When thinking of China, the first word that comes to mind is probably “big.” A vast land area, a population of over 1.4 billion, the world’s largest manufacturing industry, and a massive domestic market. No matter what topic we discuss, we naturally use the expression “continental scale.”
The impact ecosystem is no exception. A Chinese social enterprise providing in-home care for the elderly, which presented at last year’s Asian Longevity Forum, had supported hundreds of thousands of seniors and trained and managed tens of thousands of care workers within 15 years of its establishment. In terms of numbers alone, the scale is overwhelming. Conversely, however, a preconceived notion that “quality” will decline as the “scale” grows also follows. It is a skepticism asking, “It is big, but how well does it actually function?”
Over the past few years, CAPS has steadily expanded its engagement with the Chinese field by building a local research team and opening a branch in Shanghai last year. Recently, the understanding of Chinese society and the philanthropy ecosystem has further broadened with the addition of Kong Dongmei, Chairwoman of the Dongrun Foundation and a leading educational philanthropist in China, to the board. Based on this research and local network, this article aims to discuss another aspect of ‘Made in China’ social impact that is often easily overlooked due to being obscured by numbers.
The power to create scale, an ecosystem of role division
The most noteworthy aspect of China is not merely its ‘quantity.’ Rather, it is the ‘qualitative’ movement that enables that massive scale—in other words, the method of connecting numerous stakeholders in a single direction and putting them into action.
Looking at the China Issue Guide series published by CAPS in 2022, similar strategic narratives recur across sectors. Whether it be education, the environment, poverty, or rural development, the government, enterprises, foundations, research institutes, and field organizations each assume distinct roles. The government sets the direction, enterprises add their expertise and execution capabilities, foundations pilot new models, research institutes provide evidence, and local communities implement them on the ground. A structure has naturally formed in which roles are divided based on each party’s strengths rather than on performing the same tasks.
The social and environmental challenges facing China are as complex as their scale. Consequently, they are difficult to resolve through the efforts of a single organization or sector alone. Therefore, what matters is not who takes the lead or does more work, but rather how well organizations with different roles align in direction and leverage their respective comparative advantages. This structure of role division and connectivity was precisely what was repeatedly observed in CAPS research.
Poverty alleviation cases, in particular, best illustrate these characteristics. The process of eradicating absolute poverty in China is often understood solely as the result of government policy. However, in reality, while the government set the overall direction and goals, financial institutions supplied funds, state-owned and private enterprises connected industries and infrastructure, and corporate foundations and individual philanthropists filled the gaps in their own ways. What matters is not who took the lead, but that different organizations performed their respective roles under a single goal.
A similar pattern emerges in education as well. Educational philanthropy in China extends beyond mere scholarship support. Centered on national tasks such as strengthening rural teachers’ capabilities, building digital education infrastructure, and bridging the educational gap between regions, universities, enterprises, foundations, and local governments, fulfill roles suited to their respective identities. The private sector complements government policies by addressing blind spots and experimenting with new approaches, while proven effective models are disseminated to wider regions through policies and systems. Here, too, the key is not who does more work, but rather that diverse organizations contribute using their respective strengths under a shared direction.
This division of roles ultimately becomes the driving force behind the speed and scale we commonly associate with China. The more aligned the direction and the clearer the respective roles are, the less duplication there is, and the faster new initiatives are tested. Once results are confirmed, they do not remain confined to individual projects but expand to wider regions and systems. This is why terms like “pilot” and “scale-up” appear repeatedly in various Chinese foundations and social contribution programs. The key is not creating yet another new model, but rather how quickly proven models can be convinced.
Public infrastructure created together, beyond competition
Of course, this does not mean that this approach can be applied exactly as is to every society. Institutions, policy environments, social values, and decision-making structures differ from country to country. Overseas examples are not subjects for simple replication but rather serve as reference cases that must be translated to suit each individual’s reality.
From this perspective, what we can learn from the Chinese case is not the system, but the principles. A good ecosystem is not created simply by having many good organizations. What matters is whether different organizations can leverage their respective expertise and comparative advantages while efficiently dividing roles around a common goal, transparently sharing learning and information, and cooperating beyond competition when necessary.
In fact, last December, philanthropic organizations representing leading companies in China’s internet industry gathered in one place. At the Digital Philanthropy & AI Forum hosted by the China Federation of Charities, the ByteDance Foundation organized the event and provided the technical infrastructure. The Tencent Foundation, the Alibaba Foundation, and Ant Group’s Alipay public welfare platform also participated, unveiling a joint “AI Public Welfare Toolkit” containing 29 AI and digital tools that non-profit organizations can utilize. Although these companies compete fiercely in the market, they have established a public infrastructure that they can use together to solve social problems. This example, in which a trusted intermediary support organization connected competitors under a common goal and encouraged them to contribute in the way they do best, holds significant implications for our companies as well.
This is not just a story about corporations. The impact ecosystem, including non-profits, social enterprises, social ventures, and foundations, also frequently talks about collaboration; however, in reality, amidst competition for limited resources and talent, it is not uncommon for them to become isolated from one another or repeat overlapping projects.
Perhaps the important question is not ‘who did more work’ or ‘who hosted it,’ but rather ‘how well we look in the same direction and treat each other equally and transparently.’ Social problems are difficult to solve solely through the capabilities of a single organization. A greater impact is achieved only when we share roles and work together toward a common purpose, while maintaining our individual expertise and unique characteristics.
The ‘Doing Good Index 2026,‘ released by CAPS last month, offers similar implications. It points out that the success or failure of the public interest sector depends not on the total number of related organizations or the excellence of individual systems, but on how organically regulations, taxation, ecosystems, and cooperation between the government and the private sector are interlocked. The true power to solve increasingly complex social problems ultimately does not lie in creating more organizations or solutions, but in how well existing elements are connected.
This article was first published in Korean in The Butter and is part of Heesu Jang’s monthly opinion series Asia Philanthropy Inside.