h) □ Charity activities (such as charity walk,

marathon, athletics, famine fundraising, fundraising shows)

i) □ Others, please indicate:__________________


114

Q5. Which payment methods have you used to donate money in the past 12 months? Do you think the relevant methods are acceptable? (i) Used or not (ii) Acceptable or not

Yes No Yes No a) Cash (1) (0) (1) (0) b) Cheque (1) (0) (1) (0) c) Credit card (1) (0) (1) (0) d) Bank transfer (1) (0) (1) (0) e) Online payment (1) (0) (1) (0) f) Mobile Payment

application (1) (0) (1) (0)

Q6. In the past 12 months, have you given to any of the following organizations? Regular giving or one-off

giving? Will you give to the organizations in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not give in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii) (i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming 12 months

Regular One-off Never Yes No

a) Social service organization (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

b) Health care organization/Hospital

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

c) Educational organization (such as school, student union, parent-teacher association, alumni association)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

d) Religious organization (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

e) Arts, entertainment, and cultural organization

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

f) District organization (such as kaifong association, owners’ corporation)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

g) Environmental protection organization

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

h) Uniform organization (such as scout)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

i) Labor organization (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

j) Kinship association (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

k) Political organization (such as political party, councilor)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

l) Professional organization (such as lawyers

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

association, chamber of commerce)

m) Self-organized group (such as mutual help group, concern group)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

n) Business organization (2) (1) (0) (1) (0) o) Others, please indicate:

________ (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

Q7. In the past 12 months, have you given to the following causes? Regular giving or one-off giving? Will

you give to the causes in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not give in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii) (i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming 12 months


a) Arts and culture (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

b) Education (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

c) Environmental protection

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

d) Animal rights protection (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

e) Health care and medical service

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

f) Legal aid (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

g) Poverty alleviation (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

h) Disaster relief (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

i) Equal opportunities (such as gender, race, disability)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

j) Sexual minority rights (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

k) Mental health (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

l) Others, please indicate: _______

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


115

Q5. Which payment methods have you used to donate money in the past 12 months? Do you think the relevant methods are acceptable? (i) Used or not (ii) Acceptable or not

Yes No Yes No a) Cash (1) (0) (1) (0) b) Cheque (1) (0) (1) (0) c) Credit card (1) (0) (1) (0) d) Bank transfer (1) (0) (1) (0) e) Online payment (1) (0) (1) (0) f) Mobile Payment

application (1) (0) (1) (0)

Q6. In the past 12 months, have you given to any of the following organizations? Regular giving or one-off

giving? Will you give to the organizations in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not give in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii) (i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming 12 months




(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)



(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)



k) Political organization (such as political party, councilor)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

l) Professional organization (such as lawyers

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

association, chamber of commerce)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

n) Business organization (2) (1) (0) (1) (0) o) Others, please indicate:

________ (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

Q7. In the past 12 months, have you given to the following causes? Regular giving or one-off giving? Will

you give to the causes in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not give in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii) (i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming 12 months



b) Education (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

c) Environmental protection

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


e) Health care and medical service

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

f) Legal aid (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)




(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


k) Mental health (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

l) Others, please indicate: _______

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


116

Q8. In the past 12 months, have you given to the following groups of people? Regular giving or one-off giving? Will you give to the groups of people in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not give in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii, and go to Q11 after answering this question) (i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming 12 months


a) Children (under 14 years old) (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

b) Youngsters (14-24 years old) (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

c) Elderly (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

d) Women (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

e) Ethnic minorities (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

f) New arrivals (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

g) The disabled (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

h) Others, please indicate: _______

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

Q9. How important are the following factors in your decision to give to an organization?

Not important at all Very important

(1) (5) a) Brand popularity of the

organization (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

b) Missions/visions of the organization

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

c) Transparency of the organization (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) d) Internal management of the

organization (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) Purpose of fundraising (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) f) Convenience of giving methods (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) Appeal from public figures or

friends (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

h) A reasonable administration fee (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) i) Others, please

indicate:________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q10. To what extent do you agree that the following are the reasons that you give?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) I like to help others (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) Giving creates a better

society (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

c) Giving makes me feel good about myself (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) It gives me peace of mind (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) It puts my religious belief

into practice (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

f) Others, please indicate: _______________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q11. Have you received giving information via the following channels in the past 12 months? How

effective were these channels in spreading information? Have received

information, effective

Have received information, but not

effective

Never received

information a) Friend (2) (1) (0) b) Community (2) (1) (0) c) Company (2) (1) (0) d) Mail (2) (1) (0) e) Email (2) (1) (0) f) Family (2) (1) (0) g) School (2) (1) (0) h) Poster or advertisement in

public place (2) (1) (0)

i) Poster or advertisement on website

(2) (1) (0)

j) Social network site (such as Facebook)

(2) (1) (0)

k) Instant messaging software (such as WhatsApp)

(2) (1) (0)


117

Q8. In the past 12 months, have you given to the following groups of people? Regular giving or one-off giving? Will you give to the groups of people in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not give in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii, and go to Q11 after answering this question) (i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming 12 months


a) Children (under 14 years old) (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

b) Youngsters (14-24 years old) (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

c) Elderly (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

d) Women (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

e) Ethnic minorities (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

f) New arrivals (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

g) The disabled (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

h) Others, please indicate: _______

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

Q9. How important are the following factors in your decision to give to an organization?

Not important at all Very important

(1) (5) a) Brand popularity of the

organization (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

b) Missions/visions of the organization

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

c) Transparency of the organization (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) d) Internal management of the

organization (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) Purpose of fundraising (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) f) Convenience of giving methods (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) Appeal from public figures or

friends (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

h) A reasonable administration fee (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) i) Others, please

indicate:________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q10. To what extent do you agree that the following are the reasons that you give?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

a) I like to help others (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) Giving creates a better

society (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

c) Giving makes me feel good about myself (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) It gives me peace of mind (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) It puts my religious belief

into practice (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

f) Others, please indicate: _______________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q11. Have you received giving information via the following channels in the past 12 months? How

effective were these channels in spreading information? Have received

information, effective

Have received information, but not

effective

Never received

information a) Friend (2) (1) (0) b) Community (2) (1) (0) c) Company (2) (1) (0) d) Mail (2) (1) (0) e) Email (2) (1) (0) f) Family (2) (1) (0) g) School (2) (1) (0) h) Poster or advertisement in

public place (2) (1) (0)

i) Poster or advertisement on website

(2) (1) (0)

j) Social network site (such as Facebook)

(2) (1) (0)

k) Instant messaging software (such as WhatsApp)

(2) (1) (0)


118

Q12. Have you heard of the following fundraising methods? If yes, are they acceptable to you? Have heard

of, acceptable Have heard

of, not acceptable

Never heard of

a) Social Impact Bond (2) (1) (0) b) Online crowdfunding/P2P (such as

JustGiving, Facebook Causes) (2) (1) (0)

c) Charity trust fund (2) (1) (0) d) Socially responsible investment (2) (1) (0) e) Socially responsible purchasing (such as

green purchasing, fair trade) (2) (1) (0)

Q13. In the past 12 months, have you bought flags? If yes, how many times did you buy flags each month?

How much did you give each time on average? 1□ Yes, on average _____time(s) each month, _______HK dollar(s) each time 2□ No

Q14. When you buy flags, how often did you pay attention to the flag-selling organizations?

1□ Never 3□ Sometimes 2□ Seldom 4□ Always

Q15. Have you registered as an organ donor?

1□ Yes

2□ No, the reason(s) is/are (multiple answers are allowed): 1□ Never heard of 4□ Opposed by family members 2□ Do not know the registration methods 5□ Others, please indicate:___________________ 3□ Do not agree with organ donation

Part II: Volunteering Q16. Have you done volunteer work in the past 12 months?

(Volunteering is defined as contribution of time and effort out of one’s volition and without any material reward, with the aim to improve the society) 1□ Yes (go to Q19) 2□ No (continue to answer Q17)

Q17. To what extent do you agree that the following statements described the reasons why you did not

volunteer in the past 12 months?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) I had no interest in volunteering (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) There was no proper

volunteering work (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) I did not know how to

participate in volunteer work (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) Health problem (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) Transportation was not

convenient (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

f) I had no free time (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) Others, please indicate:

_________________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q18. Will you volunteer in the forthcoming 12 months?

1□ Yes (continue to answer Q19) 2□ No (go to Q25) Q19. In the past 12 months, have you volunteered for any of the following organizations? Regular

volunteering or one-off volunteering? Will you volunteer for the organizations in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not volunteer in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii)

(i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming 12 months




(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)



119

Q12. Have you heard of the following fundraising methods? If yes, are they acceptable to you? Have heard

of, acceptable Have heard

of, not acceptable

Never heard of

a) Social Impact Bond (2) (1) (0) b) Online crowdfunding/P2P (such as

JustGiving, Facebook Causes) (2) (1) (0)

c) Charity trust fund (2) (1) (0) d) Socially responsible investment (2) (1) (0) e) Socially responsible purchasing (such as

green purchasing, fair trade) (2) (1) (0)

Q13. In the past 12 months, have you bought flags? If yes, how many times did you buy flags each month?

How much did you give each time on average? 1□ Yes, on average _____time(s) each month, _______HK dollar(s) each time 2□ No

Q14. When you buy flags, how often did you pay attention to the flag-selling organizations?

1□ Never 3□ Sometimes 2□ Seldom 4□ Always

Q15. Have you registered as an organ donor?

1□ Yes

2□ No, the reason(s) is/are (multiple answers are allowed): 1□ Never heard of 4□ Opposed by family members 2□ Do not know the registration methods 5□ Others, please indicate:___________________ 3□ Do not agree with organ donation

Part II: Volunteering Q16. Have you done volunteer work in the past 12 months?

(Volunteering is defined as contribution of time and effort out of one’s volition and without any material reward, with the aim to improve the society) 1□ Yes (go to Q19) 2□ No (continue to answer Q17)

Q17. To what extent do you agree that the following statements described the reasons why you did not

volunteer in the past 12 months?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) I had no interest in volunteering (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) There was no proper

volunteering work (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) I did not know how to

participate in volunteer work (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) Health problem (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) Transportation was not

convenient (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

f) I had no free time (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) Others, please indicate:

_________________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q18. Will you volunteer in the forthcoming 12 months?

1□ Yes (continue to answer Q19) 2□ No (go to Q25) Q19. In the past 12 months, have you volunteered for any of the following organizations? Regular

volunteering or one-off volunteering? Will you volunteer for the organizations in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not volunteer in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii)





(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)



120




(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)



k) Political organization (such as political party, council member)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

l) Professional organization (such as lawyers association, chamber of commerce)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

n) Business organization (such as corporate volunteer team)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

o) Others, please indicate:________

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

Q20. In the past 12 months, have you volunteered for the following causes? Regular volunteering or one-off volunteering? Will you volunteer for the causes in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not volunteer in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii) (i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming

12 months Regular One-off Never Yes No


b) Education (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

c) Environmental protection (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


e) Health care and medical service (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

f) Legal aid (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)




(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


k) Mental health (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

l) Others, please indicate:_______ (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

Q21. In the past 12 months, have you volunteered for the following groups of people? Regular volunteering

or one-off volunteering? Will you volunteer for the groups of people in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not volunteer in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii, go to Q25 after answering this question) (i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming 12 months


i) Children (under 14 years old) (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

j) Youngsters (14-24 years old) (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

k) Elderly (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

l) Women (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

m) Ethnic minorities (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

n) New arrivals (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

o) The disabled (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

p) Others, please indicate:_______

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


121




(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)



k) Political organization (such as political party, council member)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

l) Professional organization (such as lawyers association, chamber of commerce)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

n) Business organization (such as corporate volunteer team)

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

o) Others, please indicate:________

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

Q20. In the past 12 months, have you volunteered for the following causes? Regular volunteering or one-off volunteering? Will you volunteer for the causes in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not volunteer in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii) (i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming

12 months Regular One-off Never Yes No


b) Education (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

c) Environmental protection (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


e) Health care and medical service (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

f) Legal aid (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)




(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


k) Mental health (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

l) Others, please indicate:_______ (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

Q21. In the past 12 months, have you volunteered for the following groups of people? Regular volunteering

or one-off volunteering? Will you volunteer for the groups of people in the forthcoming 12 months? (Those who did not volunteer in the past 12 months only have to answer part ii, go to Q25 after answering this question) (i) Past 12 months (ii) Forthcoming 12 months


i) Children (under 14 years old) (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

j) Youngsters (14-24 years old) (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

k) Elderly (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

l) Women (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

m) Ethnic minorities (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

n) New arrivals (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

o) The disabled (2) (1) (0) (1) (0)

p) Others, please indicate:_______

(2) (1) (0) (1) (0)


122

Q22. When was your first volunteering experience? 1□ During primary school 5□ During employment 2□ During secondary school 6□ After retirement

3□ During university/college 7□ Others, please indicate:____________

4□ Between graduation and employment

Q23. In the past 12 months, on average, how long did you spend on volunteering work each month?

___________hour(s) Q24. To what extent do you agree that the followings are the reasons that you engage in volunteering?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) I like to help others (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

b) Volunteering creates a better society (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) I feel a sense of achievement in

volunteering (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) Volunteering enhances self understanding and helps develop new interests

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) I can gain hands-on working or social experience (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

f) I can gain knowledge or skills (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) I can put my skills and experience to

good use (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

h) Volunteering experience is beneficial to my future study or career

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

i) Volunteering relieves me of stress (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) j) I can gain new information in the

society (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

k) I can make friends (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

l) I can practice my religious belief (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) m) Volunteering makes my life

fulfilling and meaningful (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

n) Others, please indicate: ____________________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q25. Except for formal volunteering work, have you voluntarily offered help to your friends? [Such as moving house, house cleaning, child/pet care, shopping] 1□ Yes, I have done so in the past 12 months, but never did it more than 12 months ago 2□ Yes, I always do, not only in the past 12 months 3□ Yes, I did it more than 12 months ago, but have not done it in the past 12 months 4□ Never

Q26. Except for formal volunteering work, have you voluntarily offered help to your neighbors? [Such as moving house, house cleaning, child/pet care, shopping]

1□ Yes, I have done so in the past 12 months, but never did it more than 12 months ago 2□ Yes, I always do, not only in the past 12 months 3□ Yes, I did it more than 12 months ago, but have not done it in the past 12 months 4□ Never

Q27. Except for formal volunteering work, have you participated in volunteering work that were initiated online? 1□ Yes, I have done so in the past 12 months, but never did it more than 12 months ago 2□ Yes, I always do, not only in the past 12 months 3□ Yes, I did it more than 12 months ago, but have not done it in the past 12 months 4□ Never

Q28. Except for formal volunteering work, have you participated in online volunteering? [Such as translation, online psychological counseling]



123

Q22. When was your first volunteering experience? 1□ During primary school 5□ During employment 2□ During secondary school 6□ After retirement

3□ During university/college 7□ Others, please indicate:____________

4□ Between graduation and employment

Q23. In the past 12 months, on average, how long did you spend on volunteering work each month?

___________hour(s) Q24. To what extent do you agree that the followings are the reasons that you engage in volunteering?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) I like to help others (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

b) Volunteering creates a better society (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) I feel a sense of achievement in

volunteering (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) Volunteering enhances self understanding and helps develop new interests

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) I can gain hands-on working or social experience (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

f) I can gain knowledge or skills (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) I can put my skills and experience to

good use (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

h) Volunteering experience is beneficial to my future study or career

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

i) Volunteering relieves me of stress (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) j) I can gain new information in the

society (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

k) I can make friends (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

l) I can practice my religious belief (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) m) Volunteering makes my life

fulfilling and meaningful (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

n) Others, please indicate: ____________________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q25. Except for formal volunteering work, have you voluntarily offered help to your friends? [Such as moving house, house cleaning, child/pet care, shopping] 1□ Yes, I have done so in the past 12 months, but never did it more than 12 months ago 2□ Yes, I always do, not only in the past 12 months 3□ Yes, I did it more than 12 months ago, but have not done it in the past 12 months 4□ Never

Q26. Except for formal volunteering work, have you voluntarily offered help to your neighbors? [Such as moving house, house cleaning, child/pet care, shopping]


Q27. Except for formal volunteering work, have you participated in volunteering work that were initiated online? 1□ Yes, I have done so in the past 12 months, but never did it more than 12 months ago 2□ Yes, I always do, not only in the past 12 months 3□ Yes, I did it more than 12 months ago, but have not done it in the past 12 months 4□ Never

Q28. Except for formal volunteering work, have you participated in online volunteering? [Such as translation, online psychological counseling]



124

Q29. Have you received volunteering information from the following channels in the past 12 months? Do you think these channels were effective in spreading information? Yes, and it’s

effective No, but not

effective Never

a) Friend (2) (1) (0) b) Community (2) (1) (0) c) Company (2) (1) (0) d) Mail (2) (1) (0) e) Email (2) (1) (0) f) Family (2) (1) (0) g) School (2) (1) (0) h) Poster or advertisement in public place (2) (1) (0) i) Poster or advertisement on website (2) (1) (0) j) Social network site (such as Facebook) (2) (1) (0) k) Instant messaging software (such as WhatsApp) (2) (1) (0) l) Volunteer matching app (such as The Hong Kong

Federation of Youth Groups, Agency for Volunteer Service, Social Career, Meet up)

(2) (1) (0)

m) Online volunteering recruitment platform (such as Easy Volunteer, Time auction, Volunteering CMS)

(2) (1) (0)

Part III: Attitudes towards ethnic minorities

Q30. To what extent are you willing to cooperate with the following ethnic groups in the workplace?

Not willing

at all Not willing

Neither willing nor unwilling

Willing Very

willing

a) Caucasian (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) East Asian (such as Japanese,

South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

c) Southeast Asian (such as Indonesian, Malay, Filipinos, Thai, Vietnamese, Cambodian)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) South Asian (such as Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q31. To what extent are you willing to have the following ethnic groups as your immediate boss?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


125

Q29. Have you received volunteering information from the following channels in the past 12 months? Do you think these channels were effective in spreading information? Yes, and it’s

effective No, but not

effective Never

a) Friend (2) (1) (0) b) Community (2) (1) (0) c) Company (2) (1) (0) d) Mail (2) (1) (0) e) Email (2) (1) (0) f) Family (2) (1) (0) g) School (2) (1) (0) h) Poster or advertisement in public place (2) (1) (0) i) Poster or advertisement on website (2) (1) (0) j) Social network site (such as Facebook) (2) (1) (0) k) Instant messaging software (such as WhatsApp) (2) (1) (0) l) Volunteer matching app (such as The Hong Kong

Federation of Youth Groups, Agency for Volunteer Service, Social Career, Meet up)

(2) (1) (0)

m) Online volunteering recruitment platform (such as Easy Volunteer, Time auction, Volunteering CMS)

(2) (1) (0)

Part III: Attitudes towards ethnic minorities

Q30. To what extent are you willing to cooperate with the following ethnic groups in the workplace?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q31. To what extent are you willing to have the following ethnic groups as your immediate boss?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


126

Q32. If you are the employer, to what extent do you have reservation about hiring job seekers of the following ethnic groups?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q33. If you are a parent, to what extent are you willing to enroll your child (ren) in a school which contains at least 10% of the following ethnic groups?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q34. If you are a house owner, to what extent are you willing to rent out your house to the following ethnic groups?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q35. To what extent are you willing to have the following ethnic groups as your next-door neighbor?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


127

Q32. If you are the employer, to what extent do you have reservation about hiring job seekers of the following ethnic groups?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q33. If you are a parent, to what extent are you willing to enroll your child (ren) in a school which contains at least 10% of the following ethnic groups?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q34. If you are a house owner, to what extent are you willing to rent out your house to the following ethnic groups?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q35. To what extent are you willing to have the following ethnic groups as your next-door neighbor?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


128

Q36. To what extent are you willing to make friends with the following ethnic groups?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q37. To what extent are you willing to accept the following ethnic groups to be your family member (such as daughter-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law)?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q38. To what extent do you agree that the following members of ethnic groups who are permanent residents of Hong Kong should enjoy Hong Kong’s social welfare?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


129

Q36. To what extent are you willing to make friends with the following ethnic groups?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q37. To what extent are you willing to accept the following ethnic groups to be your family member (such as daughter-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law)?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q38. To what extent do you agree that the following members of ethnic groups who are permanent residents of Hong Kong should enjoy Hong Kong’s social welfare?

Not willing

at all Not willing


Willing Very

willing


South Korean) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) African (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


130

Part IV: Impressions on South Asians Q39. To what extent do you agree that South Asians have the following characteristics?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


Not relevant, everyone has

different characteristics

a) Friendly (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0) b) Reliable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0) c) Industrious (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0) d) Tidy (including looks,

body odor) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0)

e) Cunning (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0) f) Strong national

character (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0)

g) Others, please indicate: ___________________

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0)

Q40. What is the main channel through which you learn about South Asians? (Choose only answer only)

1 □ Daily contact 5 □ Film 2 □ Television program 6 □ School education 3 □ Newspaper, magazines 7 □ Others, please indicate:__________________ 4 □ Friends, relatives, colleagues

Q41. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I feel uneasy in the presence of South

Asians”?

1 □ Strongly disagree 2 □ Disagree 3 □ Neither agree nor disagree 4 □ Agree 5 □ Strongly agree

Q42. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “Generally speaking, Hong Kong people

have a poor impression of South Asians”?

1 □ Strongly disagree 2 □ Disagree 3 □ Neither agree nor disagree 4 □ Agree

5 □ Strongly agree

Part V: Communications with South Asians Q43. Do you have relatives, schoolmates, colleagues, friends, or neighbors who are South Asians?

(Multiple answers allowed) 1 □ Relatives 2 □ Schoolmates 3 □ Colleagues

4 □ Friends

5 □ Neighbors

6 □ Never (go to Q47) Q44. How often did you engage in the following social activities with them in the past 12 months?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often

a) Chatting (1) (2) (3) (4) b) Sport activities (such as ball game, running) (1) (2) (3) (4) c) Recreational (such as karaoke, watching film,

shopping) (1) (2) (3) (4)

d) Dining (1) (2) (3) (4) e) Others, please indicate:______________________ (1) (2) (3) (4)

Q45. Have you encountered any difficulties when interacting with South Asians?

1 □ Yes (go to Q46) 77□ Have no idea [do not read out] (go to Q47) 2 □ No (go to Q47) 99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out] (go to Q47)

Q46. To what extent do you agree that you have encountered the following difficulties when interacting

with South Asians?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) Language barrier (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

b) Cultural difference (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

c) They have bad attitudes (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) I am afraid that they may act strangely (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


131

Part IV: Impressions on South Asians Q39. To what extent do you agree that South Asians have the following characteristics?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


Not relevant, everyone has

different characteristics

a) Friendly (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0) b) Reliable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0) c) Industrious (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0) d) Tidy (including looks,

body odor) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0)

e) Cunning (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0) f) Strong national

character (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0)

g) Others, please indicate: ___________________

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (0)

Q40. What is the main channel through which you learn about South Asians? (Choose only answer only)

1 □ Daily contact 5 □ Film 2 □ Television program 6 □ School education 3 □ Newspaper, magazines 7 □ Others, please indicate:__________________ 4 □ Friends, relatives, colleagues

Q41. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I feel uneasy in the presence of South

Asians”? 1 □ Strongly disagree 2 □ Disagree 3 □ Neither agree nor disagree 4 □ Agree 5 □ Strongly agree

Q42. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “Generally speaking, Hong Kong people

have a poor impression of South Asians”? 1 □ Strongly disagree 2 □ Disagree 3 □ Neither agree nor disagree 4 □ Agree

5 □ Strongly agree

Part V: Communications with South Asians Q43. Do you have relatives, schoolmates, colleagues, friends, or neighbors who are South Asians?

(Multiple answers allowed)

1 □ Relatives 2 □ Schoolmates 3 □ Colleagues

4 □ Friends

5 □ Neighbors

6 □ Never (go to Q47) Q44. How often did you engage in the following social activities with them in the past 12 months?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often

a) Chatting (1) (2) (3) (4) b) Sport activities (such as ball game, running) (1) (2) (3) (4) c) Recreational (such as karaoke, watching film,

shopping) (1) (2) (3) (4)

d) Dining (1) (2) (3) (4) e) Others, please indicate:______________________ (1) (2) (3) (4)

Q45. Have you encountered any difficulties when interacting with South Asians?

1 □ Yes (go to Q46) 77□ Have no idea [do not read out] (go to Q47) 2 □ No (go to Q47) 99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out] (go to Q47)

Q46. To what extent do you agree that you have encountered the following difficulties when interacting

with South Asians?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) Language barrier (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

b) Cultural difference (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

c) They have bad attitudes (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) I am afraid that they may act strangely (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


132

e) Others, please indicate: ________________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Part VI: Influence of South Asians on the society Q47. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the social influence of South Asians

in Hong Kong?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

a) South Asians benefit more than they contribute

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

b) South Asians abuse social welfare in Hong Kong

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

c) South Asians increase the crime rate in Hong Kong

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) South Asians steal jobs from local workers (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) South Asians should have equal access to public housing as ordinary Hong Kong people

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q48. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “Generally speaking, there is no racial

discrimination in Hong Kong”? 1 □ Strongly disagree 2 □ Disagree 3 □ Neither agree nor disagree 4 □ Agree 5 □ Strongly agree

Q49. In what ways do you think South Asians could become members of Hong Kong society? (Multiple

choice) 1 □ Have Hong Kong ID card

2 □ Born in Hong Kong

3 □ Speak Cantonese

4 □ Have Hong Kong friends

5 □ Care about Hong Kong affairs


133

e) Others, please indicate: ________________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Part VI: Influence of South Asians on the society Q47. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the social influence of South Asians

in Hong Kong?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

a) South Asians benefit more than they contribute

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

b) South Asians abuse social welfare in Hong Kong

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

c) South Asians increase the crime rate in Hong Kong

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

d) South Asians steal jobs from local workers (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

e) South Asians should have equal access to public housing as ordinary Hong Kong people

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q48. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “Generally speaking, there is no racial

discrimination in Hong Kong”? 1 □ Strongly disagree 2 □ Disagree 3 □ Neither agree nor disagree 4 □ Agree 5 □ Strongly agree

Q49. In what ways do you think South Asians could become members of Hong Kong society? (Multiple

choice) 1 □ Have Hong Kong ID card

2 □ Born in Hong Kong

3 □ Speak Cantonese

4 □ Have Hong Kong friends

5 □ Care about Hong Kong affairs


134

Part VII: Knowledge of South Asians’ culture

Q50. Which of the following statements is/are correct? Yes No No idea

a) Hindus do not eat beef (1) (2) (3) b) Most Nepalese believe in Islam (1) (2) (3) c) Urdu is the common language in Pakistan (1) (2) (3) d) According to the traditional rule, Moslems worship three times

each day – in the morning, noon, and evening (1) (2) (3)

e) Diwali is an important festival in India (1) (2) (3) f) After the Second World War, Indian soldiers that serve in Hong

Kong are called “Gurkha” (1) (2) (3)

Part VIII: Social capital and social network Q51. In the past 12 months, how often did you attend activities of the following organizations? (Including

volunteering, member activities, visits) Never Seldom Sometimes Often

a) Church/religious group (1) (2) (3) (4) b) Sports, arts, or entertainment

organization (1) (2) (3) (4)

c) Professional association (1) (2) (3) (4) d) Society organization (1) (2) (3) (4) e) Charity organizations (1) (2) (3) (4) f) School organization (such as

parent-teacher association, alumni association)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

g) Environmental protection or animal protection organization

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Q52. How confident are you that other people would offer help in the following two scenarios?

Not confident at all Very confident 1 2 3 4 5

a) If someone is hit by a car, the passerby will call the police

b) If someone is robbed and the police has arrested the suspect, the passerby would testify in court

Q53. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “Generally speaking, most people can be

trusted”?


Q54. How confident are you in the following institutions?

Not confident

at all Not confident

Neither confident nor unconfident

Confident Very

confident a) Police (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) Media (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) Legislative body (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) d) Chief executive (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) Hong Kong SAR

government (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

f) Central government (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) District council

member (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

h) Social worker (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) i) Business sector (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) j) Court (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q55. How many friends do you think would offer their help to you when needed (excluding relatives)?

___________ Q56. In the past 12 months, how often did you take part in the following social activities?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often a) Spend time with friends in public

places (1) (2) (3) (4)

b) Socialize with colleagues outside of work

(1) (2) (3) (4)

c) Visit relatives (1) (2) (3) (4) d) Invite friends home (1) (2) (3) (4)


135

Part VII: Knowledge of South Asians’ culture

Q50. Which of the following statements is/are correct? Yes No No idea

a) Hindus do not eat beef (1) (2) (3) b) Most Nepalese believe in Islam (1) (2) (3) c) Urdu is the common language in Pakistan (1) (2) (3) d) According to the traditional rule, Moslems worship three times

each day – in the morning, noon, and evening (1) (2) (3)

e) Diwali is an important festival in India (1) (2) (3) f) After the Second World War, Indian soldiers that serve in Hong

Kong are called “Gurkha” (1) (2) (3)

Part VIII: Social capital and social network Q51. In the past 12 months, how often did you attend activities of the following organizations? (Including

volunteering, member activities, visits) Never Seldom Sometimes Often

a) Church/religious group (1) (2) (3) (4) b) Sports, arts, or entertainment

organization (1) (2) (3) (4)

c) Professional association (1) (2) (3) (4) d) Society organization (1) (2) (3) (4) e) Charity organizations (1) (2) (3) (4) f) School organization (such as

parent-teacher association, alumni association)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

g) Environmental protection or animal protection organization

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Q52. How confident are you that other people would offer help in the following two scenarios?

Not confident at all Very confident 1 2 3 4 5

a) If someone is hit by a car, the passerby will call the police

b) If someone is robbed and the police has arrested the suspect, the passerby would testify in court

Q53. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “Generally speaking, most people can be

trusted”?


Q54. How confident are you in the following institutions?

Not confident

at all Not confident

Neither confident nor unconfident

Confident Very

confident a) Police (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) Media (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) Legislative body (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) d) Chief executive (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) Hong Kong SAR

government (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

f) Central government (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) District council

member (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

h) Social worker (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) i) Business sector (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) j) Court (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q55. How many friends do you think would offer their help to you when needed (excluding relatives)?

___________ Q56. In the past 12 months, how often did you take part in the following social activities?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often a) Spend time with friends in public

places (1) (2) (3) (4)

b) Socialize with colleagues outside of work

(1) (2) (3) (4)

c) Visit relatives (1) (2) (3) (4) d) Invite friends home (1) (2) (3) (4)


136

Q57. In the past 12 months, how often did you engage in the following online activities?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often a) Search information online (1) (2) (3) (4) b) Chat online (1) (2) (3) (4) c) Browse social network sites (1) (2) (3) (4) d) Make friends online (1) (2) (3) (4)

Part IX: Values Q58. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) I feel needed (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) I like to help others if I can (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) It pleases me to make others happy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) d) It is the right thing to offer help to others (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) I want to help in a meaningful cause (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) f) I want to give something back to society (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) I want to make society better (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q59. To what extent do you agree that a “good citizen” will do the following?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) Vote in elections (Legislative Council or District Council)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

b) Never evade tax (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) Obey the law (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) d) Keep watch on the government (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) Consume ethically (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) f) Be empathetic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) Be active in associations (including

chamber of commerce, professional association, parent-teacher association, etc.; excluding religious organization, political party)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

h) Help worse off in Hong Kong (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

i) Help worse off in the world (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q60. Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? 10 represents “completely satisfied”, 0 represents “not satisfied at all” _________________

Q61. Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? 10 represents “completely worthwhile”, 0 represents “not worthwhile at all” _________________

Q62. Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday? 10 represents “completely happy”, 0 represents “not happy at all” _________________

Q63. Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? 10 represents “completely anxious”, 0 represents “not anxious at all” _________________

Part X: Personal information Q64. Gender

1□ M 2□ F Q65. Age

1□ 15 – 17 7□ 45 – 49 2□ 18 – 24 8□ 50 – 54 3□ 25 – 29 9□ 55 – 59 4□ 30 – 34 10□ 60 – 64 5□ 35 – 39 11□ 65 or above 6□ 40 – 44 99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out]

Q66. Religion

1 □ Folk religion (ancestor worship) 8 □ Catholic 2 □ Taoism 9 □ Christian 3 □ Buddhism 10 □ Mormon 4 □ Nichiren Shōshū 11 □ Others, please indicate:__________________ 5 □ Islam 0 □ No religious affiliation (go to Q68) 6 □ Confucianism 99 □ Refuse to answer [do not read out] 7 □ Hinduism


137

Q57. In the past 12 months, how often did you engage in the following online activities?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often a) Search information online (1) (2) (3) (4) b) Chat online (1) (2) (3) (4) c) Browse social network sites (1) (2) (3) (4) d) Make friends online (1) (2) (3) (4)

Part IX: Values Q58. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) I feel needed (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) b) I like to help others if I can (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) It pleases me to make others happy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) d) It is the right thing to offer help to others (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) I want to help in a meaningful cause (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) f) I want to give something back to society (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) I want to make society better (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Q59. To what extent do you agree that a “good citizen” will do the following?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither

agree nor disagree


a) Vote in elections (Legislative Council or District Council)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

b) Never evade tax (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) c) Obey the law (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) d) Keep watch on the government (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) e) Consume ethically (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) f) Be empathetic (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) g) Be active in associations (including

chamber of commerce, professional association, parent-teacher association, etc.; excluding religious organization, political party)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

h) Help worse off in Hong Kong (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

i) Help worse off in the world (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Q60. Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? 10 represents “completely satisfied”, 0 represents “not satisfied at all” _________________

Q61. Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile? 10 represents “completely worthwhile”, 0 represents “not worthwhile at all” _________________

Q62. Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday? 10 represents “completely happy”, 0 represents “not happy at all” _________________

Q63. Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? 10 represents “completely anxious”, 0 represents “not anxious at all” _________________

Part X: Personal information Q64. Gender

1□ M 2□ F Q65. Age

1□ 15 – 17 7□ 45 – 49 2□ 18 – 24 8□ 50 – 54 3□ 25 – 29 9□ 55 – 59 4□ 30 – 34 10□ 60 – 64 5□ 35 – 39 11□ 65 or above 6□ 40 – 44 99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out]

Q66. Religion

1 □ Folk religion (ancestor worship) 8 □ Catholic 2 □ Taoism 9 □ Christian 3 □ Buddhism 10 □ Mormon 4 □ Nichiren Shōshū 11 □ Others, please indicate:__________________ 5 □ Islam 0 □ No religious affiliation (go to Q68) 6 □ Confucianism 99 □ Refuse to answer [do not read out] 7 □ Hinduism


138

Q67. To what extent do you think religion is important in your life? 1 □ Not important at all 2 □ Not important 3 □ Neither important nor unimportant 4 □ Important 6 □ Very important

Q68. Education

1 □ Primary school or below 2 □ Junior secondary school [F.1 to F.3]

3 □ Senior secondary school 3.1□ Senior secondary school [F.4 to F.5] 3.2□ Matriculation level [F.6 to F.7] 3.3□ Senior secondary school [3-3-4 Scheme; F.4 to F.6]

4 □ Tertiary (Non-degree) 5 □ Bachelor's degree 6 □ Postgraduate Studies (Master’s degree or above) 99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out]

Q69. Employment status

1□ Employer/employee/self-employed 2□ Unemployed 3□ homemaker 4□ Student 5□ Retired 6□ Others, please indicate:_____________________ 99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out]

Q70. Occupational sector

1□ Manufacturing 2□ Construction 3□ Import/export, wholesale and retail trades 4□ Transportation, storage, postal and courier services 5□ Accommodation and food services 6□ Information and communications 7□ Financial and insurance 8□ Real estate activities, professional and business activities 9□ Public administration, education, human health and social work activities 10□ Miscellaneous social and personal services

99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out] Q71. Occupation

Go to Q70

1 □ Managers and administrators 2 □ Professionals 3 □ Associate professionals 4 □ Clerical support workers 5 □ Service and sales workers 7 □ Craft and related workers 8 □ Plant and machine operators and assemblers 9 □ Elementary occupations 10 □ Skilled agricultural and fishery workers; and occupations not classifiable 99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out]

Q72. Average monthly personal income [Income includes basic wage, commission and tips not of the gratuitous nature, guaranteed bonuses and allowances, and overtime allowance paid to an employee during the survey period. It does not cover bonuses and allowances of the gratuitous nature, end of year payment and payments in kind (such as food and accommodation)] 1□ HK$4,999 or below 7□ HK$30,000 – 34,999 13□ HK$60,000 or above 2□ HK$5,000 – 9,999 8□ HK$35,000 – 39,999 3□ HK$10,000 – 14,999 9□ HK$40,000 – 44,999 99□ Refuse to answer [do not

read out] 4□ HK$15,000 – 19,999 10□ HK$45,000 – 49,999 5□ HK$20,000 – 24,999 11□ HK$50,000 – 54,999 6□ HK$25,000 – 29,999 12□ HK$55,000 – 59,999

Q73. Average household monthly income (including all household members, except for domestic helpers).

[Income includes wages, investment returns, bonuses, rental income, and comprehensive social security assistance]

1□ HK$4,999 or below 7□ HK$30,000 – 34,999 13□ HK$60,000 or above 2□ HK$5,000 – 9,999 8□ HK$35,000 – 39,999 3□ HK$10,000 – 14,999 9□ HK$40,000 – 44,999 99□ Refuse to answer [do not


Q.74. Number of household members (including yourself, excluding domestic helper) _________

~ End of questionnaire. Thank you very much. ~


139

Q67. To what extent do you think religion is important in your life? 1 □ Not important at all 2 □ Not important 3 □ Neither important nor unimportant 4 □ Important 6 □ Very important

Q68. Education

1 □ Primary school or below 2 □ Junior secondary school [F.1 to F.3]

3 □ Senior secondary school 3.1□ Senior secondary school [F.4 to F.5] 3.2□ Matriculation level [F.6 to F.7] 3.3□ Senior secondary school [3-3-4 Scheme; F.4 to F.6]

4 □ Tertiary (Non-degree) 5 □ Bachelor's degree 6 □ Postgraduate Studies (Master’s degree or above) 99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out]

Q69. Employment status

1□ Employer/employee/self-employed 2□ Unemployed 3□ homemaker 4□ Student 5□ Retired 6□ Others, please indicate:_____________________ 99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out]

Q70. Occupational sector

1□ Manufacturing 2□ Construction 3□ Import/export, wholesale and retail trades 4□ Transportation, storage, postal and courier services 5□ Accommodation and food services 6□ Information and communications 7□ Financial and insurance 8□ Real estate activities, professional and business activities 9□ Public administration, education, human health and social work activities 10□ Miscellaneous social and personal services

99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out] Q71. Occupation

Go to Q70

1 □ Managers and administrators 2 □ Professionals 3 □ Associate professionals 4 □ Clerical support workers 5 □ Service and sales workers 7 □ Craft and related workers 8 □ Plant and machine operators and assemblers 9 □ Elementary occupations 10 □ Skilled agricultural and fishery workers; and occupations not classifiable 99□ Refuse to answer [do not read out]

Q72. Average monthly personal income [Income includes basic wage, commission and tips not of the gratuitous nature, guaranteed bonuses and allowances, and overtime allowance paid to an employee during the survey period. It does not cover bonuses and allowances of the gratuitous nature, end of year payment and payments in kind (such as food and accommodation)] 1□ HK$4,999 or below 7□ HK$30,000 – 34,999 13□ HK$60,000 or above 2□ HK$5,000 – 9,999 8□ HK$35,000 – 39,999 3□ HK$10,000 – 14,999 9□ HK$40,000 – 44,999 99□ Refuse to answer [do not


Q73. Average household monthly income (including all household members, except for domestic helpers).

[Income includes wages, investment returns, bonuses, rental income, and comprehensive social security assistance]

1□ HK$4,999 or below 7□ HK$30,000 – 34,999 13□ HK$60,000 or above 2□ HK$5,000 – 9,999 8□ HK$35,000 – 39,999 3□ HK$10,000 – 14,999 9□ HK$40,000 – 44,999 99□ Refuse to answer [do not


Q.74. Number of household members (including yourself, excluding domestic helper) _________

~ End of questionnaire. Thank you very much. ~


www.socsc.hku.hk/ExCEL3


2016 - 2017...executive summary chapter 1: introduction chapter 2: individual table of content...

Documents