Lin Guangzhi
A Macau University of Science and Technology research team from the Institute for Social and Cultural Research has concluded that Macau’s six gaming operators should improve both the scale and the benefits of their donations.
The University made these comments in a report into the 2011-2017 Macau Gambling Corporate Philanthropy Responsibility Development and the 2011-2017 Macau Gambling Enterprise Charity Donations Ranking.
During an exclusive interview with the Times, the director of the institute, Lin Guangzhi, who is also the team leader of the study group, discussed the study results and voiced some of his own personal opinions concerning donations made by casinos.
The study is only related to 2011 and later because “all six gaming operators only became listed companies after 2011.”
The source of the study mainly consisted of these companies’ annual financial reports, media reports and material from the casinos’ official websites.
“In a company’s financial reports, only the amount of donations is reported. The reports did not disclose where the said donations went,” Lin explained, adding that the study group was able to find some of the donations’ recipients through media reports.
“It is quite interesting that the increase in [casino] revenues is big. What about their donations? Do they also increase?” Lin questioned, adding that “since 2011, the fluctuation varies every year. Sometimes increases faster, others slower. Wynn, for instance, in 2011, increased [its donations] a lot due to a donation of approximately MOP200 million to the University of Macau.”
“Wynn is number one regarding total donations [from 2011 to 2017], and has been the first, for some years, in terms of annual donations as well. In terms of increase, MGM holds the biggest increase,” Lin revealed to the Times.
Since 2014, charity donations and gaming operators’ revenue have been fluctuating, in general, at the same pace, “probably because of good business results [across all gaming operators].”
In light of the study group’s findings, overall, between 2011 and 2017, charitable donations from the region’s six gaming operations totaled HKD1.557 billion, representing an average increase of 6.48 percent, and accounting for 0.085 percent of these companies’ total revenue.
“Whether it [the 0.085 percent] is big enough, I leave it to [the public] to contemplate,” said Lin, adding that “it is just a simple ranking that only includes the six gaming operators in Macau. They already completed their legal responsibilities. Even if they had donated just one cent, it would still be worth a compliment.”
According to Lin, the study excluded other casinos due to difficulties in collecting data.
He also remarked that the six gaming operators do not have similar performance in terms of donations.
Furthermore, all six donated to three of the city’s traditional charitable organizations or funds: Tong Sin Tong, Macao Holy House of Mercy and the Macau Daily News readers’ charity fund.
“We listed three traditional donation recipients. However, this does not mean that these three receive more donations,” Lin said, hoping to provide clarification in view of the misunderstanding that was caused after their report was published.
“The three have a donation relationship with all gaming operators,”said Lin.
When talking about these donations’ whereabouts, Lin told the Times that “they can’t be surveyed” because of inherent difficulties.
“The casinos’ financial reports only address the areas and regions where the donations went to. Moreover, recipients will not come out to disclose how much they have received unless they organize press conferences,” said Lin, noting “it is beyond doubt that the main donations are made to Macau local groups.”
While summarizing the funding, Lin suggested that casinos increase the scale and transparency of donations, and number of regions targeted. It is also proposed that the SAR government pay attention to casino donations.
“We have to test beneficial results. They have donated so much money, yet we have not assessed the beneficial results,” said Lin, stating that the outcomes of the use of donated money and the casinos’ image following donations should be surveyed.
During the aforementioned period, casino donations mainly went to the education, research sectors, social welfare, environmental protection, culture and arts, sports, and disaster relief.
“[Donations] went to schools, local and mainland ones, such as Hope Primary School [under a Chinese public project called Project Hope]. Regarding science research groups, [donations were made to] the Peking University research lab [Peking University School of Life Sciences Building] and to the Asia-Pacific Academy of Economics and Management of UM,” said Lin.
In Lin’s opinion, casinos should also consider additional donation methods besides simply giving money.
“For instance, regarding shops and properties [that gaming operators developed], the gaming operators could consider [lending] a part of their shops to the SMEs and cultural entities for their development. […] Through proper mechanisms, gaming operators could collaborate with the state’s strategy, and participate in the state’s development. […] It might not be appropriate for casinos [to do it as a company] but it is good for individual businessmen to donate to mainland China [in their personal names]. […] They could donate to mainland China’s fund, or they could establish their own funds,” Lin suggested, adding that “through the Macau government’s poverty alleviation project with Guizhou, gaming operators could even hire workers [from Guizhou] through employment agencies. It’s helpful for the state’s poverty alleviation, and it is also good for the company itself.”
In addition, Lin told the Times that casinos ought to have a specific department for managing donation matters.
No Comments