- 1 Definitions and Scope
- 2 Desired Impact for Student Involvement
- 3 Needs of Student Involvement
- 4 Research on Millennials Doing Good by Republic Polytechnic’s Diploma in Social Enterprise Management
- 5 Resource Directory
Definitions and Scope
Target Population: Students
The size of student involvement in the social sector is substantial and we see scope to improve their experience and involvement.
Millennials: This group straddles both schooling and working worlds but we focus specifically on those in schools. Broadly defined, the millennials refer to those born between the early 1980s to early 2000s and the birth dates vary between countries. As a group, they represent a shift in generational mind set from that of scepticism in Generation X to one that is more “free-spirited, flexible and open-minded.” This signals a change in the way this group is being engaged for commercial and social good. Stakeholders such as companies, non-profit organizations and schools are considering ways to engage them better. A sizeable number can be found in tertiary institutions such as polytechnics, junior colleges, institute of technical education and universities.
Homelanders: Many in this generation are primary and secondary school students.
Size of the Asset
We can infer that about 400,000 youths aged 15-34 contribute their time voluntarily to social causes amounting to about 100 million hours in a year.
Younger millennials aged 15-24 comprises about 200,000 youths contributing about 49 million hours a year on non-compulsory community projects, a third of which goes to school or work-related involvement.
Statistics derived from Department of Statistics data in 2010 and estimates from the National Youth Council Report 2014 and National Volunteer Philanthropy 2017 report on youth involvement in community projects/volunteerism.
Desired Impact for Student Involvement
Ability to be involved in community or social projects in a meaningful and engaged manner.
Needs of Student Involvement
Need for student involvement to be relevant to beneficiary needs
List of capacity builders in and outside of schools that surface unmet needs for school students to work on.
- Lien Centre for Social Innovation Unmet Needs Report - Centre for Social Responsibility in SMU - Service Learning Club in Republic Polytechnic - Community Service Club in Nanyang Polytechnic - Leo Club in Nanyang Polytechnic - Environment Club in Singapore Polytechnic - Leo Club in Singapore Polytechnic - Welfare Services Club in Singapore Polytechnic - KIDS-READ Service Learning Community Service CCA in Ngee Ann Polytechnic
Gaps and Their Causes
In a study by Republic Polytechnic involving over 400 tertiary-level millennials, most (54.15%) strongly agree that society should help the unfortunate but are not as convinced on an individual level (34.17%) or with the role of social enterprise (24.2%) and charity (26.67%).
Bring students closer to the problem: Create a central repository of defined unmet needs and an open invitation for students to work on.
Gaps and Their Causes
Avenues for millennials to express their preference in choice of cause or forms of engagement are limited.
In a study by Republic Polytechnic involving over 400 tertiary-level millennials, students express interest in varied forms of engagement. Students do not necessarily seek novelty in their forms of social or financial engagement with social causes. When provided with a scenario of available free time to volunteer on a preferred social cause, at least a third of students don’t mind doing anything the organisation asks them to do.
When provided with a scenario of available financial resources to spend on a preferred social cause, most of them, about 40% cited preference to donate followed by starting a project (34%) and buying something to support the issue (24%).
Possible Solutions There is diversity in preferences and serve as a possible basis to gamify their experience.
Need for capacity builders to be relevant to student needs
Final year projects
Competitions Youth Entrepreneurship Competition 2014, 2015 & 2016 by Singapore Discovery Centre - Crossfire Charity Championship by Singapore Discovery Centre – Solve for Tomorrow 2014 by Samsung - Social Venture Challenge 2014, 2015 & 2016 organised by NUS Enterprise and DBS Foundation - Social Innovation Relay by Junior Achievement – Enactus Singapore National Competition 2003 – 2017- Ideasinc by Nanyang Technological University - CDL-GCNS Young CSR Leaders Award - D-Prize Social Venture Competition - Citi-YMCA Youth for Causes Competition - Social Innovators Hack! by UP Singapore in collaboration with Social Innovation Park and HPE Helion- Youth Innovation Challenge 2017 organised by SMU’s Institute of Innovation & Entrepreneurship - Lee Kuan Yew Global Business Plan Competition(LKYGBPC)- SICC-SMU Eureka! Prize – Social Entrepreneurship Challenge - ICE Challenge 2016 – National Social Enterprise Challenge 2017.
Gaps and Their Causes In a poll of over 200 students in Republic Polytechnic, most students cited willingness to implement innovative social projects in schools. When asked what form of support the school could provide to spur participation, students cited time, flexibility in school curriculum and transport, aside from grants and financial support.
Research on Millennials Doing Good by Republic Polytechnic’s Diploma in Social Enterprise Management
Brief on Data Gathering Method
The study was conducted as part of a module on fundamentals of social research methods led and supervised by Diploma in Social Enterprise Management lecturer Sharifah Mohamed and conducted in consultation with Justin Lee, research fellow from the Institute of Policy Studies. It was conducted in March-August 2017 and it was done in two parts:
Research Part 1
This part of the study seeks to understand millennials’ perspectives and inclination in doing good. Most of the questions in the survey are derived from existing studies or reports on youths’ giving, volunteerism and ethical consumerism so that there is a basis for cross-comparison.
Students co-led the data collection exercise using online questionnaire Qualtrics. Data was collected in different stages. Between 5th and 15th May 2017, as part of a class exercise, students collected the data in Republic Polytechnic based on clusters. In order to minimise bias and ensure responses in the sample, students surveyed fellow RP students in person based on clusters of buildings and levels. This was to ensure diversity in the academic disciplines. 309 valid responses were collected. Between 14 July and 4th August 2017, the students resumed data collection by asking their friends and contacts studying in other tertiary institutions to help do the survey. 102 responses came from other tertiary institutions while another 29 responses came from Republic Polytechnic. 5 responses did not indicate their tertiary institutions but they fall within the age group 19-24.
A total of 445 valid responses were collected.
Due to limitations in reach, 77% of the sample comprises of Republic Polytechnic students while the remaining 23% comes from other tertiary institutions such as institutes of technical education, other polytechnics, and universities. There is an over-representation of those in the age group 15-19 (67%), followed by those in the 20-24 age group (30%), those in the 25-29 age group (3%) and above 30 (0.22%). The sample was 44% male and 56% female. For their course of study, 10% computer, 8% communication, 19% business, 9% science, 17% Engineering, 9% Sports, 12% Arts, 17% Hospitality.
Research Part 2
Part 2 is designed to be a participatory action research where students become part of the process in seeking to improve service learning and community involvement in schools.
As part of class learning, students conducted desktop research looking up information on service learning programmes and activities in different tertiary institutions in Singapore. They derived five common types of involvement- befriender, creator, doer, organiser, trainer.
Students also conducted desktop research by looking at various established social innovation and social entrepreneurship websites such as Ashoka, Scholl, Schwab and Social Innovation Exchange, amongst others. The intention behind this was to identify stretch factors; examples of social projects which they feel youths in Singapore can implement. These examples were then shortlisted and compiled as a basis for students to conduct a social innovation exercise with a wider student population in RP on 24th and 28th July.
Students also use this information as a basis with which to elicit other students’ perceptions of service learning programs; to see what millennials’ perception of current realities are and to identify what could be their possible desired realities in conducting social projects in schools.
A total of 234 responses were collected.
The focus is on younger millennials since the survey is conducted amongst millennials from tertiary institutions.
The findings are to be treated as indicators rather than conclusive representation of the tertiary millennials as a group.
The research seeks to provide a snapshot of students’ perceptions on a broad range of issues related to doing good rather than an in-depth investigation of a particular area.
1) At a glance, Singapore millennials see themselves as achievement-oriented, free, fun, wild, the future, happy, contented, open-minded, friendships, havoc, sian, tired...
From research part 2: Students asked random students in Republic Polytechnic the following question: How would you describe youths your age? Use one word.
2) Not the highest in rate of volunteerism, but absolute involvement in social sector is large (therefore they ought to be taken seriously)
From desktop research in part 2: The size of millennial involvement in the social sector is substantial.
Based on the latest figures from the Department of Statistics (2010), there are 1,082,266 youths aged between 15 and 34 years old in Singapore. A nationwide survey conducted in 2013 by the National Youth Council on youths age 15-34 indicated a volunteerism rate of 30 percent when conducted strictly outside of school or work. Taking a conservative figure of 30 percent, this leads to about 324,680 youths contributing the mid-point of 5 hours per week to community work. The survey shows that 2 percent claims involvement at more than 10 hours per week while the other 28% contributes less than 10 hours.
We can then infer that about 400,000 youths contribute their time voluntarily to social causes amounting to about 100 million hours in a year.
How about the younger millennials specifically?
The Individual Giving Survey (IGS) 2016 conducted by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre shows that the 15 to 24-year-old age group has the third highest volunteerism rate (41%), after 45 to 54-year-olds (43%) and 35 to 44-year-olds (48%).
Based on the latest figures (2010) from the Department of Statistics, there are 510, 940 youths aged between 15 and 24 years old in Singapore. Inferring from an Individual Giving Survey by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) in 2016, about 40 percent can be said to serve as volunteers (excluding community involvement hours but not excluding the hours that exceed the requirements). A mid-point of 5 hours contribution per week (total of 48 weeks in a year) to community work can be derived from a separate survey by the National Youth Council in 2012. The latter survey indicated a lower volunteerism rate of 30 percent when strictly conducted outside of school or work.
We can then infer that about 200,000 youths aged 15-24 contributed about 49 million hours a year on non-compulsory community projects, a third of which goes to school or work-related involvement. Assuming a rate of$7 per hour, younger millennials’ involvement is equivalent to $343 million dollars.
In schools, depending on the respective institutions’ involvement, the hours invested can be as high as half a million hours per year (80 community hours per student in Singapore Management University multiplied by an estimated 20,000 student enrolment). This is for just one tertiary institution.
In 2010, it was reported that student-led initiatives from the 4 universities and 5 polytechnics netted 1.2 million dollars for charity causes.
Based on published data, most of the involvement is in causes related to elderly, lower income youths, disabled and the environment.
3) Personal obligation for social issues high but more convinced that society at large is also responsible.
From survey in research part 1: On a 4 point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, we posed statements representing one’s attitude towards helping or charity. The statements are taken from Webb et. al. (2000):
In general, less than 7% disagree/strongly disagree with the statements on helping.
1. Helping troubled people with their problems is very important to me. (personal)34.2% strongly agree
2. People in need should receive support from others. (social)49.2% strongly agree
3. People should be more giving to others in society. (social) 49.9% strongly agree
4. People should be willing to help others who are less fortunate. (social)54.1% strongly agree
4) Millennials drawn to animal issues, amongst others, but animal causes don’t feature prominently in schools.
From survey in research part 1, we posed a question to millennials about which social issue(s) they are most concerned about. The categories of social causes are derived from the Handbook of Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts. Below are the findings:
Animal Welfare: 20.7%
Arts and Culture: 10.5%
Health and Wellbeing: 18.0%
Needy Groups in Singapore: 19.9%
Needy Groups outside of Singapore: 9.2%
5) Millennial knowledge of organisations that work on social causes is narrow, more on animal-related organisations.
From survey in research part 1, we posed an open-ended question to millennials based on how they prefer to spend on a social cause of their choice i.e. buy something, donate, or start a project.
For those who prefer to buy something to support a social cause (95 responses), we asked them to name a social enterprise based on the definition that social enterprise is a business that supports a social cause. 52.4% said they don’t know. Of the remaining 47.6% who said they know, most of them cited Eighteen Chefs, followed by World Wildlife Federation and SPCA.
For those who prefer to donate to the cause (170 responses), we asked them to name a charity they would be willing to donate to. 39.4% said they don’t know. Of the remaining 60.6% who said they know, most cited SPCA, followed by Salvation Army, Make a Wish Foundation and Singapore Children’s Society.
For those who prefer to start a project to address this issue (135 responses), we asked them to name a social project or organisation that they think is good. 43.7% said they don’t know. Of the 56.3% who said they knew, most cited SPCA, followed by MINDS, SAVH and Children Cancer Society.
6) When social cause is introduced into consumer behaviour, there is generally low tolerance with the inconvenience but between genders, girls are more amenable.
From survey in research part 1, on a 4 point scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree, we posed statements representing positive motivators in ethical consumption. Millennials generally agree that social enterprise plays a useful role in society:
It would help if people bought from firms that would address a social issue: 24.4% strongly agree
0.2% strongly disagree
People who matter to me would respect me for being concerned about a social issue 27.3% strongly agree
1.8% strongly disagree
From survey in research part 1, on a 4 point scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree, we posed statements representing negative personal motivators in ethical consumption. The statements show push factors in ethical consumption. If respondents disagree with them, then it shows their willingness to put up with the inconvenience.
In general, more millennials are willing to avoid businesses that violate a social issue (34%)as compared to supporting businesses that support a social issue (16, 29%).
It would make shopping less convenient if I had to choose only from products that support a social issue. 3.72%(F) vs. 1.05%(M) strongly disagree; 26.45%(F) vs. 24.61%(M) disagree.
It would take the pleasure out of shopping if I had to choose only from products that support a social issue. 4.94%(F) vs. 3.19%(M) strongly disagree; 25.10%(F) vs. 23.90%(M) disagree.
It would be too much hassle to buy only from businesses that do not violate a social issue. 4.94%(F) vs. 4.69%(M) strongly disagree; 31.28% (F) vs. 26.04%(M) disagree. *significant
7) Quality, functionality, and to a certain extent, design, are important millennial considerations for social enterprise products.
From survey in research part one, out of the 94 respondents (23.8%) who chose buying a product as the preferred form of financial support, we posed questions on factors against buying.
Which reason below will most likely stop you from buying in support of the issue? Bad quality: 40.4%
Bad design: 8.5%
Bad service: 26.6%
Too common: 10.6%
Doesn’t matter to me: 13.8%
In the same survey, we posed questions on products they are most likely to buy.
Which type of product below are you most likely to buy in support of the issue? Health products: 8.5%
Handicrafts (e.g. stationery, notebooks etc.): 6.4%
Doesn’t matter as long as I can use for myself: 22.3%
Doesn’t matter as long as I can buy it for somebody: 22.3%
In research part 2, the students conducted a social experiment to test what factors matter in the appeal of a social enterprise product for millennials. Millennials were invited to a lucky dip for a chance to win a social enterprise product (budget range $2.50-$3.00). Depending on the tabs they drew, millennial will be led to one of two booths (one booth actively promotes the social cause of non-food products while the other booth just highlights the functions.) The range of products displayed at the two booths is kept similar to each other. The product offered at each booth comprises half food products (repackaged sweets or nuts), handicrafts (hand sewn pouches, hand painted fridge magnets, post it notes) and generic items (bookmarks, keychains). We also threw in products that seem visibly of poor quality and bought at a cheaper price of 50 cents each to see if millennials will still go for those products.
We found that the food products were the faster moving items of the shelves regardless if social cause is being promoted. In addition, millennials don’t mind selecting poorer quality products as long as it serves a function. Hand-painted magnets (of a poorer quality) were not selected.
8) Think positively of charities in general but less convinced of their effectiveness.
From survey in research part 1: On a 4 point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, we posed statements representing one’s attitude towards helping or charity. The statements are taken from Webb et. al. (2000):
In general, less than 12% disagree/strongly disagree with statements on the positive role of charity.
The money given to charities goes for good causes. 36.0% strongly agree.
Charitable organizations perform a useful function for society. 26.7% strongly agree.
My image of charitable organizations is positive. 21.8% strongly agree.
Charitable organizations have been quite successful in helping the needy. 17.0% strongly agree.
9) Show preference in working with charities, followed by social enterprises, public agencies/grassroots and corporate social responsibility departments.
From the survey in research part 2, we asked students which kind of organisation below would they most likely want to be involved with: Charities: 45%
Social Enterprises: 29%
Corporate Social Responsibility departments: 9% Foundations: 7%
Public agencies, community or grassroots groups: 10%
10) When it comes to donating, transparency and accountability matters; followed by getting an experience.
From survey in research part one, out of the 169 respondents (42.5%) who chose donating as the preferred form of financial support, we posed questions on factors for and against giving.
Which statement below is your most preferred form of donation in support of an issue? Donate to the issue when approached by strangers: 7.1%
Donate to the issue when approached by family or friends: 8.3%
Donate the issue only when I know what the money is being used for: 66.9%
Donate to the issue and get an experience at the same time (carnival, apps, games): 16%
Others (Explain how else you would donate): 1.8%
Which reason will most likely stop you from donating in support of the issue? Don’t like the way requests are made: 13.6%
Don’t know where to donate at: 7.1%
Don’t know what the money is used for: 50.9%
Money will not be used well: 24.3%
Doesn’t matter to me: 4.1%
11) Assuming they have time to volunteer, most prefer to offer skills, labour, promotional efforts, less so leading discussions.
From survey in research part 1, we asked youth to imagine, if they have the time to volunteer for the social issue(s) of they chose, which one of the following activities will they most likely do. Here are the results:
Do whatever is needed of me (e.g. distribute flyers, clean shelters): 29.2%
Do only tasks that fit my skillsets (e.g. tuition, singing, accounting, website): 27.6%
Get support from others (e.g. raise money, volunteers): 30.1%
Start discussions to raise awareness (e.g. forum, petition) 13.01%
The four categories are derived by looking at the range of volunteering activities available on National Volunteer Philanthropy Centre.
12) Assuming they have money to spend on the social cause, most chose donation, followed by action and subsequently purchase of product.
From survey in research part 1, we asked millennials to imagine they have enough money every month to spend on the social issues they support and we asked to them to choose which of the three ways will they do it:
First choice Buy something to support the issue: 23.8%
Donate to the issue: 42.5%
Start a project to address the issue: 33.8%
Second Choice Buy something to support the issue: 45.7%
Donate to the issue: 35.2%
Start a project to address the issue: 19.0%
13) For those interested in starting social projects given financial means, two out of three want to establish new organisations.
From survey in research part one, out of the 134 respondents (33.8%) who chose starting a project as the preferred form of financial support, we posed questions on preferred scope and model for the project.
What is the ideal scope of your project? Short term (less than a year): 60.4%
Long term (more than a year): 39.6%
What is the most ideal model for your project in addressing the social issue? New organisation that is non-profit: 38.1%
New organisation that is profit-making: 26.1%
As part of an established organisation: 35.8%
14) Given a choice, millennials would like to take on more of a creator role.
From survey in research part 2: A quick search on school websites show that common activities include youths playing supporting roles such as collecting of donations on flag days, distribution of goods, accompaniment of beneficiaries to places of interests or organisation of small games and activities for the beneficiaries. Typically, the involvement does not take more than a day. Community service groups, community service club and service learning programmes are the various platforms offered in schools to conduct these activities. Social engagement can also take the form of academic assignments such as final year projects and assignments. The following five engagements can be derived based on these examples:
Befriender Offers companionship to beneficiary (e.g. visit elderly at old folk’s home and do simple games for them)
Creator Create new programmes or devices to meet needs (e.g. understand elderly needs and create new programmes or assistive tools for elderly)
Doer Do what is needed by the organisation (e.g. FlagDay, flat clean up)
Organiser Organise events based on students’ choice of theme (e.g. organise carnivals to raise funds for elderly)
Trainer Conduct workshops based on existing skillsets (e.g. guiding elderly to use Facebook)
We posed three questions to students:
1. Which type of engagement do you see offered to you most often in school? 31.6% Befriender| 12% Creator | 28.6% Doer | 21.8% Organiser| 6% Trainer
2. Reflect on your own experience. Which type of engagement have you been involved in most often? 31.6% Befriender|12% Creator| 19.7% Doer | 29.5% Organiser | 7.3% Trainer
3. If you have the freedom to choose, which type of engagement would you rather be involved as? 31.2% Befriender| 28.6% Creator|15% Doer| 11.5% Organiser| 13.7%Trainer
15) Besides financial support, millennials cite transportation and academic incentives as some of the factors that schools can support them in coming up with socially innovative projects. In research part 2, millennials were provided examples of social innovation projects worldwide and were asked if they would like to start and drive these projects as part of school involvement.
32% said no, some of the reasons given was that they have no time, not interested or that they would rather participate as a follower rather than lead the projects.
68% said yes. When asked in an open-ended question what kind of support they would need, most cited financial support, followed by incentives such as academic points, transport, time away from modules, training, opportunities and emotional support.
We asked students what factors below will affect their desire to be involved in social projects?
Don’t know how to start: 55%
Fear of working with unfamiliar people: 45%
Fear of working with unfamiliar issues: 46%
Lack of convenient transportation: 29%
Lack of time given demands of school, work and family: 38%
Lack of academic incentives: 25%
Inability to choose a social cause I identify with: 12%
Inability to choose a charity I support: 12%
In research part 1, millennials who indicated a preference to start social projects given financial means (n=134) were asked which factor would most likely hinder implementation, the following are their responses:
Don’t know how to start: 32.84%
Working with unfamiliar issues: 8.96%
Working with unfamiliar people: 5.97%
Lack of convenient transportation: 3.73%
Lack of time given demands of school, work and family: 39.55%
Doesn’t matter to me: 8.96%
Related to Giving and Monetary Donations
Webb, D.J., Green, C.L. & Brashear, T.G. J. Development and validation scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. (2000) 28: 299. doi:10.1177/0092070300282010 http://www.academia.edu/3398754/Development_and_validation_of_scales_to_measure_attitudes_influencing_monetary_donations_to_charitable_organizations
A study in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science by Webb et al states that “attitude towards helping others” involves the principles and standards of an individual and the actions the said individual takes to help others. This concept is based in marketing and psychology.
A method to determine attitudes towards helping others (AHO) and attitudes toward charitable organisations (ACO) was developed by Webb et. al. . In their study, they first gave specific meanings for these attitudes and created 78 items from those meanings to measure said attitudes. They then had 3 expert judges to code each item based on the meanings. The 25 items that were coded identically by at least two of the judges were kept and 14 were eliminated. As for the 39 items left, the judges decided that they were reasons for people to give altruistically.
The suitability of the items was tested again by three other judges who rated them as “clearly representative,” “somewhat representative,” or “not representative”, and only items rated clearly or somewhat representative were kept. In the end, 7 items were allocated to AHO and ACO each (totalling 14 items for both) and were randomly arranged in a questionnaire along with 35 motive items. To measure this AHO, people were asked how much they agreed with the following statements: “People should be willing to help others who are less fortunate”, “Helping troubled people with their problems is very important to me”, “People should be more charitable toward others in society”, and “People in need should receive support from others”.
Caroline Urbain, Christine Gonzalez and Marine Le Gall-Ely. What does the future hold for giving? An approach using the social representations of Generation Y. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 18: 159–171 (2013) Published online 22 October 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.1448 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260283264_What_Does_the_Future_Hold_for_Giving_An_Approach_Using_the_Social_Representations_of_Generation_Y
According to an article by Caroline Urbain, Christine Gonzalez and Marine Le Gall-Ely on giving in France, Gen Y prefers to volunteer for causes that they believe in; and in ways that allow them to mingle with others, feel unique yet unified, and feel free. They avoid giving charity because doing so does not let them share with others. They are also more likely to volunteer if they can feel good, have fun, and do work well in the process.
Related to Ethical Purchase
Oliver M., F., & Peter J., M. (2008). Motivations of the Ethical Consumer. Journal Of Business Ethics, (4), 445. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9409-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-007-9409-1
Oliver Freestone and Peter McGoldrick developed a measure to quantify the degree of awareness, concern, and action that consumers had regarding ethical issues through understanding their motivations. Freestone and McGoldrick used the decision balance scale (DBS) and stages of change (SOC) model and understood the motivations of respondents in their study by finding the rate of their agreement with 19 statements: 1. It would help if people bought from firms that address this issue 2. It would be better for everyone in the long run if people favoured products that address this issue 3. I feel better about myself if I take some form of action against firms that violate this issue 4. I feel more responsible if I favour products that address this issue 5. People could make fairer choices if they were aware of which companies had high ethical principles regarding this issue 6. Society would benefit from the removal of products that violate this issue 7. This is an issue that I like to be associated with 8. People who matter to me would respect me for being concerned about this issue 9. My friends are concerned about this issue 10. Having to take account of this issue would make shopping less convenient for people 11. It would make shopping less convenient if I had to choose only from products that support this issue 12. People’s choices would be unreasonably restricted by the removal of products that disregard this issue 13. It would take the pleasure out of shopping if I had to choose only from products that support this issue 14. People would be annoyed if they were pressured into being concerned with this issue 15. People are too busy today to be concerned with this issue 16. People might think it was a waste of time to try to influence big business over this issue 17. It would be too much hassle to buy only from businesses that do not violate this issue 18. My friends would think it was uncool to be concerned with this issue 19. It costs more to take account of this issue when shopping
The first 9 statements evaluate positive motivations while the other 10 evaluate negative motivations.
Tania, B., Jennifer, H., & Denni, A. (2012). Ethical Consumers Among the Millennials: A Cross-National Study. Journal Of Business Ethics, (1), 113. http://www.academia.edu/27285925/Ethical_Consumers_Among_the_Millennials_A_Cross-National_Study
Tania Bucic, Jennifer Harris, and Denni Arli adopted this method as well as the Webb et al four-item, seven-point scale to study millennials in Australia and Indonesia, using 13 of the 19 statements.
Tania et. al. identified three consumption clusters: committed, reserved and the indifferent amongst millennials with regards to cause-related purchase. For those who are current and potential consumers, social positive levers such that consumers are intrinsically motivated to make a positive change to the world, are strongest.
They found that millennials who expressed agreement with social and personal positive motivation statements increase significantly with the stage of awareness and concern.
Related to Millennials in Singapore
National Youth Council, 2014, YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014, National Youth Council, https://www.nyc.gov.sg/images/initiatives/resource/nys/NYS2013StatsHandbook.pdf.
Though it is not widely or clearly known how the students perceive their role in these social activities, some indicators are available. According to the National Youth Council report 2013, being actively involved in local volunteer work does not figure highly in most youth’s prioritisation of life goals. Only 12 percent indicated that it is “very important” to them. However, when couched in ways that are independent of the organisation (to help the less fortunate, to contribute to society) a higher percentage of 41 percent and 39 percent respectively find them very important. The 2013 National Youth Survey shows that the older the age group, the smaller the proportion of people who commit to social activities and take on leadership roles. To illustrate, the percentage of 15 to 19-year-old youths who were involved in social groups in 2013 was 81%, which is almost twice as much compared to 57% of 30 to 34-year-olds. Similarly, the percentage of those involved in leadership positions for these two age groups are 40% and 18% respectively.
15 to 19-year-old group has the largest percentage of those who do volunteer work and/or community projects – 36% as compared to the 30 to 34-year-old group’s 26%. Of this 36%, 3% spend more than 10 hours on these activities per week.
National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre, 2017, Individual Giving Survey 2016, https://www.nvpc.org.sg/documents/20181/30326/IGS_2016_Full_Deck_170317.pdf/b4fe1dee-dbd5-48a2-9b19-c08007cd45cd
The Individual Giving Survey (IGS) 2016 states that the 15 to 24-year-old age group has the third highest volunteerism rate (41%), after 45 to 54-year-olds (43%) and 35 to 44-year-olds (48%). The volunteerism rate among 15 to 24-year-olds stayed about the same from 2004 to 2008 (between 23% and 28%), before increasing dramatically to 36% in 2010 and 43% in 2012. It then decreased back to the 2004 rate of 25% in 2014, and had an even greater increase to 41% in 2016. Currently the popular causes that are being supported by both volunteers and donors would be elderly and children. Children are defined as those that are lower than 15 years of age. Other than these two causes being the most popular, it should be noted that niche causes like green efforts, arts and animal care have also gained in popularity from 2014 to 2016.
[insert organization name]
Insert web link
[insert organization name]
Insert web link