Note: The research in this post was done by a human, not by AI. AI was used in some places to tidy up the writing.

This is Part 3 of a three-part series. Part 1 | Part 2

To quote ourselves once again, donors in Hong Kong should consider the fact that the most cost‑effective ways we currently know to help others are usually in less economically developed countries. This is mainly because:

• The baseline is much lower: preventing blindness, death from malaria, or extreme poverty in low‑income countries can often be done at a few hundred to a few thousand HKD per major outcome.

• Labour and delivery costs are much cheaper, so the same donation funds more staff time, medicines, or materials.

• Many of the most effective health and anti‑poverty interventions have already been tested in these contexts and provide things we take for granted in the developed world (e.g. vitamin A supplementation, malaria prevention, deworming).

However, this does not mean that no Hong Kong charity is good, or that local work is unimportant. It just means that if your goal is to maximise lives saved or suffering reduced per dollar, you should strongly consider at least some overseas giving through highly‑vetted global health and animal‑welfare organisations.

The following Section 88 (tax-exempt) organisations either already operate using interventions with strong evidence behind them, or direct Hong Kong donations to overseas programmes that independent evaluators view as effective. Again, this list does not claim to be exhaustive or definitive, merely what we are currently aware of as of the date of this article’s publication.

These organisations are not all equally cost‑effective, and some may have particular programmes that are much more impactful than others. However, for Hong Kong donors seeking Section 88 options that are plausibly above average on impact per dollar, this list is a decent starting point. Further analysis would be valuable.

Non‑Section 88 organisations likely to be highly effective

Some of the most leveraged work from an impact perspective is advocacy and movement‑building, which often does not fit neatly into standard charity categories or Section 88 status. Because these organisations work mainly through research, advocacy, and industry transformation rather than direct services, their impact is harder to measure but can be extremely large if they help trigger structural changes in policy or business practices.

A few non‑Section 88 organisations that look promising from an effectiveness standpoint include:

Generocity 

Website: https://www.generocity-hk.org/ 

Generocity advocates for Hong Kong government resources to be directed toward highly cost‑effective overseas direct aid. By influencing public‑sector allocations, such advocacy can potentially move orders of magnitude more money than an individual donor ever could, multiplying impact.

Planet For All 

Website: https://www.planet4all.org/ 

Planet For All focuses on improving farmed animal welfare (e.g. for chickens and fish) through corporate and policy campaigns. Given the number of animals affected and the low cost of many corporate‑commitment campaigns, this kind of work is often among the most cost‑effective ways to reduce suffering per dollar.

Good Growth Co 

Website: https://www.goodgrowth.io/ 

The Good Growth Co. conducts research and design to accelerate ethical and sustainable food systems in Asia, including alternatives to intensive animal agriculture. If successful, such work could help shift large markets away from some of the most harmful practices for animals and the environment.

Go back to Part 1 | Part 2