1. Philanthropic Attitudes
& Sentiments
in Vietnam Today!
A report by:
for

2. The LIN Center for Community Development serves grassroots not-for-profit organizations
(NPO) and individual and corporate philanthropists.
Through bringing together NPOs & donors, resources such as expertise, knowledge, and funds
can be pooled to help local people to meet local needs.
Given LIN’s aim to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic environment, Cimigo
offered to conduct a study amongst the general population of Vietnam to understand their
sentiments toward philanthropic activity.
This report contains the state of play of philanthropic
attitudes and sentiments in Vietnam today.
We hope you enjoy this report and continue to
support LIN’s mission.
2

3. Philanthropy in Vietnam Today...
In Vietnam there is a high incidence of giving (82%), but at a low frequency and with relatively
small sums. People give what they can, but with 63% indicating they have refused to give to a
charity due to lack of trust, clearly this is a barrier to opening up more sources of support.
The biggest causes that trigger support relate to disaster relief and charities for children and the
disabled. This may cause problems for smaller NPOs that focus on, for example, community
development projects as this type of cause is not top-of-mind for the general population.
As anywhere, people have a tendency to support causes more when they relate to that person.
For example, Senior Citizens are more likely to contribute toward charities that support Senior
Citizens. This lends itself to opportunities to increase efficiency of NPO activity through reaching
out to people who are connected in some way to that NPO’s specific cause.
People tend to find out about charities as a result of direct contact or via friends, perhaps linked
to their need for “trust”. But actual engagement with charities is triggered by a very wide range
of sources – from local residential authorities through to online. This fragmentation may cause
difficulties for smaller NPOs to manage.
3

4. Areas of support for NPOs that LIN may want to explore further…
The data would suggest that there are some key areas that LIN and partners may want to explore
further to help support NPOs in gaining traction with the general population:
Trust: It is difficult for smaller NPOs to build consciousness and credibility with the public, and yet
overcoming this barrier is key to triggering support. LIN may be able to help through:
 Arranging partnerships with larger brands so that the brand’s image supports the NPO’s
 Continue to build LIN’s profile so that it can be used as a “referee” for lesser-known NPOs
 Engage with authorities to build an officially recognised register of accredited NPOs.
Efficiency: Greater outcomes relative to inputs can be yielded by targeting groups of people who
have a closer connection to an NPO’s cause. LIN may be able to help through:
 Capability building in the area of segmentation and identification of “target” groups.
Social Media: Online social media combines the benefits of personal referral from friends, direct
contact from NPOs, and ease of reaching “target” groups. Cost of entry is also low. Consequently,
this might become a key medium for engaging supporters. LIN could support by:
 Capability building & training on the deployment and use of social media.
Donation Channels: It may be difficult for people to donate even small sums frequently as it is
unclear where or how to give. LIN could support by:
 Exploring new means of making donations, e.g. with mobile money transfer services, that
make it possible to conduct national collections of smaller sums with convenience for all.
4

5. What is our propensity to give
today?
Part 1.

6. The vast majority of people (8-in-10) do make contributions to
charitable organisations, but with low frequency…
Contributed to Charitable Organisation (%)
The incidence of giving is high, but the
Given money, time, or
frequency of giving is low, 2-3x per year or 82 18
expertise in Past 5 Years
less.
This may indicate an opportunity to increase Yes No
frequency through overcoming barriers;
barriers could include:
 Knowledge – give to whom? Frequency of Contribution (%)
 Trust – is the receiver reliable?
 Channel – how to give?
Frequency of giving
11 20 45 20 4
over the past 1 year
=> Monthly 4-5x 2-3x 1x None
6

7. Contributions tend to be monetary, and in relatively small sums…
Value of Contributions in Past 1 Year in VND (%)
Size of annual
64 19 10 1 6
1
contribution
<500k 500k-1m >1m-5m >5m-10m >10m Not Money
People often give what they can and the headline is not meant in a disparaging way. But the
low frequency and low sums may indicate systemic problems that LIN and partners could work
to overcome:
 Trust – are people giving less because of “misuse” worries?
 Understanding – do people give money because it is easier or is it they unaware that
physical effort or expertise can also be “given”?
 Channel – people may not know how or where to give. The sums are too small for banks
(and many won’t have bank accounts). Collection points may be too dispersed to be
convenient. LIN & partners may want to consider partnerships with emerging mobile
money-transfer companies that would allow for national-scale collection with ease &
convenience for people, and able to handle small-sum transfers too.
7

8. Which causes are likely to
stimulate us to give?
Part 2.

9. Vietnamese people are most likely to come together to alleviate a
disaster or to support the disabled & children. But this may
highlight problems for smaller, community oriented NPOs…
Causes Most Likely to Support (%)
Whilst revealing the widespread support for the
major causes, it also reveals the difficulty that Disaster Relief 62
many smaller, grass-roots NPOs may have in
attracting funds. Help Disabled People 52
Childrens' Rights & Dev. 42
If these smaller NPOs are focused on community Poverty & Welfare 39
development issues, for example, this may not be
Education 30
top-of-mind for people to donate to.
Environment 25
This perhaps highlights the importance of Senior Citizens 23
organisations such as LIN to help stimulate
Healthcare 15
funding of these smaller, but still worthy activities.
Community Dev. 12
9

10. Targeting groups and segmenting donors may help in the efficiency
of gathering donations…
Causes Most Likely to Support (%)
Some Demographic Differences
Some variations were observed within
demographics, but in largely obvious ways. Children - Females 49
For example older people were more likely to Children - Males 35
support Senior Citizens’ charities than
younger people.
Senior Citizens - >50… 32
This suggests, as with marketing branded Senior Citizens - 15-24… 17
products, a segmentation of donors is likely
to yield greater efficiencies.
Disabled - HCMC 57
LIN and partners may be able to help NPOs Disabled - Hanoi 47
identify target groups that will be more
responsive to engagement with that Education - Hanoi 39
particular NPO and cause. Education - HCMC 28
10

11. Who are we likely to give to?
Part 3.

12. Whilst international NPOs, religious bodies, and government
agencies have most support in total, it is clear that there is room
for independent NPOs as well...
Perhaps with government agencies in the North and religious organisations in the South, there
are few surprises in the geographically driven differences. It is interesting though that
Vietnamese independent organisations are well supported too which shows the potential for
grassroots NPOs to gain engagement.
Your 1st Choice for Donations (%)
VN Independent Orgs. (e.g.local 32
orphanages, disabled schools...) 25
Religious Orgs (e.g. Pagodas, Churches) 30
13
VN Govermental Orgs. (e.g. Fatherland 17
Front,Women's Union) 30
Intern'l Orgs (e.g.Operation Smile, 13
Handicap international) 23
Corporate Programs (e.g. Vinamilk fund; 9
Vina Capital Foundation fund) 9
HCMC Hanoi
12

13. Issues with reliability and transparency have caused 6-in-10 people
not to give to a charity at some point…
Ever Refused to Give to a Charity (%)
Refused to give? 63 38
A reason for some of the major
governmental and religious bodies to be
a first choice may be due to their Yes No
longevity of establishment and thus
supposed trustworthiness. Reason for Refusal (%)
With 6-in-10 having refused to give to
charity at some point, clearly there’s an Organisation is not "Reliable" 65
opportunity for LIN and partners to
support the perception of credibility of Process of funding is unclear 63
many other NPOs.
Not enough time or money 22
I don't know how to 12
Other 2
13

14. A way to stimulate trust as well as funding may be to work hand in
hand with manufacturers or other brand owners…
If given a choice between two products, with
one having some of the profit go to a charity, More Likely to Try a Product
nearly half of people said they would try If Profits Went to a Charity (%)
that product.
4% I would give it a try
With smaller organisations perhaps
struggling to demonstrate credibility, it may
be possible to partner with established 47%
brands for mutual benefit. 49%
I'd still need to
consider other
The benefits are not just in the funding from factors
the brand owner, but also the halo effect of (Price,brand,etc)
a trustworthy brand supporting a lesser- I would not try it
known NPO.
14

15. And how can we get the word
out…
Part 4.

16. Online social networks may need to become a key channel as they
can be “mass” and yet still maintain direct & personal contact to
build necessary trust…
Perhaps because of the “trust” factor, direct
contact with a charity or friendships are important
sources of information. However, these Sources of Information on
Charitable Organisations (%)
approaches are people-heavy and difficult to turn
“mass”. Direct Solicitation 38
Given that the vast majority of young people and Friend Referral 33
higher-income groups are now online in urban Online 33
areas, NPOs probably need to consider this
channel, particularly via social networks, to get TV 26
their cause heard & supported.
Newspaper 24
Social networks combine the factors of direct Radio 9
approach, friend referral, and ease of access.
Social media capability building could be a key Other 22
area of support that LIN and partners could
provide.
16

17. People became engaged with a charity through a very broad range
of sources making this a complex area for smaller NPOs…
Sources of Engagement on
Last Charitable Activity Made (%)
As can be seen, a wide range of sources triggered
From local authorities
our sample’s last engagement with a charity. at residential areas
With this diverse range of potential engagement From
workplace/school
channels, NPOs may need support and capability
building in the area of managing this. From television
19% 21%
5%
8% 20%
Mass media is desirable, but may be difficult for 8%
From the press
grassroots organisations to mobilise. Therefore, 9% 10%
for such organisations a focus may need to be on From the Internet
other channels (e.g. online) that are open and can
be used to effectively reach various interest From friends/family
groups in the population.
From
churches/pagodas
Other
17

18. Respondent Profiles and
Detailed Charts
Appendix

19. Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents
Gender Ratio of Respondents (%) Geographic Ratio of Respondents (%)
Gender 51 49 Geography 46 35 19
Male Female HCMC Hanoi Other
Age Ratio of Respondents (%)
Data collection was conducted by
Age 28 25 33 13 a mixed-mode method of
Telephone and Online
interviewing.
15-24 25-34 35-49 50-64
Total number of respondents was
N=1028
19

20. Frequency of Giving in Past 12 Months (%)
By Key Demographics of Gender & Age
100 4 3 7 4 3 2
6
90 17 14
20 20 19
80 23 25
70
60 None
48 47 54
45 46 1x
50 43 41
2-3x
40
4-5x
30
=> Monthly
20 20 22 17 18 24 22
18
10
11 10 11 12 12 8 9
0
Total Male Female 15-24 25-34 35-49 50-64
(N=864) (N=404) (N=460) (N=272) (N=354) (N=164) (N=74)
20

21. Causes Most Likely to Support (%)
By Key Demographics of Gender & Age
Total Male Female 15-24 25-34 35-49 50-67
(N=528)
Disaster relief 56 61 64 61 67 65 50
Help to disabled people 51 53 51 50 53 55 47
Child's Rights & Development 42 35 49 40 46 46 30
Poverty & Social Welfare 42 42 35 44 44 33 30
Education 31 34 27 29 23 32 42
Environment 27 25 25 27 20 19 41
Help aging & Senior citizens 26 22 24 17 22 25 32
Health care 19 14 15 14 13 16 16
Community development/
Improvement 6 13 10 18 11 7 13
21

22. Specific NPO Support (%)
By Key Demographics of Gender, Age, & City
Total Male Female 15-24 25+ Hanoi HCM
(N=528)
SOS Children Village
(Làng trẻ em SOS) 47 41 52 51 43 44 49
Red Cross (Hội Chữ Thập Đỏ) 40 44 37 38 42 42 38
Disability Resource and
Development (Chương trình Khuyết
tật và Phát triển) 28 22 32 28 27 28 28
UNICEF Vietnam 23 24 22 28 18 32 20
VN Fatherland Front
Mặt Trận Tổ Quốc) 16 21 12 9 23 21 11
Youth Union (Đoàn Thanh Niên) 12 14 10 13 10 7 13
Audio library for the Blind (Thư Viện
Sách Nói Cho Người Mù) 7 6 7 6 8 4 12
Cycling for the Environment club
(Câu Lạc Bộ Đạp Xe Vì Môi Trường) 6 5 7 8 4 4 8
Women’s Union (Hội Phụ Nữ) 5 2 8 3 8 5 6
(Asked of Online respondents only)
22

23. Sources of Information on Charities (%)
By Key Demographics of Gender, Age, & City
Total Male Female 15-24 25-34 35-49 50-67 Hanoi HCM
(N=831)
Direct
solicitation 38 35 40 26 31 49 52 53 30
Friend
referral 33 31 35 49 38 19 19 22 43
Online 33 36 30 43 39 25 13 33 31
TV 26 27 24 26 28 24 29 30 22
Newspaper 24 26 21 28 24 21 18 20 25
Radio 9 9 9 9 6 14 4 11 8
22 21 23 15 21 28 25 17 18
Other
23

24. The Voice of the Customer
www.cimigo.com
joewheller@cimigo.com
Managing Director