How can capacity building uplift impact entrepreneurs in Hong Kong? What does it take to fund a founder's development in a way that catalyzes long-term impact?

Capacity building (CB) is often treated as a catch-all phrase in the social sector, but its meaning and importance vary widely depending on who you ask. The United Nations Academic Impact defines it as "the process of developing and strengthening the skills, instincts, abilities, processes, and resources that organizations and communities need to survive, adapt, and thrive in a fast-changing world." Yet in Hong Kong, CB is still often associated with generic training or one-off workshops. This narrow view undersells its real potential — as a foundational enabler for social innovation, systems change, and scalable impact.

So what does CB actually look like for Hong Kong's impact entrepreneurs? And why is it still so underfunded, despite growing awareness of its value?

To understand the lived experience of CB, we spoke with a group of impact founders at different stages of development, across diverse sectors and business models. Their stories offer insights not only into what works — but into what needs to change.

CB’s value shifts with the stage of the enterprise

Grace Cheng, sole founder of Agewhale — a 2023 impact enterprise offering concierge-style support services for carers and corporates — sees CB as both a personal and strategic imperative: "CB is crucial for [impact] organizations to enhance their ability to deliver on their mission effectively... It's about transforming my mindset, expanding my network, and developing the resilience and adaptability to navigate the ever-changing landscape of social impact work."

These CB investments have underpinned Agewhale’s early success, including its new digital solution for working carers and partnerships with corporates. Grace’s participation in the U.S. Department of State’s Professional Fellows Program and the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust’s inaugural PBC Fellowship Program in 2024 points to a growing recognition of CB’s role in unlocking founder potential.

Nick Tsui, co-founder of Alongside Ltd — Hong Kong’s first one-stop end-of-life and bereavement service platform for the LGBTQIA+ community — defines CB as "strengthening an organization’s ability to achieve its mission sustainably and effectively." For Alongside, CB includes everything from cross-sector collaboration (with legal, healthcare, and commercial partners) to policy advocacy and research.

Photo courtesy of Alongside

In just two years, Alongside has launched nine services, served over 200 clients, and delivered more than 200 hours of free support. Its February 2025 end-of-life conference and forthcoming academic study on LGBTQIA+ advance planning underscore how strategic CB investments drive both visibility and systemic relevance.

Experienced founders define CB more precisely

Herman Chan, Co-founder and Executive Director of Eldpathy Co Ltd. — a 2013 social enterprise running elderly simulation programs — frames CB as the ability to "overcome obstacles and excuses... to achieve meaningful social impact." Eldpathy’s promising impact and economics reported in overseas media 6 years ago, remain equally relevant in current times.

Photo courtesy of Eldpathy

Meanwhile, Professor Catherine So, founder of Science and Technology for Autism Remediation (STAR) Limited, links CB to the capacity to handle complexity and maintain flexibility under pressure. STAR’s ability to turn academic research into six-figure revenues, while shaping special education policy, demonstrates CB’s role in bridging innovation and scale.

RABI (Robot for Autism Behavioral Intervention); Photo courtesy of STAR

Peer learning and mentorship: A shared anchor

Despite their diverse fields and stages, all founders interviewed emphasized the transformative power of peer-to-peer learning and mentorship. Grace says her most valuable CB experiences involved long-term coaching, collaborative cohorts, and tailored advisory support. Nick echoes this, citing personalized guidance on legal, operational and funding challenges as especially impactful.

Herman also underscores the motivational aspect of peer-driven CB: "Fostering peer support amongst fellow impact founders enhances their commitment."

What CB is not

Equally important is recognizing what CB is not. Herman critiques "top-down, textbook-like lectures with no clear objectives." Nick notes that generic, one-size-fits-all and short-term training, that lack follow-up or contextual understanding, often lead to poor knowledge retention and little practical application.

If capacity building is to serve as a springboard — not a side dish — it must be designed and funded as a core element of enterprise growth.

Grace adds that CB offerings detached from the local policy or funding environment are of limited utility and value. "For example, some capacity-building programs focus on proposal writing but ignore the broader systemic constraints we face and have to navigate."

The persistent funding gap

While all interviewees described meaningful CB experiences, they also highlighted a chronic lack of dedicated funding. "Most funders prioritize program-specific support over organizational development," says Grace. This makes it difficult to invest in infrastructure, staff retention, or technology upgrades. Nick notes that when CB is embedded in grant structures — via mentorship, coaching, or ecosystem convening — the result is far more sustainable than short-term project grants.

All founders interviewed emphasized the transformative power of peer-to-peer learning and mentorship.

This signals a broader problem: CB is still seen as optional or auxiliary. In reality, it is essential infrastructure. Yet in Hong Kong, CB programs remain fragmented and often disconnected from founders’ real needs or growth milestones.

Toward a new approach to CB

If capacity building is to serve as a springboard — not a side dish — it must be designed and funded as a core element of enterprise growth. This requires shifting away from formulaic training toward a lifecycle-aligned, relationship-based, and contextually informed model. Seed funding linked to CB milestones could become a de-risking tool for future impact investment.

CB is not charity — it's strategy. In an era of polycrisis, impact founders need not just capital, but the capabilities, confidence, and collaborative networks to deploy it wisely. Hong Kong’s ecosystem has a clear opportunity to evolve from checklists to catalytic support.

The question is no longer whether CB matters. The question is: who will fund it like it does?