‘Pay to help’ is a new trend which could change the future of volunteering

Volunteering is a popular way for people to give something back to society. Whether it’s joining a tree-planting group, or helping out at a charity shop, spending time contributing to a cause is something valued by almost a billion^[1] people across the world.

Some businesses have picked up on this^[2] in a positive way, by allowing staff to take paid time away from their jobs to volunteer. And research suggests that doing so makes those firms more attractive employers^[3], with happier employees^[4].

But in a surprising new trend, some non-profit organisations have started charging companies for access to their volunteering programmes.

Usually this “pay-to-volunteer” approach involves non-profits setting a fee for companies to send groups of employees to lend a hand. And although there are no official statistics available about how widespread this is, we found plenty of examples in the UK, the US and Australia.

For instance, one Australian non-profit organisation we looked at charges businesses AU$600 (£302) for three employees to volunteer for a day stacking shelves and serving customers in a food bank.

Another charges AU$1200 (£605) for up to ten volunteering employees to pack grocery boxes, and a similar fee for up to five people to distribute food to communities in a minibus. A third invoices AU$130 (£65) per person for a shift making meals for people who struggle to afford food.

This kind of arrangement could redefine the traditional relationship between corporations and charitable organisations. So why switch to such a potentially disruptive model?

Our research^[5] on some Australian examples suggests that it come down to how much a particular non-profit organisation prioritises the transactional value of volunteering arrangements with businesses.

They might argue that charging a fee generates revenue, which helps to cover the costs of running volunteer programmes, as well as funding the organisation itself. They may also believe that any fees can be justified by the numerous benefits volunteering can bring^[6] to the companies which choose to pay them. These include enhanced employee morale and engagement, as well as the associated effects on the company’s image and reputation.

By contrast, the non-profits who reject the idea of charging companies tend to be more interested in the symbolic value of volunteering. They would argue that a cost to access volunteering contradicts the selfless spirit of the whole exercise.

For our research into the trend, we focused on the “food rescue” sector – non-profits dedicated to distributing usable but surplus and unsold food to those in need. One of the non-profit executives we spoke to stressed that volunteering should be “time given at no cost”.

He added: “I just think the people who are charging organisations to come in to their operations are short-sighted and completely missing the point.

"The opportunity is to build a relationship [with a business] and then understand where the best value can be driven from that relationship. It is not presenting an invoice as people walk out the door.”

Others raised concerns that the “pay to help” model creates a two-tier system which depends entirely on a firm’s financial capacity. This could alienate and exclude smaller businesses unable to meet these costs.

We also heard concerns voiced about implications for the future of the volunteering sector as a whole. If paying to volunteer becomes widespread, will it increase or reduce the overall volunteer base?

Another manager we spoke to said the idea of paying to volunteer risked undermining the experience of corporate volunteering, as fees might bring unhelpful expectations. Would knowing that their volunteering activity was being paid for lead to some employees expecting privileges or certain outcomes for example, altering the dynamic between them and the people they are supposed to be helping?

It was also suggested that non-profits might feel obliged to ensure the satisfaction of their fee-paying corporate volunteers, to the detriment of the charitable work they are doing.

There are implications for non-paying volunteers too. The presence of volunteers whose employers are paying for them to be there might diminish the meaning of volunteering work more generally.

So without fully engaging with these questions, non-profits should approach this new model of charging for volunteers with caution. Introducing a financial component may dampen employees’ enthusiasm and lead to companies reducing their volunteering projects. It could even change people’s overall perception of non-profits more generally, affecting the support – and donations – they may rely upon.

References

1. ^{^} almost a billion (www.unv.org)
2. ^{^} picked up on this (journals.aom.org)
3. ^{^} attractive employers (www.emerald.com)
4. ^{^} happier employees (www.emerald.com)
5. ^{^} Our research (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
6. ^{^} volunteering can bring (hbr.org)
7. ^{^} maxim ibragimov/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)