Asia’s richest families approach philanthropy in much the same way they approach business: Managing things directly and keeping a close eye on outputs, rather than just writing the checks.
That’s one of the conclusions from a new report from the Bridgespan Group, a U.S.-based philanthropy advisory group, released at the Philanthropy for Better Cities Forum in Hong Kong on Sept. 7.
Asia’s family fortunes are still younger than the rest of the world’s. About 94% of the Asian families Bridgespan studied are in their first or second generation of wealth, versus 85% of families in high-income economies elsewhere. Around as many are still in control of the businesses that made them rich, compared with 68% outside the region.
That continued ownership shapes how Asian families give. Business-linked giving dominates in Asia, used by 95% of wealthy families in the region’s middle-income economies and 80% in its high-income ones. Elsewhere, just 28% of high-income families give through their businesses. Most Western families instead choose to set up their own foundation: Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, for example, chose to set up their own foundations rather than give through Microsoft or Berkshire Hathaway.
“The level of control that families expect to have over their giving—because they’re still so used to having that level of control over the corporate—is definitely a lot more hands-on,” says Gwendolyn Lim, head of Southeast Asia at Bridgespan and an author of the report.
She traces the habit to the conglomerate era, when Asia’s tycoons built sprawling groups by spotting “gaps in the market” and grew comfortable running operations that had nothing to do with each other.
When they turned to philanthropy, they saw similar gaps, such as non-profits lacking the capacity to do good work or governments unwilling to step in to take action. The result was the “operating foundation” that both funded and managed charitable projects.
Western philanthropists, on the other hand, are surrounded by mature civil-society groups, and so are more content to just deliver funding through grants. Bridgespan’s report finds that families in middle-income countries are more likely to administer their own programs than those in higher-income countries.
Working with the state
More than three-quarters of Asian family philanthropies partner with the government, versus 58% outside Asia.
That willingness to work with the state is unique, Lim says. Asian families are used to dealing with ministries through their businesses, and thus see few qualms in doing so again through their charities.
Yet Western donors are more wary of the government. “If you talk to American or European philanthropists, working closely with the government is something that makes them nervous,” she says. “Their faces change a little bit. They’re like, ‘Maybe we influence the government from an advocacy perspective.’”
Bridgespan’s report notes that Asian families might fund pilot programs to prove that something works, before handing over successful models to the government to run at a larger scale. Lim points out that philanthropic families are “usually standard bearers who are able to experiment a lot more.”
Another difference is that Asian philanthropists are more willing than their Western counterparts to report how much work they’re doing, using metrics like schools built or teachers trained. More than 80% of Asian families report their outputs, compared with 45% of families in high-income economies elsewhere.
Yet relatively few families—in Asia or elsewhere—report outcomes, or how things changed because of what an organizatrion did. “They go: ‘I don’t want to pay you to measure outcomes, but I want you to report on outcomes.’ That’s pretty terrible,” Lim admits.
The world’s largest givers
This week, Bridgespan also updated its rankings of the world’s largest corporate and institutional givers, based on average annual giving between 2020 and 2024.
The Hong Kong Jockey Club, the city’s only authorized betting operator, tops Asia’s corporate rankings at $774 million a year, ahead of Tencent at $404 million.
Globally, the Jockey Club is the only Asian entity in the corporate top 10, at No. 8, behind Deutsche Telekom and well behind Johnson & Johnson, the world’s largest corporate giver at $3.8 billion a year.
Much of the Jockey Club’s money is funneled through the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust. The Trust gave an average of $705 million a year between 2020 and 2024, putting it in the lead among Asian philanthropic organizations, but just shy of the global top 10. The Gates Foundation leads the way among institutional funders at $6.5 billion per year.
The top 20 Asian philanthropies together gave $2.7 billion annually; the global top 20, $21.4 billion.
Both reports were commissioned by Bridgespan’s Funders’ Council, whose members include the Institute of Philanthropy, the Gates Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, and were released at the Philanthropy for Better Cities Forum, organized by the Jockey Club.
The first line of risk
According to AVPN, a network of Asia-based social investors, the region faces a development funding shortfall of $26 trillion through 2030. Filling that gap will be a tall order.
“We call philanthropy the first line of risk,” Lim says. “Philanthropic giving fills the spots where corporates may be too nervous to invest. And family philanthropy is even more at the vanguard of giving.”
Yet the gap Asian philanthropy is being asked to fill keeps growing. The Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development canceled roughly 83% of the agency’s programs, gutting development budgets in a region where USAID once spent about $860 million a year; in Indonesia and the Philippines, program values fell by 95% or more. Aid financing to Southeast Asia could drop by more than $2 billion, according to estimates from the Lowy Institute.
Nobody, Lim concedes, can plug the hole left by Washington. “Governments can’t fill the gap. Philanthropy can’t fill the gap. There’s not enough money,” she says.
Still, in the “Asian decade,” Asia’s philanthropists will need to find some way to pick up the slack. “This is the decade where our own people have to help our own people,” she says.
A recent report from the Bridgespan Group, presented at the Philanthropy for Better Cities Forum in Hong Kong, highlights how Asia’s wealthiest families approach philanthropy similarly to how they manage their businesses. Instead of merely donating money, they actively oversee their philanthropic efforts, reflecting a hands-on approach that is characteristic of their business backgrounds.
The report reveals that a significant majority of the wealthy families in Asia are still in the early stages of wealth accumulation, with 94% being first or second-generation wealth holders. This contrasts with high-income economies elsewhere, where 85% of wealthy families have established their fortunes over a longer time span. Additionally, many of these Asian families remain involved in the businesses that generated their wealth, which is in line with their active management style in philanthropy.
Business-linked giving is prevalent among Asia’s wealthy, with 95% of families in middle-income economies and 80% in high-income countries engaging in philanthropy tied to their businesses. This is markedly different from Western practices, where only 28% of high-income families give through their businesses; many prefer to establish independent foundations, as exemplified by philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
Gwendolyn Lim, the head of Southeast Asia at Bridgespan and one of the report’s authors, notes that this direct involvement in philanthropic endeavors comes from a legacy of managing diverse business operations. Asian tycoons have historically identified gaps in the market and, in a similar vein, they identify gaps in social services and governmental action, leading to the creation of “operating foundations” that both fund and manage charitable projects.
In terms of collaboration with government entities, Bridgespan’s findings indicate that more than three-quarters of Asian family philanthropies partner with the state, a stark contrast to the 58% of families outside Asia who do so. Lim attributes this to the familiarity that Asian families have with governmental processes through their businesses, making them more comfortable in engaging with the state in their philanthropic activities. In contrast, Western philanthropists often express apprehension about working closely with governments, preferring to influence from an advocacy standpoint.
Asian philanthropists also tend to be more transparent about their outputs, with over 80% reporting metrics such as the number of schools built or teachers trained. This level of reporting is significantly higher than that of their Western counterparts, of whom only 45% provide similar data. However, a common shortcoming among both Asian and Western philanthropists is the reluctance to measure and report outcomes—how their interventions have led to change. Lim criticizes this tendency, noting that while many expect organizations to report their outcomes, they often hesitate to fund the necessary evaluations.
The report also updates the rankings of the largest corporate and institutional givers. The Hong Kong Jockey Club stands out as Asia’s top corporate donor, contributing an average of $774 million annually, placing it at eighth globally among corporate givers. The Jockey Club Charities Trust, responsible for a significant portion of these donations, averages $705 million yearly but falls just short of making the global top ten. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation leads globally, contributing $6.5 billion a year, while the top 20 Asian philanthropic organizations collectively donate $2.7 billion annually compared to $21.4 billion from the global top 20.
Bridgespan’s report emphasizes the critical role of philanthropy, especially family philanthropy, in addressing funding shortfalls in Asia, particularly in light of a projected $26 trillion development funding gap through 2030. Lim describes philanthropy as the “first line of risk,” stepping in where corporate investment may falter. However, she acknowledges the growing demand for philanthropic support, especially after significant cuts to U.S. development aid under the Trump administration, which saw a considerable drop in funding for programs in Southeast Asia.
Despite the challenges ahead, Lim is optimistic about the potential for Asian philanthropists to rise to the occasion, citing the need for local actors to support their communities. She emphasizes that the current decade presents a crucial opportunity for Asian philanthropists to make a meaningful impact, stating, “This is the decade where our own people have to help our own people.”
In summary, the Bridgespan Group’s report illustrates a distinct philanthropic landscape in Asia, characterized by hands-on management, significant government collaboration, and a proactive approach to identifying and addressing social needs. As the region faces substantial funding gaps, the role of family philanthropy will be increasingly vital in driving social change and supporting sustainable development initiatives.
