This article was first published in the Hong Kong Economic Times on 2026 Mar 20.
Author: Prof. Winnie Qian Peng, Director of the Roger King Center for Asian Family Business and Family Office, HKUST
The Chinese ver. is available at: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/RtDTzQvfQFS2T1QfEMR50g

I recently attended a philanthropy forum where a practitioner described the mission of the organisation he had founded: "Using data research and quantitative analysis to help donors identify the 'best' philanthropic projects, maximising the social impact of every donation." He then added: "We always strive to be number one — top grades, maximum profit, and of course, why not pursue the best in philanthropy too?" His words were delivered with conviction. Yet as I listened, I could not quite shake a sense of unease. What, exactly, is the 'best' in philanthropy? And for whom is philanthropy actually done?

In recent years, family offices globally have been deepening their philanthropic commitments at an accelerating pace. A research report released by the Hong Kong Institute for Monetary and Financial Research in March 2026 notes that family offices are expected to expand their philanthropic and impact investing activities significantly in the coming years: the proportion of survey respondents engaged in philanthropy is projected to rise from 45% to 64%. This growth is, of course, welcome. But as the scale of family philanthropy expands, the essence and original spirit of giving deserve ever deeper reflection. I have long advocated for altruism and family philanthropy, and I know firsthand that philanthropic practice, beyond its social impact, serves as a powerful bond that unites families and an effective means of cultivating the next generation's spirit of giving. Several new frameworks and terms have emerged in recent years around philanthropy and altruism. I am by no means an expert on all of them, and what follows are simply my personal questions and reflections — offered in the hope of stimulating deeper thinking and discussion.

New Vocabulary in Philanthropy

Returning to the example at the opening of this piece: imagine two philanthropic projects, A and B, with comparable social impact — A requiring five years to complete, B requiring ten. Following the 'best' logic of that practitioner's institution, donors would naturally be steered toward Project A. But what then becomes of Project B?

'Best opportunity,' 'maximising impact' — these phrases are not wrong in themselves. But does the efficiency logic of the commercial world translate seamlessly into the realm of philanthropy?

'Effective Altruism' (EA) is one of the most influential intellectual currents to have shaped philanthropy in recent years. It argues that in a world of limited resources, giving decisions should not be driven by momentary emotion or personal preference, but by evidence and rational reasoning, directed toward the most efficient interventions. Cost-effectiveness is EA's most emblematic tool. Drawing on public health metrics such as the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), EA attempts to measure how much high-quality life each dollar can extend. For example: a 40-dollar surgical procedure can restore sight to a trachoma patient; training a guide dog costs 42,000 dollars. From a pure efficiency standpoint, the former deploys resources far more effectively than the latter. EA has created a philanthropy ethics centred on impact and efficiency. Yet when we use cold numbers to measure the value and effect of a charitable act, do we risk losing the empathy and human connection that are indispensable to genuine giving?

I am also reminded of the 'Donor Advised Fund' (DAF), which has become widely prevalent in North America. A DAF allows a donor to make a single lump-sum contribution, then distribute the funds in tranches according to their own wishes — deciding who receives support, when, and how much, all at the donor's discretion. While awaiting distribution, the funds can be professionally managed to grow in value, and the arrangement comes with tax benefits. This structure combines tax efficiency, flexible allocation, and asset appreciation in a single vehicle, and has become enormously popular in the United States. Yet the underlying logic of the DAF has quietly introduced a 'donor-centric' mode of thinking into philanthropy — the full implications of which for the nature of giving deserve much further reflection.

The Interests of Beneficiaries Matter More

I believe that the wishes and preferences of donors deserve respect. But if everything is subordinated to maximising the donor's return — placing that calculus above the genuine circumstances and lived experience of those being helped — then philanthropy has already drifted from its original meaning.

If all charitable resources flow only toward the 'best,' the 'most efficient,' the 'most aligned with donor interests,' what happens to the work that is slow, costly, and resistant to quantification? Sitting with the dying, providing a struggling teenager from a poor family with a new school uniform to restore their dignity, helping the displaced rebuild their lives — these efforts serve the most vulnerable and marginal communities. In the eyes of so-called professionals, they may appear to be unquantifiable, low-yield endeavours. Yet they are often precisely the work most in need of being done.

What does genuine altruism mean? Buddhist teachings on 'pure giving' have long offered a clear answer: the moment an act of giving is accompanied by calculation of karmic return, it has already given rise to 'delusion' and departed from the true spirit of generosity. When a person remains attached to the self, every act of giving carries within it an expectation oriented toward that self. True altruism is rooted in the realisation of 'no-self' — transcending the calculation of personal gain and loss, and caring sincerely for others. Western psychology's concept of 'empathy' points in the same direction: genuine empathy means feeling from within the other person's circumstances, not measuring whether the investment was worthwhile from one's own vantage point.

Strategic Philanthropy: Smart, but with Heart

If a purely 'maximisation-driven' philanthropy logic has its limitations, how should the philanthropic work of family offices be oriented? What I have consistently advocated is 'strategic philanthropy': giving wisely, but with genuine warmth.

'Wise' means deploying resources thoughtfully, evaluating options carefully, and assessing impact rigorously — ensuring that donations reach their intended purpose rather than being consumed by administrative overhead or ineffective programmes. In this respect, data analysis and research tools have genuine value, and I do not dispute that. But 'strategic' cannot be reduced to efficiency calculations alone. A philanthropic strategy must equally encompass a deep understanding of the beneficiary — their cultural context, their need for dignity and agency, and the conditions required for lasting community change. Only a philanthropic strategy built on genuine understanding and respect can produce impact that is enduring and profound.

'Warmth' means that philanthropic work always maintains sincere concern for people's lived experience. 'Putting oneself in another's shoes' is not about the donor calculating the return on their investment — it is about the donor genuinely standing in the beneficiary's position, feeling their needs and listening to their voice. This quality of warmth is precisely what pure utilitarian logic cannot encompass. A philanthropic strategy that is both wise and humane is the mark of a family office's philanthropic practice reaching maturity.

If family office philanthropy is to stand the test of time, its foundation must be genuine altruism — not centred on the donor's return, not measured by efficiency maximisation alone, but grounded in sincere care for others and authentic understanding of vulnerability. Only by breaking free from utilitarian constraints and practising strategic philanthropy with warmth can the philanthropic power of family offices truly reach those who need it most. And in the process of practising philanthropy and giving back to society, the family itself can cultivate its values, strengthen the bonds between family members, and transmit these values to the next generation — growing in a healthy and sustainable direction.