Annelotte Walsh

Annelotte Walsh is Deputy Director at CAPS. In this capacity, she supports the creation of evidence-based insights to maximize private social investment across 18 Asian countries and territories. Annelotte has extensive experience in research, analysis and management working for and with NGOs, charities and international organizations around the world. Prior to joining CAPS, Annelotte worked as honorary lecturer at the faculty of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong. She has previously worked for UNICEF Australia and the United Nations Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Annelotte completed her PhD in Law at the University of Hong Kong and holds a BA and MA in International Relations from the University of Groningen and a MA in Peace and Conflict Studies from the University of Sydney.

So I think there is a change happening. I think philanthropy used to be the predominant, like the pure giving for the sake of giving for good and whereas increasingly there is whether it's because it's the younger generation, or because there is more of an understanding that actually we can have more impact if actually, the money is recycled or invested in a way that we can make it continuous. So I think there is more of a shift happening rather than necessarily a tendency towards more on the other

— Annelotte Walsh

Interview transcript

To begin, could you please tell us a bit about yourself, your work, and your current situation? Additionally, could you describe how you entered this field?

I'm currently the Director of Research at CAPS (Centre for Asian Philanthropies Society). I've been here for over four and a half years now, and it's been quite a strange path getting here. My background is in international relations, specialising in various branches of international law. I studied that and then had various jobs and internships before pursuing my PhD in that field. After that, I taught international relations at a university. Although that didn't necessarily have a lot to do with philanthropy, the approach to research is very similar to what we do here. We take a slight social scientific approach and collect primary data to identify trends in the region. It's very much related to the same kind of social science topics in the international sphere. That's the pathway I've taken in Hong Kong for almost 13 years now. That's me in a nutshell. I don't know if there's anything else to add.

How did you make the transition from doing IR to philanthropy?

So, I was working at the Department of Politics and Public Administration in the university, teaching courses in IR. What appeals to me in the field is general research, which I was stuck doing for my PhD. Research, in general, has always attracted me. At the time, I was only teaching at the university and was looking for the ability to do more research, but more collaborative research as well. So, I feel that academic research can be quite individualistic, even though it's often done with other people. The appeal of a think tank type of organisation that is doing research that has a more tangible impact is something that really appealed to me. I was looking at research opportunities beyond the university which are quite rare in Hong Kong. When I saw a job position, it was the perfect job for me, although I had no subject matter experience in philanthropy in Asia. The approaches to research, the strategies, and the more general approach to international issues and international development issues are something that I feel very comfortable with. Working in a collaborative environment both within the organisation and with other organisations really appealed to me.

Can you share a little bit about what the research process is like at CAPS, who do you collaborate with?

Depends on different projects. Our flagship project is the Doing Good Index. We conduct this project every two years and are currently working on the fourth iteration. It takes a bird's-eye view of the flows of private funding for social good in Asia, examining the enabling and hindering factors for private money, whether from individuals, companies, or foundations, to flow to the social sector. The project looks at issues such as government policies, taxation centres, and the forgiving ecosystem. We collect data directly from what we call "SDOs" (social delivery organisations), which refers to all kinds of organisations that work in the social sector. To collect this data, we work with partner organisations in all 18 economies. These partners can be intermediate organisations, research-based think tanks, or different types of companies. We collaborate with them to collect the data and disseminate the findings. For example, we recently had an event with our Hong Kong-based partner, Asia Charity Services, to share the findings with a local audience. We engage in both formal and informal partnerships to collect data and share information.

It seems that collecting data, especially in Asia, can be quite challenging for many projects. Do you have any comments on this issue and how do you work around it?

Well, I think the challenge is that there is no existing data. There are not many organisations in Asia collecting data, and we are one of the few that does the type of work that we do, which is pan-Asian and covers comparative data. I wouldn't say it's a challenge. Of course, it is a challenge every two years to actually get it done, but we do work with partners to accomplish it. We wouldn't be able to do it on our own. We have worked with most of these partners for six to eight years, and we have helped them build their capacity. They know what we need by now. On average, they have to conduct government-introduced surveys, but they are long surveys. So, I personally wouldn't call it difficult. It's more than that. It's not often done, and it's difficult to have the reach across the region to collect the data we need.

When it comes to data, are you focusing more on financial data or social impact and metrics?

We collect two types of data. One is a survey that is sent to social organisations. That covers a lot of different aspects. It's a long survey, but it captures some of their demographics, what type of organisation they are. Gender of leadership and board membership composition, size, and some financials. But then there's also a lot of experience of questions or how they experience certain things in difficulty, how easy it is to access certain things. A lot to do with government less because a lot of the indicators have to do with governments accessing information and understanding regulations, enforcement of regulations, a lot of those things. Also about working with companies, what they're seeking from companies and what they're receiving from companies. So it covers a really broad spectrum of questions. The majority of those questions can be kept as either kind of demographic questions or experience or questions. In addition to that we have expert meetings. So we in each of the economies we have we our partner, organise a meeting with a group of about six to 10 experts and they are there to provide the factual data as well as an effort to help the real understanding what laws exist are certain things regulated, but also to give us the nuance of whether or not even just because a law exists. It might not actually ever be enforced or things like that. So that information is a very different type of information, but we do. It's crucial, and I think it's one of the key things that really distinguishes the richness of our data, not to criticise other reports, but quite often, the factual information is based on if you look at the methodology, one expert in our country. Now, I'm sure that expert is an amazing expert, but it's very difficult to be an expert on both the tax laws and the other like all of them. Yeah. And so I think the fact that we bring six experts together you can you get really really rich kind of data on that.

Is it easy to bring people together?

And again, I think it depends on who asks, and I think that's key here. Also, over time, we are developing more of a reputation, thanks to our partners who are bringing back experts to work with us again. It also really depends on certain organisations; if they ask a particular person, that has a lot to do with it. It is up to our partners to bring people together, most of whom are fairly well connected, and I think it's fine. In some countries, it's a bit more difficult. So I can't really comment on how easy it is; I just know it really differs. But one thing that does matter is who asks. If it is a well-established organisation and a senior person is asking for three hours of experts' time, then people often respond positively.

I remember looking at the materials on your website, and one thing that stood out to me is the focus on investing in social good. Although the name of the organization is about philanthropy, do you see a distinction between philanthropy and social investing in Asia?

Although philanthropy is in our nature, we cover the full spectrum in our work. We look at all the ways in which private money is directed towards social good, including pure philanthropy, CSR, and impact investing. There are different trends that we see, and it depends on the direction you want to go. Often in Asia, the lines are more blurred because companies are privately owned. Business leaders direct some of their money through direct grants as philanthropy, and they may have a family foundation that does some philanthropy but also venture philanthropy. They might have a family office that looks at general investments and impact investing, and they might do CSR through the company. One person might be directing money investment in different ways. Also, the labels used are not always used. Things are just done. For example, blended finance is a new concept, but the concept has existed in Asia for a long time. People don't necessarily label their organisations as social enterprises. There are so many organisations in Asia that are social enterprises according to definitions. If you ask them if they are social enterprises, they might say no. The blurred line between philanthropy, venture philanthropy, and impact investing is often quite blurred. What exactly is impact investing? The labels are not as cordoned off. I hope this answers your question, even though I went on a bit of a tangent.

Do you see private capital leaning towards a particular investment vehicle in Hong Kong or Asia?

I can't speak absolutely to that. I think that would be too bold of a statement to make. I think there's also differences between different countries. So I think there is a change happening. I think philanthropy used to be the predominant, like the pure giving for the sake of giving for good and whereas increasingly there is whether it's because it's the younger generation, or because there is more of an understanding that actually we can have more impact if actually, the money is recycled or invested in a way that we can make it continuous. So I think there is more of a shift happening rather than necessarily a tendency towards more on the other. Based on that, I think, probably a lot is still happening. Why in the philanthropy space, but increasingly, I think there is that wanting to see more impact and seeing about frontline more demands on on impact reports, even from philanthropy, wanting to kind of see more impact from their money and as a result, I think also looking more at impact investing or venture philanthropy.

Based on what you have seen so far in Asia, are there any specific themes that people are more interested in investing in? I was speaking to a friend at Fidelity who mentioned that it went from being purely environmental-driven 10 years ago to now incorporating more social and governance aspects when it comes to ESG. Have you observed any shifts or trends in terms of what kind of investments people are interested in from a thematics perspective?

Yeah, absolutely. And I also want to flag that probably next month we will have a report coming out on some trends among high-value, high-net-worth givers. We conducted a survey among approximately 130 ultra-high-net-worth individuals and families in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. One of the questions was about areas of interest, and the findings confirm what we already knew: education and health are still the dominant areas of giving. These areas have always been of interest, but increasingly, the environment is coming onto the radar. We are also working on a report, which we will finish in a few months, on private giving or investing towards the environment. It is not as common, and often environmental action is linked together with other things that are more holistic, such as sustainable development or educational environment. But education and health have traditionally been the primary focus areas. Another piece of work that we did last year was on China, issued by our team. We looked at every single gift given to charities and foundations in China, and found that the areas of health and education received by far the most money. I think this is because these are also online, but I can give you some great news reports. If you want, I can find the actual statistics on where all the money went. Oh, wow. So let me copy in this report. But yeah, those are two predominantly very popular areas.

Based on the work you've seen so far, is there a particular project related to impacts that stood out to you?

Off the top of my head, there are so many case studies, and if I had to single out any of them, I would choose the ones that highlight great projects in different fields. For example, we did a study on public-private partnerships, and there are some great examples there. There's a Malaysian project called the Trust School Programme, which is a partnership between Malaysian government schools and the Malaysian Private Wealth Fund. It was started as a pilot to improve the quality of schools, and it was so successful that the government took it over as a pilot. Social impact bonds in Asia are also very interesting. There are quite a few that are still pretty small-scale, but they're a great example of money being invested into trialling a model for the government to take on in the future. What other case studies did we look at? There are so many, a lot of them around education and health, just because they are examples that are easy to come by. Pakistan has adopted a school programme that is also a public-private partnership, and India has looked at the Village My RAs Maharashtra Village Revitalization Project, which involves government companies and individuals working together to provide basic services to 2000 villages. The villages are allocated based on where businesses have their stronghold or based on their strengths. It was really a win-win situation, looking at utilizing companies' areas of strength or areas of influence and matching their needs when it comes to individuals. It's harder to single anyone out when it comes to individuals because we haven't done a lot of case studies on individual giving and their impact. We did a report on scholarships where we looked at the success or impact of scholarships, but I can't single out a single one there.

Have you seen any interesting applications of technology in a field that you think are particularly noteworthy?

Again, it's very difficult to single out anything. I think a lot of technology is emerging, especially in social enterprises. We did a study a couple of years back on social enterprise and we interviewed quite a few of them. Many of those were tech-based, developing apps to connect farmers to suppliers or utilising booking platforms. It was amazing! I think there was a social enterprise that was developing a platform almost like a click platform, or booking.com for events and places, but you could connect your booking to a charity. For every book, you could divert $1 to the charity. It was still in development, but it was similar to a Korean social enterprise where they had a game that planted trees. I'm happy I can look these up. It was such a great study.

Yeah. Now I'm happy to look them up. But these are actually social enterprises where apps or platforms are being developed to serve a business goal but raise money at the same time. Direct investment that concentrates on something through an app is really great. In terms of delivering services digitally and remotely, I mean, during COVID there are so many examples of organisations pivoting to provide translation services around health requirements for dependents. These are just a few off the top of my head that I tried to match. Delivery drivers or people on the front line, like those in Wuhan at the beginning of the pandemic, were brought together by a couple of organisations that coordinated picking up and dropping off healthcare workers. There were also education platforms emerging, many of them in China. The technological advancement and reach that they had were incredible. Tencent launched an online education platform within 24 hours, leveraging existing company funds for social good, which is slightly different. So yeah, there are different ways that we're seeing.

Returning to your earlier point about the significant role played by governments in this region, what do you believe they can do more or differently to address the situation?

Oh, that's a very broad question. And the difference very much varies, but I think we're governments to recognise that the signalling healing effect that they have and that and also that things are fine balance in that regulations are really good. We have to refer to this thing called comparing regulations to cholesterol is good cholesterol is bad cholesterol. Regulations are good. You have to have them, you have to clear regulations to build accountability, reporting requirements and accountability. But too many will clog the system because it causes undue burden on organisations. They don't understand them. It's too time consuming. And so I think understanding that and re-listening, I'm standing on the ground, like what's needed and often the different departments are also disconnected. So the left hand is loaded with the right hand and understanding that actually, there'd be this signalling effect that they have. And that's something as a national Giving Day. After China, the habit of having like a national Giving Day, like listen to big thing can really raise awareness amongst like individuals and companies that this is this is something good, are we supporting this and then the tax incentives Hey, we are saying that we support you to give money for good and so it really plays a much bigger role. And that yeah, that's something but they can do procurement as well. If the government procure services from nonprofits, it shows that they trust that organisation, which then has the Trust for others. So yeah, great,

Thank you so much for your time. Before we end, may I ask one final question? If you had a magic wand, what would you do?

This is something that is not the solution at all that we haven't really touched upon. And I do think that it's very important. It's not the overall solution, but to your earlier point, is there a database where organisations can share successful stories? I think it's crucial for organisations to share their stories, make them public, have good websites, and share them with investors and networks. This can be really helpful because people at different levels are learning from each other. Family foundations or new philanthropists are learning from each other, and having these kinds of opportunities for learning is more important than trying to create opportunities for giving. Opportunities for learning how to best do things and how other people are doing impactful programs is something that is really lacking, and I think there's a role for different levels to play here to share stories. Investors should share their stories and success stories should be shared more often.

Great, thank you. That was very helpful. I think one of the reasons we were asked to do this project is to collect success stories.

And we try to do that through our reports and by talking to a lot of people and giving examples. So we have to play our part. But I think there's also a role for organisations themselves to do it and to publish their stories on their websites, and for investors to share and talk to their friends and networks.

I understand. Have you encountered any resistance from investors regarding private capital, either in the region or globally? Why do some wealthy individuals not want to give?

We have anecdotal evidence. It is the reason why we started doing this. Before Ruth started CAPS, she founded the Asia Business Council, which brought together many business leaders, including philanthropists. Our Chairman, Imani, noticed that a lot of their earnings had gone overseas, so they weren't giving to Asia. When they were asked why not, since many of them were from Asia, the most common answer was that they didn't trust the organisations. There was a real sense of a lack of trust, which is what our Doing Good Index is about. There is a trust deficit between many different sectors in Asia, including the organisations that receive the money, the government, and the regulations and how the money is used. One of the things we do is to indicate how to build that trust. You can't build trust overnight, but regulations, accountability, and transparency, and sharing stories of impact are needed. Everyone has a role to play. Governments have a big role in putting in place the necessary regulatory accountability framework. Organisations themselves also have a role in maintaining transparency and adhering to those things, but also in sharing their stories to show the impact they have. For donors, it's also about working together. Although we can't give any specific examples of people who said that there was a reason why they don't give, we do know that it is often a concern of not giving because of trust. When they do give, it's usually based on relationships. They give to people or organisations that they know and trust, either in their community where they grew up, where their business is based, where they have relationships, or where their place of influence is. It's also because someone else that they know, their fellow philanthropist, says, "Hey, I gave to this, you should also because I trust them and if they trust that organisation and I trust that organisation, I can also be in some relationship here." It's a win-win, but it is very much driven by relationships and connectivity, not just giving to some random organisation.

It's interesting that Trans Capital, a think tank in Zurich, also follows a multi-stakeholder model. They offered to connect us with a super high net worth network called Impacts, which is invitation-only and exclusive. I wonder why such a network is necessary, and I think it comes down to trust. They need to vet the investments to ensure that they are connected to trustworthy sources.

It’s also about learning from each other. We also convene our network of philanthropists. And it's closed doors because they want to learn from each other and in the study that comes out in a few weeks. We also ask them, like, who do they turn to for advice, and while they also turn to professional advisors, family offices, and the most common is we do it ourselves and we rely on our friends and family. And so it is much less through these professional bodies. It's all based on relationships, for both identifying places but also where they feel connected to if we see often is an example of a Chinese philanthropist who was a dairy sort of dairy farm milk. You might know that brand better. He grew up in Inner Mongolia. Oh yeah. And he has set up a foundation that pretty much supports so much work in Inner Mongolia. Not because maybe these projects are particularly impactful or anything, but mostly it's nice to give back. This is where he's connected personally. So it's based on a personal relationship, whether with the area or with friends are many different ways that manifest itself. But I think that's very different from what you see in the global North where that's much different where, yeah, that doesn't play as much of a role.

I was going to ask if you see any differences between the work or mentality in this region compared to globally Yeah, and I think what I mean is that another part of our results is that the research that comes out generally comes from the global north, with models that are based on research that doesn't always work here and is based on assumptions that don't always apply here. It is really important to distinguish the reasons for doing certain things and the motivating factors, which are often different. In another report, we wrote these off often. It was a saying by someone, I can't remember who, but it said that giving not only comes from the head but also from the heart. The idea is that the feelings around things and the personal connection play a much bigger role. It's not just about "this is where I want to make a difference" and "this is where I want to give my money towards," but it's driven by a much more soft, intangible driver. Another big difference is that the government looms large in Asia, much larger than in other places, and so government signalling in many different manners matters. If the government is supportive of certain sectors and signalling that through tax benefits, money will often follow. Or if the government is calling upon companies and individuals to support certain sectors or is procuring from certain organisations, many individuals and companies tend to follow. This is very different from what you would see in North America or Europe.

That makes sense. You mentioned that trust deficits are a major factor in blocking impacts from being created for guests. Is there anything else that you think is a key blocker?

I think just the word "blocking" is pretty big. It's more than that… it's, it's…

hindering, hindering. Well, I know that there is still a flow of funds, but trust is a real issue. Other things, like interest, also have a significant impact. The flow of finance is another significant problem in Asia. It is a regulatory issue, as it is much more challenging in many Asian economies for funds to flow across borders, and regulations can be extremely complicated for companies or individuals to give money for foreign funding to enter. It is also very complex to leave a country or enter it. If we list them here, India, for example, makes it extremely difficult for foreign funding to come in, while China and Vietnam put limits on money coming in and out. So that is definitely an inhibiting factor for Asian funds, which cannot flow easily in and out of the country.

And what about collaboration? Is there anything that's really hindering collaboration across sectors, or between private and public players?

Not necessarily. I think it's not as common. In this sense, we especially hear a lot about collaborative funding efforts or collaborative research from USBC.

It's not as common here. It's not necessarily the way people work. Collaborative funding is not big, so multiple funders coming together in a big fund, which you see a lot in the United States and these big impact funds, you just don't see that. There is potential for it. Maybe we are actually doing a little bit of work on this in China and looking at the potential for China, but we are just hypothesising about why that is. Partly, maybe it comes back to the point where I said the motivating factors are different. It's about my personal connection on the ground rather than thinking, "Hey, our money might be more impactful if we can work together and have more long-term impact." It's more about, "Well, this is my money and I want this is where I feel connected. And this is where I want to make a difference." So again, I'm just hypothesising. We know that it's not as common and it's not a driving force. And it is a push that's very much coming from other areas. We're not sure if it's going to take. We have not seen a lot of interest from individual philanthropists to join big collaborative funding initiatives in our network.

That makes sense. And I do have a very naive question, which is, how do philanthropists in the region find projects to fund? Is there a database where all the environmental projects and health projects are listed? If there is such a platform, people can just look into it and go ‘I want to fund this’.

No, definitely not across the region. Some countries have it, and they might have bodies that have lists, NGOs, and sectors, but this is where I think they need help. You can see it's also in China. You're seeing a new group of young philanthropists emerge, but they really don't know how to give. They don't mean to sound like it, but they're really looking for help. They need to know how to give and who to give to, and I think there's a lot of opportunity there. One of the models that is emerging in Asia are donor-advised funds, which is an American concept that, in America, is very much driven by tax benefits. But what we're hearing is that the tax benefits can be beneficial, but you know what? The kind of education per factor that this is a fund that the sponsoring agency provides services and basically comes like a philanthropy advisor rather than a Private Wealth Advisor. Almost all the philanthropy advisors keep you put your money in this fund, and you tell me what you're interested in giving to, and then I will find these. They'd have a list of pre-vetted organisations they've worked with in the trust. So I think there's room for more of these kinds of services to do such because no, it is very difficult. This is also where people then go like, "Oh, you've given to that organisation, and they're helpful. They're great. Okay, well, why don't I give it to them as well?" It is difficult to identify these projects.

One of the common things that I've been hearing is that in the NGO world, for example, in Hong Kong, the money is very much concentrated in a few players because maybe they don't have the resources to know how to write a proposal to get grants. So money ended up going into the same places and it kind of causes a loop because you know, for the underfunded NGOs, if they can't survive and they can't really scale up. It seems like there’s a parallel in the philanthropy world.

So, what they said is that the tools kids get are the most important. Once you become bigger and have the capacity, and people see your impact, it's much easier to get more funds. However, the smaller ones that don't have that capacity and can't measure their impact yet, face an endless cycle. You need to measure impact to show the impact, but to do that, you need to allocate resources to it, which most funders don't do. So, it's that starvation cycle, and I think it's the same in any country. But money tends to be concentrated often.

I recall seeing on the interactive microsite after achieving a good index that there was a discussion about crowdfunding. It was noted that there was an increase in crowdfunding between 2020 and now. Do you have any additional information regarding this topic that you would like to share?

And yes, it is. The interest in it continues to grow amongst the organisation itself, and the uptake of it. But there are also challenges around it because of the 17 economies included in the DGI last time. There is no specific crowdfunding regulation in nine, which is a problem. So it's great if you're seeing this uptick in digital uptake, but actually, if it's not regulated, the trust factor is risky. Here in Hong Kong, there was an uncle who recently had a scanning business, and the risk of business is high. It is great to see that trend, and I think the digital uptake and the technological advances offer a lot of opportunities for smaller organisations, but the government has a role to play here to make sure that it's regulated. Also, in the difference you see in China, where the government is very much supportive of these big funding platforms and crowdfunding, it's much more common. Through these big platforms like the Tencent fundraising platform, they raise a lot of money for a lot of charities. Whereas in Hong Kong, there isn't even a single card on the platform, and there used to be one, but it was shut down. So governments have a role to play to facilitate it. Therefore, the nonprofit seems to lack the resources, skills, and the hardware and software to necessarily do that as a challenge. We've identified technology as a big theme for our next target index. So looking at what the opportunities are and what's holding back the social sector in the uptake and what's needed there. Because crowdfunding has a lot of potential, but it is not in an environment where trust is a challenge. Unregulated crowdfunding development is risky and can have almost detrimental effects.

And, as a quick follow-up question on the technology side, what kind of observations have you made so far that lead you to believe that technology may be quite useful? I know you're working on a report for laser publication, but I'm curious about your initial thoughts on this topic.

I think in terms of opportunities, it's similar to any sector. I mean, it's a trend that is already happening and it's called acceleration. But in terms of the delivery of goods and services, being able to reach a broader audience can expand your reach and make it beneficial in delivering your product or service. It can make your organisation more efficient, save time and space resources, and help with fundraising. So, programmatic, operational, and fundraising technology can benefit all of those aspects, but making that switch or developing those capacities requires time and resources.