




































 

 

 
88 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

DECISION MAKING OF CHARITY FUND ALLOCATION: EVIDENCE FROM HONG 
KONG   

 

 

 Chun Cheong 
Steve FONG 

 

School of Business, Macao Polytechnic Institute, Macau SAR. 

 

 
 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 18 September 2020 
Revised: 13 October 2020 
Accepted: 19 November 2020 
Published: 22 December 2020 
 

Keywords 
Social return on investment 
Charity funding 
Financial decision-making 
Funding principles 
Project selection guidelines 
Project approval guidelines. 
 

JEL Classification:  
L31, M14. 

 
This article aims to study the financial decision-making mechanism by charity funding 
organizations in Hong Kong using case study approach.  As charitable resources are 
limited, social return on investment (SROI) has become a commonly accepted approach 
by charity foundation trustees.  Lo Kwee Seong Foundation in Hong Kong is one family 
supported charity foundation to exercise such kind of charity funding decision-making 
mechanism.  Funding principles and project selection guidelines were first illustrated.  
Professional screening and selection processes were also detailed.  Then three approved 
funding proposals and another three rejected funding proposals were illustrated to 
demonstrate the considerations when the Foundation handled the funding decision 
process.  These cases provided evidences to explain practical issues of how SROI 
contributed to the charity fund allocation decision.  Impacts of other non-financial, 
especially behavioral decision-making concerns were illustrated.  Limitations of the case 
study approach were also discussed to reflect the practical concerns in company finance 
data collection. 
 

Contribution/Originality: The paper contributes the first logical analysis of the implementation of social 

return on investment (SROI) for financial decision-making in charity funding organizations in Hong Kong.   A case 

studies of both successful and unsuccessful projects have been deployed to investigate the phenomena within the 

real-life context. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Financial resources for social services have always been scare in most countries.  This especially applies to 

regions with lots of socio-economic uncertainties as Hong Kong.  Rational and systematic decision-making of 

resources allocation is much demanded in almost all sectors.  In non-profit making social service sector, charity 

funds are increasingly drawn to use equitable methods to evaluate social impact of projects supported.  Profitability 

is not the concern as of profit-making organizations.  Fair and justified social impacts are of the prime concern.  

Social Return on Investment (SROI) is one common method for funding evaluation and resources allocation 

effectively and efficiently (Arena, Azzone, & Bengo, 2015).  It assigned monetary values to social results, quantified 

in financial terms broader social benefits combining quantitative and qualitative approaches.   

For charity donation decision, three charity supporting styles were classified. Krosch, Figner, and Weber 

(2013) suggested that people made decisions either “with the heart”, “with the head” or “by the book”.  In charity 

organization context, decision with the heart referred to the charity foundations compared various helping projects 

and selected the one that made them the most emotionally touched or where they felt more compassion.  It was the 

Financial Risk and Management Reviews 
2020 Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 88-98. 
ISSN(e): 2411-6408 
ISSN(p): 2412-3404 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.89.2020.61.88.98 
© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3507-9674
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/journal.89.2020.61.88.98


Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2020, 6(1): 88-98 

 

 
89 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

emotional reason.   Decision-makers‟ preferences and interests were likely to play roles in the funding decisions.  Or 

the projects, the schools or hospitals maintained neighborhood relationships with the charity foundation families.  

They exercised much kinship and/or personal relationship so as to persuade the charity foundations.  Decision with 

the head meant the charity foundations attempted to evaluate the cost and benefit of the various helping projects 

and selected the one that was supposed to exert a greater impact.  It dealt with the efficacy reason (Cryder, 

Loewenstein, & Scheines, 2013).  Systematic and rational project evaluation, selection and funding schedules were 

to be executed.   Decision by the book meant the charity foundations asked themselves to what extent they have the 

responsibilities or obligations to support the project, and selected the project where they had relatively higher 

responsibilities to facilitate.  This dealt with the responsibility-reason (Winterich & Zhang, 2014).  To certain 

extent, funding decisions related to the decision-makers‟ responsibility awareness of the projects.   

Some other justifications were feasible for selecting one helping project over another.  For instance, charities 

might choose the project they regarded that would improve their public image the most, the project where the need 

seemed to be greater, or the project they considered would be neglected by others.  In short, the three types of 

justifications could be identified.  They related much to the emotional, efficacy and responsibility reasons.  People 

were supposed to provide various good reasons for own choices in various helping dilemmas, and that each kind of 

supporting reasons (emotional, efficacy and responsibility-reasons) could be linked to one of the three helping 

dilemmas respectively. 

 

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 

2.1. Guidelines for Charity Donation Funding Approval 

For charity donation funding approval, Erlandsson, Björklund, and Bäckström (2017) focused on three types of 

donation: 1) the identifiable victim effect, 2) the proportion dominance effect, and 3) the ingroup effect.  Identifiable 

victim effect took place when one had to distribute resources between a project where there was a named and 

pictured identified victim and a comparable project without any identified victim.  It inferred that counting a 

victim‟s name and background information would attract more donations.  Proportion dominance effect happened 

when one had to distribute resources between a high rescue-proportion project and a similar low rescue-proportion 

project.  With such effect, people were generally more motivated to attempt to support a fixed number of victims if 

these were part of small reference group (e.g. eight out of ten could be supported).  Ingroup effect took place when 

one had to distribute resources between a project helping ingroup victims and a comparable project serving 

outgroup victims.  Corresponding to the ingroup effect, recipients who came from the donor‟s ingroup achieved 

more support than recipients from the people from outside). 

 

2.2. Charity Fund Evaluation and Allocation using Social Return on Investment (SROI) 

Efficacy reason was commonly accepted for allocating charity foundation resources from organization 

viewpoint.  To ensure continuation of funding a charity project, value for money (VfM) was often an essential 

concern.  Not-for-profit organizations (NPOs) and their funders increasingly preferred to use the Social Return on 

Investment (SROI) method to measure the social impact of projects, organizations, or organization networks 

(Maier, Schober, Simsa, & Millner, 2015).  There were two major merits: first, SROI analysis could provide 

legitimacy to NPOs or their funders, and second, it helped allocating resources effectively and efficiently. 

SROI was a simple financial assessment of socio-economic value which applied accounting principles using a 

stakeholder approach.  It was a mechanism based on social generally accepted accounting principles that could be 

adopted to aid managing the social, economic and environmental outcomes.  SROI was based on the idea of 

assigning monetary values to social and environmental results, quantifying in financial terms boarder social benefits 

combing both quantitative and qualitative approaches (New Economics Foundation (NEF), 2007).  There were four 

important areas for concern.  The first was the stakeholder commitment, where the stakeholders‟ objectives 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2020, 6(1): 88-98 

 

 
90 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

acknowledged were essential to the SROI development.  The second was the materiality, where the analysis 

concentrated on the areas treated as significant by the stakeholders.  The third was the impact map that stated 

cause and effect chain start from inputs to outputs, outcomes, and impacts; developing a path to recognize how the 

company enacted change, thereby accomplishing its work.  Finally, the increase of weight computed the amount of 

outcomes that would have happened despite what the company spent was concerned.  

The basic form of SROI ratio was:  Present Value of Impact / Value of Inputs Illustrated in So and 

Staskevicicus (2015) there were two kinds of SROI. The first was evaluative, which was conducted retrospectively 

and based on actual outcomes that have already occurred.  The second was forecast, which predicted how much 

social value would be generated if the activities met the intended outcomes.  This was practically useful in the 

planning stage of an activity, or if the existing data were insufficient to help calculating an evaluative SROI.  

In measureable terms, SROI compared the net benefits of a project to the investment required, similar to the 

return on investment (ROI) measure adopted in accounting (Cryder et al., 2013). For calculating SROI, Emerson 

and Cabaj (2000) stated that net benefits were treated to be two types of cash flow: net income (profit) and net 

savings (government savings such as additional tax revenue and reduced welfare spending), less any donated funds. 

The time length was supposed to be about five years, returns were then reduced to present values and compared to 

the funds invested to estimate SROI. 

The major strength of SROI analysis was based on its ability to afford „„business-like‟‟ authoritative support.   It 

helped improving the effectiveness and efficiency of resource allocation.  The NPO sector‟s long-term justification 

did not depend on its business-like authoritative support, but on the value it created for society by providing 

valuable products and services, by being an effective supporter for those whose voice would otherwise not be paid 

attention to, and by providing a room for society structure and the expression of shared values. 

Firstly, SROI could be a way to support a society that was oriented towards social impact.  The negative 

situations of profit making businesses as damages to the health, environment, and employees‟ family lives may be 

unavoidable.  SROI analysis could be an opportunity for NGOs to communicate to profit making companies and 

government units in „„business-like‟‟ language so as to demand equal treatment with the room for movement in 

public debate about the value of NGOs. 

The second suitable use of SROI analysis appeared when NPOs needed to inform the public which referred to  

simple forms of information, who focused much on finance, or who were not so aware of NPOs‟ social value. 

Lastly, SROI expresses social impacts in financial term and enables NPOs to communicate with charity 

foundations, regulators, auditors, and similar groups that act traditionally under a financial paradigm.  With SROI, 

NPOs can shift the focus from traditional input/output measures to social impacts.  In addition, SROI can be used 

to inform the NPO‟s employees and volunteers about the value of their work.  The actual practices of SROI for 

charity fund project selection can be illustrated through a case study of charity foundation in Hong Kong. 

 

3. METHOD 

A single case study was adopted to collect data and to analyze the financial decision-making mechanism of a 

charity funding foundation.  It was a single subject research that delivered statistical framework for making 

inferences from quantitative case-study data from a specific organization.  It investigated a phenomenon within its 

real-life context. A case study does not essentially have to be just about one single entity, as there may be many 

observations within a case (many individuals, projects and entities across many time periods).  The merit of the 

adoption of a single case study is it provides detailed mechanism of how a business financial decision is initiated and 

processed. 

Among the 18 charity foundations in Hong Kong (Zeshan, 2020) Lo Kwee Seong (LKS) Foundation was 

contacted successfully and hence invited for case study.  Foundation vision, mission, operation routines, donation 

funding decision-making mechanism, and selected funding projects were detailed for study.  



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2020, 6(1): 88-98 

 

 
91 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4. DISCUSSION AND RESULTS 

4.1. Case Study - Lo Kwee Seong (LKS) Foundation 

Lo Kwee Seong (LKS) Foundation was a charity fund established by the founder of soya bean drink, Vitasoy, Lo 

Kwee Seong, in 1991 in Hong Kong.  The mission was to enrich lives of the less privileged through the spirit of 

philanthropy in different spectrums.  This echoed the mission statement of Zeshan (2020) “to improve the lives of 

the less privileged in world through the family‟s spirit of philanthropy.”    

The further elaborated mission focuses were: to promote vocational and technical education, general education, 

learning culture and the arts; to give financial assistance for the furtherance of health and relief of poverty and 

sickness; to promote social welfare and support charity; and to support hospitals, vocational or technical schools, 

home for the aged and art museums for the benefit of the public. 

For the public benefits, the wide scope objectives of this charity included support of mainly six areas:  

1) education and vocational training for the people in need. 

2) culture and art. 

3) relief of poverty, sickness and distress. 

4) facilities like home for the elderly, schools, hospitals. 

5) academic, medical or scientific research. 

6) social welfare and charity.   

The chain of social impact started from providing education for nurturing students with knowledge and 

techniques; nurturing students to be cultural; helping the community to relieve the weak communities with the use 

of knowledge in short-term, then building facilities for continuing the aids in medium-term, and finally funding 

research for improving the society on long-term basis.  For maximizing the social benefits, such charitable settings 

needed to be reinforced by the foundation management, then to be recognized in the community and hence to gain 

social support. 

Comparing to the other 18 charity foundations in Hong Kong (Zeshan, 2020) LSK Foundation focused on high 

quality and sustainable educational or vocational training projects.  For sustainability and quality, social return on 

investment (SROI) was employed to justify the charity funding decision.   

 

4.2. Social Responsibility executed through Charity Fund Projects Supported 

Lo Kwee Seong said, "well-off society enjoy the best drink supply, so take care of those who are not so lucky, 

especially among school children and workers, becomes his responsibility."  (Cai, 1990). 

The start of Lo Kwee Sseong (LKS) Foundation related to the story of Vitasoy, "The Drink of the Poor" began 

in 1940.  During the time of the World War II in Hong Kong, Lo Kwee Seong, the founder of Vitasoy, developed a 

nutrient-rich, Vitasoy and sold it at an affordable price for contributing to the Hong Kong people.  This enabled the 

public to get enough nutrients and to establish a healthy life.  In 1991, Lo established Lo Kwee Seong (LKS) 

Foundation with major objectives of supporting education; culture and arts; poverty, distress and sickness relief; 

construction of schools and hospitals; research for the public; social welfare and charity support.  There are overlaps 

among these several objectives.  From positive and synergetic viewpoints, these objectives closely correlate with 

one another as shown in Figure 1.   The social benefits are hence maximized. 

 

4.3. Trustee Board for Management 

Similar to that of other private family foundations (Zeshan, 2020) a trustee board comprising 10 Lo‟s family 

members was established to operate Lo Kwee Seong (LKS) Foundation in 1991.  They handled charity project 

funding decision through clear and significant majority rule.  The daily operation work was in charge by the 

Foundation General Manager.  His routine work was to collect funding application and to screen individual 

application basing on the established framework as stated in Table 1 below.  Most of the data and information of 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2020, 6(1): 88-98 

 

 
92 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

this case study were collected from more than five interviews with the General Manager, and each interview lasted 

for over an hour. 

 

 
Figure-1. Objectives of Lo Kwee Seong (LKS) foundation. 

 

Table-1. Important application guidelines – Lo Kwee Seong (LKS) Foundation. 

Application  
Stage 

Action 

1.Project Idea The Foundation General Manager first meets the applying project leader to evaluate if the 
project concept may match the objectives of the long-term plan priorities and target towards 
people in need. 

2.Screening The General Manger screens the project to check project quality, project nature, pilot execution 
track record and strategic fit partners.  The project leader is required to explain why the 
Government and other charity bodies do not fund, then in return the project leader seeks funds 
from the Foundation. 

3.Coaching The project team leader seeks advice from the Foundation General Manager, develops self-
explanatory project plan, and prepares proposal presentation covering key pitching points. 

4.Project Plan It should highlight background and strength of applicant partner, project  goals, social issues, 
project contents and track record of execution, matching of target groups in need, conservative 
complete financial analysis, key performance indicators, expected social returns, alternative 
source of funders, requested donation amounts and recognition to Lo Kwee Seong (LKS) 
Foundation. 

 

From the General Manager, Elson Law, several charity project leaders had been guided by him after the second 

stage screening process.  He handled the third stage coaching which was cooperative in nature for guiding the 

project leaders in project plan and presentation writing.  He wished to collect supporting evidences and data from 

the applicants about budget and coverage, and value of project on social return on investment.   

Once the applicants felt at risk of missing budget or deadline, the General Manager should communicate this 

budget risk to the applicants.  For the project applicants, adjusted future work to reflect any additional information 

known should be notified to the Foundation.  For instance, when the project was created, many of the activities 

further into the future may had been vague and placed in the project at a high level.  On a monthly basis, this work 

needed to be defined in greater detail and reported to the Foundation. 

 

 

 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2020, 6(1): 88-98 

 

 
93 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4.4. Approval Guidance  

Before the death of Lo in 1995, four funding approval guidelines were established for the trustee board about 

charity project funding decisions.  Details are illustrated in Table 2. 

 

Table-2. Approval guidelines – Lo Kwee Seong (LKS) Foundation. 

Approval 
Guide 

Action 

1. Due 
Diligence 

For significant donation, the charity project leader is to be invited to present the project 
details to trustees. 

2. Approval Trustee Board voting decision:  The General Manager circulates recommendation letter in 
addition to proposals for seeking clear and significant majority approval among the trustees. 

3. Expected 
Timeline 

From project idea to final approval, it may vary from 2 months to 6 months, important 
projects will likely be scheduled to be approved during the annual meeting in early September 
every year. 

4. Donation 
Agreement 

Main project items summary, interim reports, payment terms and attached proposals for 
reference will be executed and cash funds can be arranged in 2 to 3 stages for projects 
approved. 

 

This illustrated operational systems and procedures for funding application and approval which showed a 

significant contrast with Erlandsson et al. (2017) that dealt with funding approval norms and preferences. 

 

4.5. The Foundation Five-Year Plan 

From Elson Law interviewed, the Foundation plan for a five-year duration 2019-2023 had been highlighted in 

Figure 2 as follows: 

 

 
Figure-2. 2013-2023 plan principles. 

 

Seven principles of the charity funding decisions were listed out: 

 Balanced and diversified beneficiaries. 

 Prioritization of social needs. 

 Target set to people in need. 

 Cost effectiveness. 

 Financial sustainability. 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2020, 6(1): 88-98 

 

 
94 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 Execution by quality strategic partners. 

 Improving cause of social issues. 

Health, education, promotion of strategic philanthropy, human services and social development in Hong Kong 

are areas to be provided balanced and diversified beneficiaries. Coverage of donation should be spread among 

various social groupings in needs.  Prioritization of social needs depends on the needy situation of the society in 

respective years of project application.  This may change with reference to the Government social welfare policies.  

The target is set to people in need, cost effectiveness and financial sustainability relate to the adoption of social 

return on investment (SPOI) for project evaluation.  Other financial decision-making concerns are also required to 

be considered in the framework.  Execution by quality strategic partners is monitored in annual charity funding 

approval in charity donation.  Annual review and funding re-approval are scheduled for continuality and 

sustainability.  Finally, improving cause of social issues is the long-term goal of the charity endeavor.  Continued 

improvement is always the underlying mechanism. 

Good utilization of scarce financial resources, balanced and diversified funding to beneficiaries, equitable 

funding of project in need, execution by quality strategic partners, and of course cost effectiveness and financial 

sustainability were the major concerns.  Following the above plan principles, Elson Law disclosed the following 

areas for supporting people in need in seven groups as shown in Figure 3. 

 

 
Figure-3. Key target people in need to support. 

 

As a qualified accountant with over twenty years of managerial role in financial management in multi-national 

company, Elson Law added that he based on the following judging criteria to screen various funding projects 

applied: 

 Objectives of trust deed. 

 Financial affordability. 

 Emphasis on vocational training. 

 Emphasis on medical research. 

 Soya bean drink research. 

 Quality project nature. 

 Sustainability in long term. 

 “lo kwee seong” naming right of building donated. 

 Governance of project resources spent. 

After screening by the General Manager, he collected data and proposals and put forward to the trustee board 

for funding decision as detailed in Table 2 above.  From the interview and the follow-up data and information 

http://www.zeshanfoundation.org/hk/en/project.php?cate=Health
http://www.zeshanfoundation.org/hk/en/project.php?cate=Promotion%20of%20Strategic%20Philanthropy
http://www.zeshanfoundation.org/hk/en/project.php?cate=Human%20Services%20and%20Social%20Development%20in%20Hong%20Kong


Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2020, 6(1): 88-98 

 

 
95 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

supplied, three approved projects and another three rejected projects were illustrated.  For the approved projects, 

all had been checked to fulfill the SROI and the adoption of appropriate criteria as above.   

 

4.6. Approved Project Proposals 

4.6.1. 1st Approved Proposal 

Visually Impaired Youths Education Development.  It was about the True-light Blind Hospital and School 

which has actively promoted vocational and skill training for the visually impaired in recent decades.  Pre-

employment tailored visually impaired vocation training nearly 200 youths.  Job matching, promotion via cedar 

workshops, social enterprise and were provided.  The average annual allocated funds were just US$308,000, while 

the social return on investment was 7 times future employment income of visually impaired jobs arranged.  

The Foundation helped to cultivate visually impaired students and strengthen their musical talents, and the 

students would be able to achieve self-reliance and integrate the public in the future.  It provided US$71,000 

donation to enable 10 visually impaired students to receive a total of 2,160 hours of professional music tutor 

training, which cost about US$33/hour, and enabled them to receive about 2.65 times or about US$188,000 income 

in a five-year time.  More importantly, this let other teachers and younger schoolmates to have a new perspective 

on seeing future efforts.  This helped to relieve unemployment of the blind youngsters. The unemployment rate of 

the visually impaired youth was high at about 80%, causing poverty and suffering.  There were not enough 

continuous dedicated resources to raise awareness of potential visually impaired young people and to train visually 

impaired youth in the job market. 

The funding was helpful and beneficial to the people in need.   “If we can cultivate visually impaired young 

people and strengthen their employment skills, they will be able to have self-reliance and hence integrate the public 

in the future. How can the public turn a blind eye and actively support and encourage "Lo Kwee Seong 's heart and 

light guide"?, pointed out by Elson Law. 

 

4.6.2. 2nd Approved Proposal 

Social Entrepreneurship School Education (SENSE).   This was an education programme provided to 

secondary school students in summer break using university campus.  University student dormitories were used to 

offer short business vocational training lessons to secondary school students.  The main goals included: 1) social 

care and support of disadvantaged group; 2) training of different levels of skills in entrepreneurship and innovation.  

Entrepreneurship and innovation was the latest trend of vocational education need for Hong Kong secondary 

school students.  SENSE was popular education programme with growing demand trend among secondary schools.  

It was proven potential relief of spiritual poverty for youth to improve their future social caring, innovative 

education to animate enriching lives.  For social return and SROI, the SENSE programme had been continued in 

the past few years. The objective was to train secondary school students, through caring for the weak, caring for 

social affairs, promoting entrepreneurs' self-improvement spirit. At the same time, it inspired the younger 

generation who were worried about the future.  It helped developing constructive high school youth innovative idea 

and problem solving skills.   

By experiencing the disadvantaged communities, they could self-renew and had their own positive energy and 

ability to create new ways of self-development.  For instance, a donation of US$12.6 million could help more than 

2,000 students and about 9,000 training hours.  The average funding was about US$64 per student, or about US$19 

per hour.  The entrepreneurial spirit of Vitasoy would continue to be passed on to the University's SENSE project. 

Elson Law said he would find out the students and teachers and let them understand that Lo Kwee Seong 

Foundation could help.  The start-ups of "the health drink of the poor" could also succeed through constant 

struggle, and it was the pioneer of social entrepreneurship. 

 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2020, 6(1): 88-98 

 

 
96 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4.6.3. 3rd Approved Proposal 

Hand Qing Family Project.  This was a creative project to support young women at the grassroots level to pick 

up handcraft skills and hence help poverty alleviation.  The project opened workshops to them for training women 

handcraft for improving the well-being of the families at home by producing handcraft for sales.  500 persons had 

been benefited, and the funding for each person was about US$208, and the profit funding required was 

US$104,000.  The SROI was 4 times regarding the women part-time work income and the charity funding 

assigned. 

 

4.7. Rejected Project Proposals 

Funding resources were monitored for fair share and equitable allocation and support of charity projects.  

Besides the successful cases mentioned above, three rejected funding application cases were selected that worth 

study for financial decision-making of charity funds.  

 

4.7.1. 1st Rejected Proposal 

University Entrepreneur Training Camp.  It was a three-year plan (2018-2020) of US449,000 donation to 

support more than 400 students to enter short-term learning programmes in world-renowned institutions.  It was 

planned to assist about US$1,090 for each poor student.  The funded students would participate in fundraising and 

related charity activities after returning from school for helping the project students to have continued 

development.  The reason of rejection was that the foundation trustees interpreted it was similar to an 

entrepreneurship programme, and it was regarded as a business project rather than a charity project.  Financially, it 

was more expensive per student than the SENSE project mentioned above.  SROI was lower and not persuasive 

than those approved projects. 

 

4.7.2. 2nd Rejected Proposal 

Food Bank.  Food Bank's service was planned to provide short-term food assistance to poor and grassroots 

families.   In forecast, a total of 450 people would be benefited, and the total funding required was US$51,300.  The 

average funding for each person would be US$114. When Vitasoy started its business, the "poor's milk" was the 

original intention.  The fund could assist Food Bank, which was to help Hong Kong's "poor meal."  The main 

reason of rejection was that the majority of the foundation trustees perceived that this would support and encourage 

low-class immigrants.  Potential immigrants without contribution to professional knowhow and capital investment 

might be attracted by such a free meal provision scheme.  Trustee board members preference and decision took 

place before SROI consideration was forecasted.     

 

4.7.3. 3rd Rejected Proposal  

University Medical Research Project.  It was a University Research Laboratory Project in three sections of 

totally US$1 million over 3 years.  The three sections included serious cancer patient treatment, middle mentally 

handicapped special school, and relief distress experience activities for children. 

The reasons of rejection were: 1) There were other similar medical research projects, and this project was not 

supported by sufficient financial breakdown with details.  Project overlapping and project application details were 

concerned.  2) There were various sources of fund raising to this project and were not specific to the foundation 

focus as illustrated in Figure 2. Unique source of donation from the foundation was required.  3) They were treated 

as non-sustainable projects.  Only expenditure plan was provided, revenue generation mechanism was not 

illustrated.  Future financial sustainability was much queried. 

 

 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2020, 6(1): 88-98 

 

 
97 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4.8. Future Development 

Through strategic giving, LKS Foundation identified the needs in communities and tackled their root causes 

through a comprehensive approach.  It facilitated reciprocity and mutual respect, and encouraged dynamic and 

constructive co-operation with and among its grantees. To maximize the impact of its initiatives, it created 

synergies and leverages opportunities with funders and organizations that were dedicated to the causes that the 

Foundation supported (Zeshan, 2020). From the General Manager, Elson Law, LKS Foundation‟s future 

development was targeted at sizeable project of over USD13 million each for exercising constructive, significant as 

well as long-term social impact on the community. 

 

5. CONCLUSION 

People made financial decisions either “with the heart”, “with the head” or “by the book”.  There were various 

emotion, efficacy or responsibility reasons.  As charitable resources were limited, social return on investment had 

become a commonly accepted measure by charity foundation trustees, Lo Kwee Seong (LKS) Foundation was one 

family supported charity foundation to exercise such type of charity funding decision.  In addition, other funding 

decisions affected by emotion, efficacy and knowledge had also been illustrated through the three approved and 

another three rejected project applications mentioned.  Like other exploratory research, the findings from the above 

case analysis should be regarded as specific and tentative.  The selected funding application projects demonstrated 

distinguished and atypical situations to certain extent. 

 

6. LIMITATION 

The current study belonged to qualitative case studies which is restricted by the sensitivity and integrity of the 

researcher. The researcher was the primary gadget of information collection and analysis. However, exercise of 

observation and interviewing could be readily offered to ambitious case study researchers.  Objectivity of data 

collection has the prime concern.  The researcher was left to rely on own characters and capabilities throughout 

most of this study effort (Merriam, 2015). 

Furthermore, a case study emphasized on a single unit, a single illustration, the issue of generalizability 

appeared more than with the other types of qualitative research.  However, much could be studied from a specific 

case.  Readers could study vicariously from coming across with the case through the researcher's story description 

(Stake, 2005). The interesting explanation in a case study could create an image: "a vivid portrait of excellent 

teaching can become a prototype that can be used in the education of teachers or for the appraisal of teaching" 

(Eisner, 2017).   

Other limitations included reliability and validity. The case study was often be criticized for its absence of 

representativeness, and its insufficient rigor in the collection, construction, and analysis of the practical materials 

that gave rise to the study. This inadequate rigor was related to the subjectivity of the researcher in interview and 

data collection.  Interview training and emphasis on objectivity in data collection should be concerned. 

Some important issues about generalization that merited specific indication.  The first issue about to a single-

outcome case study was that it was often explicitly disclaimed.  Criticism of generalizability was of little relevance 

when the intention was one of particularization. Particularization related to storytelling which highlights the 

unique situation of the case concerned.  A second issue related to the difference between statistical and analytical 

generalization; a single case study was obviously less suitable for the former but possibly hold important utility for 

the latter.  It brought out the difference between descriptive and investigative, or theory-building and theory-

testing (Willis, 2014). 

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication 
of this paper. 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2020, 6(1): 88-98 

 

 
98 

© 2020 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

REFERENCES 

Arena, M., Azzone, G., & Bengo, I. (2015). Performance measurement for social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of 

Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 640-672. 

Cai, B. (1990). Health and entrepreneurship: 50 years of Vitasoy (1940-1990). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Bean Products Co Ltd. 

Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Scheines, R. (2013). The donor is in the details. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision 

Processes, 120(1), 15-23.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.08.002. 

Eisner, E. W. (2017). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Old Tappan, NJ: 

Macmillan. 

Emerson, J., & Cabaj, M. (2000). Social return on investment. Making Waves, 11(2), 10-14. 

Erlandsson, A., Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2017). Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas. 

Judgment and Decision Making, 12(1), 60-80. 

Krosch, A., Figner, B., & Weber, E. U. (2013). Choice processes and their post-decisional consequences in morally conflicting 

decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(3), 224-234. 

Maier, F., Schober, C., Simsa, R., & Millner, R. (2015). SROI as a method for evaluation research: Understanding merits and 

limitations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1805-1830.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9490-x. 

Merriam, S. B. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.): John Wile. & Sons. 

New Economics Foundation (NEF). (2007). Measuring real value: A DIY guide to social return on investment. New Economics 

Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.neweconomics.org/. 

So, I., & Staskevicicus, A. (2015). Measuring the “impact” in impact investing. MBA Thesis, Harvard Business School.    

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research 

(3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Willis, B. (2014). Define the main principles, and analyse the advantages and limitations of one of the following research 

methods: (i) Single case study analysis. Retrieved from: https://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/05/the-advantages-and-

limitations-of-single-case-study-analysis/. [Accessed July 5]. 

Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Accepting inequality deters responsibility: How power distance decreases charitable 

behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 274-293.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/675927. 

Zeshan. (2020). Zeshan foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.zeshanfoundation.org/hk/en/aboutus.php?cate=Introduction. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Financial Risk and Management Reviews shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 

http://www.neweconomics.org/
http://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/05/the-advantages-and-limitations-of-single-case-study-analysis/
http://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/05/the-advantages-and-limitations-of-single-case-study-analysis/
http://www.zeshanfoundation.org/hk/en/aboutus.php?cate=Introduction

