Charity to Change defines social investing broadly for the region as including both impact investing as well as evolving practices in philanthropy. The study focuses on Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand and examines the emerging ecosystem for social investment in each of these countries, with a view to identifying gaps and obstacles to the advancement of the field. A section containing reports on current social investing developments in Cambodia and Vietnam is also included in this publication.
2. Scope and Methodology
• Landscape study of Indonesia, Philippines,
Singapore and Thailand, overview of Cambodia
and Vietnam
• Review of existing research
• Review of learnings from other social investment
markets
• Over 100 interviews conducted
• Adapted Nonprofit Finance Fund’s complete
capital approach to frame findings
4. Social Investment: Framework
: Investment approach to disbursement decisions
• Understanding of underlying issues derived from
research / data / experience
• Intent of achieving discernible / measurable
outcomes
• Monitoring and evaluation of progress
• Engagement other than financial
• Multi-year perspective
5. Social Investment in SE Asia
: The Big Questions
What roles could it be expected to play?
• Alleviate specific social issues
• Support the larger development agenda
• Address issues of inequality
• Broader societal engagement with social issues
• Possibilities for cross-sector collaboration
What are the potential roles of existing
and emerging players?
• Philanthropists • Social purpose organisations
• Social entrepreneurs • Businesses
• Government • ODA
6. Emerging Themes
Dominance of traditional philanthropy
• But pioneers and innovators emerging
Evolution of corporate philanthropy and engagement
• Push and pull factors for corporate venture philanthropy
Impact investing at a very early stage of development
• Range of social enterprises emerging, but gaps remain
Human, social and intellectual capital gaps inhibit
effectiveness of financial capital
• More and more diversified sources of funding still needed
7. Traditional Charitable Giving
Dominates Philanthropic Landscape
• Strong religious and cultural context
• Family centred and/or individual behests
• Often affiliation driven
• Concentrated in traditional issues
• Very local
• Very stand-alone approach
• Cited deterrents to giving:
• Lack of trust in NPOs - transparency, accountability,
effectiveness
• Lack of knowledge of social issues
8. Traditional Charitable Giving
Innovators Emerging
• Pioneering family foundations practicing catalytic
philanthropy
• Pooling of traditional charitable funds
• Community Foundation of Singapore • Rumah Zakat
• PBSP • One Thailand
• Non-traditional funding sources
• “Sin taxes” • Tote Board • Thai Health Promotion
Foundation
• Philippines: capital market innovations and conversion of
foreign debt to social funds
10. Corporate
Venture
Philanthropy
Push
factors
Pull
factors
Mandatory CSR Funds
Reputational CSR
• Cultural + historical
context
• Stakeholder
expectations
• Investor recognition
• Proliferation of awards,
indexes and ratings
• Affinity for new social
investment models
• Repository of needed
resources
Extractive
industries
Potential of Corporate
Philanthropy: Beyond CSR
Disability
employment
quota fines
11. Impact Investing at Early Stage of Development
• Growth of start-up/early stage funding opportunities at
national level
• Relatively few investments of substantive size
• Proliferation of social enterprise models
• Investors cite lack of investment readiness and
scaleability
• Key intermediaries are champions for the sector
• Ecosystem building inhibited by lack of funding
12. • Growth of start-up/early stage funding opportunities at
national level
• Relatively few investments of substantive size
• Proliferation of social enterprise models
• Investors cite lack of investment readiness and
scaleability; concentration in incursive businesses
• Key intermediaries are champions for the sector
• Ecosystem building inhibited by lack of funding
Impact Investing at Early Stage of Development
13. The Capital Gaps
Human
• Experienced resources for
capacity building
• Professional service providers
• Pro bono models
• L/T career path for social sector
professionals
Financial
• Funds for SPO capacity building
• Ecosystem development
• Absence of pooled funds for scale
• Growth funding gap for SEs
Social
• Lack of collaboration and
convenors
• Networks and support
organisations for philanthropy and
non-profits
• Sharing of successful models
Intellectual
• Research on social issues and
effective interventions
• Effective policy measures and
regulatory frameworks
14. Thailand: Themes
• NPOs face negative perceptions: lack of trust, transparency
and effectiveness
• Charitable giving dominated by religious and royalty
affiliated institutions
• Regulatory reporting convoluted and tax incentive systems
lack transparency
• Growing interest in, and ecosystem evolving for, social
enterprises
• Positive developments in corporate philanthropy/CSR
15. Thailand: Capital Needs
• Human : Capacity building models for SPOs
• Financial
• Divert traditional charity and CSR to social investment
• Pooling of mandatory CSR funds
• Intellectual : Effective policy measures and execution to support
social sector
• Develop models of corporate engagement
• Understanding of social issues as convening mechanism
• Social: Collaboration among philanthropists; individual and
corporate
17. Indonesia: Archipelagic Challenge
• Large addressable SI market
• Post-1997, massive expansion of NPO sector
• Weak ecosystem and legacy of mistrust regarding
transparency and accountability.
• ODA declines increase reliance on domestic sources of
capital.
• Religious
• Corporate
• HNWIs
• “islands” of activity, strong need for collaboration and
coordination across the “archipelago”
18. Indonesia: Capital Needs
• Human : capacity builders / incubators
• Financial : smart capital / intermediaries
• Intellectual : internal and external
landscaping
• Social : cross-sector collaboration platforms /
convenors
20. Philippines Overview: Needs Drive Success
• Most vibrant civil society in SE Asia – strong and credible leadership
• Family foundations are leaders for strategic, collaborative
philanthropy
• Institutional philanthropy created through innovative funding
mechanisms
• Longstanding history of corporate engagement
• No of high profile social enterprises
• Local funds financing and building capacity for community based
SEs
• Constraints include geography and relatively small amounts of funds
21. Philippines Overview: Capital Needs
• Human : attract and retain talent
• Financial : ODA declines not yet offset by
domestic capital
• Intellectual : none!
• Social : overcome geographic isolation /
metro-Manila domination
23. Cambodia and Vietnam: Sparks
• Donor dependency hampers SI
growth.
• Expatriate vanguard (HSEG, DDD)
• NGO-led social enterprises
(Friends Internaional, BSDA)
• Corporates MIA (ANZ)
• Regulation / leakage
• Pioneer capital (ADM, Uberis,
Arun, Insistor)
• Scattered capacity building /
convening ( Shift 360, PDI)
Cambodia Vietnam
• Legacy of autarky hampers SI growth (until
doi moi)
• Regulatory challenges for both NGOs and
business
• Expatriate / returnee vanguard (Koto
International)
• Domestic and international private
philanthropy marginal (Vietnam Education
Foundation)
• Destination for international impacting
investment funds / flows (RCC)
• Emergence of domestic capital (Lotus
Impact / VinaCapital)
• Corporate philanthropy institutionalized
(Vinamilk)
• Capacity builders and conveners (LIN,
CSIP, BC, Spark)
24. Singapore Overview
• Social concerns a new national priority
• Government support central to NPO sector
• Maturing ecosystem for NPO sector and philanthropy
• Family foundations a key feature and promising trends in
corporate philanthropy
• Rapidly emerging ecosystem for social enterprises
• New generation of SEs still struggling to achieve scale
• Growing as a regional hub
• Constraints to growth around capacity and orientation of funding
support
• Many elements in place for continued evolution for SEs and NPOs
25. Human
Intellectual
Social
• Several well-supported field support orgs
• Youth interest in social issues
• Professional services orgs emerging
• International organisations bringing new capacity
• Growing corporate interest
• Capacity of field support orgs needs to be built
as system still maturing
• NPO and SE capacity needs to be built
• Remains difficult to attract talent given attractive
alternative career paths
• Lack of effective channels for meaningful
engagement
• Several local and into orgs involved in knowledge
building
• New platform / networks emerging
• More conversations and sharing taking places
• Still insufficient understanding of what works
• Lack of strong evaluation efforts
• Collaboration still rare
Type of
Capital
Strengths Needs
Singapore: Capital Needs
Financial
• Strong government support
• Some tradition of family foundations
• Growing corporate foundations
• Availability of modest seed capital for SEs
• Availability of growth capital
• Aggregators emerging
• Core support lacking
• Less independent support, little for advocacy-
type efforts
• Few examples of strategic philanthropy
• Level of individual giving low relative to wealth
• Lack of more substantial early stage capital for
SEs
27. Some Questions for Singapore
• Can we change the way capital is provided? i.e. more
core support to NPOs, more substantial early stage
capital to SEs?
• How can we be more strategic in our social
investment?
• Is the constraint on NPO/SE capacity building capital
or talent, or both? How can it be addressed?
• How can we come to better understand what works?
• Are local SEs maturing and starting to achieve scale?
28. Social Investment in SE Asia
: The Big Questions
What roles could it be expected to play?
• Alleviate specific social issues
• Support the larger development agenda
• Address issues of inequality
• Broader societal engagement with social issues
• Possibilities for cross-sector collaboration
What are the potential roles of existing
and emerging players?
• Philanthropists • Social purpose organisations
• Social entrepreneurs • Businesses
• Government • ODA
29.
30. Traditional
Charity
Appendix: Range of People & Organisations with Social Purpose
Revenue
Producing
Non-profits
Sustainable
Non-profits
Entrepreneurial
Social
Enterprises
Inclusive
Businesses
Issue-based
Community-based
Cooperatives
Community leaders
& social entrepreneurs
Start-ups
Innovation
(Often tech-
linked)
Products & services for BoP
Livelihood
enhancement
Frequent
Characteristics
of Organisations
Likely
Founders /
Entrepreneurs
Younger gen
social &
business
entrepreneurs
Experienced
businessmen
(Innovation)
Mainstream
Businesses
BoP in
supply chain
Social
Intrapreneur
Strategic
corporate
philanthropy /
CSR
“Social Enterprise”
