)
)
Talk given by Jurgen Grotz PhD in the International Society for Third Sector Research’s ‘Research on Volunteering Webinar Series’, 28 May 2026.
[As delivered.]
Good afternoon from a very hot London.
Thank you Beth and Megan for setting this up and thank you to Karin and Ksenja for inviting me to speak in the ‘ISTR’s Research on Volunteering Webinar Series’. I know Ksenija cannot be here, but I want to thank her all the same. And thank you all for taking the time. I am delighted to see so many familiar faces and so many new ones. It’s a privilege to be here.
Rather than presenting results from a specific piece of research, I want to share some thoughts about the major, yet not fully recognised, role of volunteer involvement in democratic societies. I will be using publicly available resources only.
I am deeply troubled about the loss of democratic standards. I am a German living in London for the last 35 years and I watch what is going on in the UK and in Germany with increasing alarm.
And here comes the bit why Ksenja said this talk might be a bit spicy and why Karin was wondering about democracies’ blind spots.
When considering the role of volunteer involvement in democratic societies, I think we as an academic community researching volunteer involvement do have a big blind spot, and that’s a problem. I think those of us researching and working in volunteer involvement bear some responsibility for the loss of democratic standards we are witnessing. Or at least we have dropped the ball by not better understanding the role of volunteering in democratic societies. In this presentation I will set out how and why we should change that. I will make two crucial yet disturbing links for us to consider. Those I will summarise in three provocations at the end.
Because the links I will present and the provocations I will offer are potentially upsetting, I want to preface my remarks by expressing my genuine appreciation of the work of all those who seek to involve volunteers in a respectful way and those of you who seek to understand how this might be done even better. Please do not see what I will say as a criticism of you, but for what it is, a call to change, for important reasons I will explain.
Like Andrea Bassi, who spoke about net activism at the last seminar, the Institute I lead, and I, have been around the block a few times.
At the Institute, we recently celebrated our 25th anniversary as probably the oldest Institute dedicated solely to research into volunteering worldwide. We have a wide remit, extending from theory building to research, and consultancies supporting policy and practice.
In the late 1990s, the Institute for Volunteering Research, IVR in short, now at the University of East Anglia, was at the centre of developing how volunteering is framed today as a potentially good experience of service. For example, at IVR we evaluated the first International Year of Volunteers 2001 and led the discussions on evaluating volunteering impact, having published the first edition of the Volunteer Impact Assessment Toolkit in 2005.
In the last decades of the 20th century, commentators cherry-picked some of Alexis de Tocqueville’s 19th-century observations on the American volunteer spirit. I found this Radio Address to the Nation on Voluntarism nearly exactly 40 years ago to the day in 1986, by the then-President Ronald Reagan.
“The Americans,'' he wrote, ``make associations to found seminaries, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the ends of the Earth.'' In large part because of this concern for their fellow men that he saw in the American people, de Tocqueville concluded that America is great, because she is good on American Democracy” Read more
The construct that was then put together in the 1990s was a long way from the idea that self-determined volunteering, notably without governments, was an evolutionary advantage presented by the anarchist Kropotkin in his book ‘Mutual Aid’ in 1902 and also a big departure from the social reformer Beveridge’s 1948 framing of volunteering as “private action not under the authority wielding the power of the State”. Further elements have since been added to the 1990s framing, for example, Stebbins and Graham speak of volunteering as leisure and the leisure of volunteering in 2004.
However, the key to the 1990s framing lies in presenting volunteering as unquestioningly beneficial, indeed encapsulating benefit in that definition. This, in turn, has led to continuously and unquestioningly promoting volunteering through a system of government-supported infrastructure and delivery organisations often enough referred to as a ‘Sector’. Together, we have amassed a mountain of evidence that this is a good idea. But we rarely looked the other way.
About ten, fifteen years ago, I started to argue that we need to frame volunteering a bit differently. I said things like there is no such thing as a ‘Sector’, ‘volunteering can be dangerous’, and I pointed out the ‘benefit fallacy’. I did that with the then academic advisor to IVR and my now sadly missed mentor, Colin Rochester. Colin’s critique focused on ways support for volunteer involvement has been increasingly promoted by self-interested, money-making agencies. He described this volunteering infrastructure as an ‘Industry’ treating volunteers as unpaid labour. It is fair to say that critiquing the 1990s construct has shifted first Colin, then me and perhaps now IVR out of the centre of the debate. Our critique is less than universally welcomed because it is seen to weaken the cause of volunteering as a free resource and challenges those who profit from promoting the construct. In polite terms, we encountered more than a little reluctance to reframe volunteering as agentic and complex rather than as a low-cost source to be tapped.
Of course, the complex international debates have been anything but static, and Colin and I were not the only ones putting forward different narratives. In 2000, Robert Putnam reminded us that the Ku Klux Klan is a voluntary organisation. David Horton Smith, also in 2000, described deviance as part of volunteer involvement, including ‘cults’ and ‘criminal gangs’. Notably, both scholars are American. However, there are, of course, many more offering a breadth of available thinking. This can be illustrated through the stark differences between the State of the World’s Volunteering Reports. The clues lie in their titles.
I was involved in writing the 2011 and 2022 reports, but I can affirm that all of these reports are highly politicised. I strongly recommend that we critically review and compare them. Over-simplifying here, some present volunteers as a powerful societal force shaping democratic societies so that volunteers are seen to have agency and be in power. Others look at volunteers mainly as unpaid labour and an economic resource used to deliver goals set by those in power, leaving volunteers with less agency. The narrative in the latest report, dominated by the International Labour Organisation, unsurprisingly frames volunteering as ‘volunteer work’.
Meta you might recognise the content of the next slide.
“For the Commission's respondents, who approached the subject from very different perspectives and on the basis of very different experiences, government's interest in and 'promotion' of volunteering is a mixed blessing, regarded with weariness, wariness and unquenchable hope.” Read more
In 2007, in work for the Commission on the Future of Volunteering, IVR’s final recommendation was to ‘empower rather than command’ volunteers. Respondents had offered those recommendations but also their ‘weariness, wariness and unquenchable hope’. Unfortunately, over the last 20 years, their hopes do not seem to have been realised, as we see ever more demands and commands from those, often politicians and policy leaders, who seek to involve volunteers.
On the next slide is just one of many examples, a quote from Gordon Brown shortly before he became Prime Minister.
“On the next slide is just one of many examples, a quote from Gordon Brown shortly before he became Prime Minister. I believe that there is no problem in this country that can’t be solved by the people of this country. Millions of people choose to bring about social change and to solve the problems we face through the third sector. In every part of our society, voluntary organisations, community groups and social enterprises are making people’s lives better, are fighting inequality and are creating a better environment for us to live in. I believe that a successful modern democracy needs at its heart a thriving and diverse third sector.” Read more
So, what is the problem?
Maybe it is just me, but it looks like the democratic world is going to hell in a handbasket, fast! Historically, this is of course not the first time, but it is happening again now, on our watch!
The 1990s framing of volunteer involvement uncritically assumes that neo-liberal economies and established democracies are here to stay, unchallenged from within and outside. It also presents as if volunteer involvement is a construct uniquely suited to nurture civil society in democratic societies.
I argue that volunteers without agency will either remove themselves or find a place where they can have agency, and that this might be in undemocratic activities. I argue that depriving volunteers of agency might be directly linked to a marked decline in effective involvement and involvement in democratic endeavours, such as in ‘civil society’.
Here are four more examples that have made me reconsider my position and move from pointing out potential flaws of the 1990s construct to suggesting a much broader critical review of the way we talk about volunteering:
My first example should put an end to the still ongoing discussions of Tocqueville’s 19th century observations on American Democracy. If you haven’t seen it, please do view ‘Join or die’, a documentary about Robert Putnam. It tells a compelling story about the situation in the United States of America and what connects volunteering to its democratic crises. It is worth noting that Putnam’s warnings in the early 2000s, when he was a global celebrity, were not heeded. So, hey, I am not holding my breath about these talks.
The second is from a meeting in Brussels some years back now. There, I had the inspiring opportunity to speak to volunteers from the Ukraine. While anecdotal, I think you can trust me that their motivations are very different to those foregrounded in the late 1990s when, after the end of the Cold War, a smooth path to world peace and prosperity seemed possible to some.
My third is from China. Have a listen to the Chinese delegate at the UN for the opening of the International Year of Volunteers last December. I was there. China has begun promoting volunteering as constructed in the 1990s so that
“volunteers, volunteer organizations and service professionals will play an active role in advancing Chinese modernization, and promote the value of truth, kindness and beauty, and spread positive energy while serving the national strategy, people's livelihood and social governance.” Read more
And then there have been the recent elections in Germany and the UK with a strong showing of emboldened anti-democratic voices, similar to the ones we are witnessing in the US and other parts of Europe.
I reckon you might agree with me that those are not the only examples.
But are democratic standards really slipping? Don’t take my word for it.
On this slide, I quote from two reports published only this year, one from a neo-liberal German Think Tank, the Bertelsmann Stiftung, and the other from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
For NGOs and media outlets, the room for political participation and open debate has narrowed markedly (p:9). Civil society participation has declined… (p:21)
When inequality and poverty are left unaddressed, weak social protection systems entrench structural exclusion [Donner et al 2026, p:31]
“4 out of 5 responding organisations indicated that their staff or volunteers experienced psychological effects such as burnout, depression, anxiety and feelings of vulnerability” (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2026, p:8)
What do I mean when I say democratic standards are falling? Let me give an example rather than a definition, which would vary between nations.
The ‘Deutsche Demokratische Grundordnung', the ‘Democratic Basic Order’, is a fundamental principle in Germany, and is protected by law. Given its history, Germany is very sensitive to this. Extremist left or right-wing political views are seen to endanger that basic order; they share common characteristics such as racism, antisemitism, xenophobia and homophobia. Democratic standards are falling, such as when such extreme points of view are expressed in a way that threatens or does not respect the rule of law. This could be enacted through threats to local councillors, or vigilantism like attacks on homes or places of worship. The elections in Germany, as in the UK, appear to suggest a higher tolerance of extremist views, with incidents of threats and actions directly challenging the ‘democratic basic order’ increasing at the same time.
Here is the first important link for us to consider. The vigilantes are volunteers; those organising right-wing demonstrations outside refugee centres are volunteer managers; extremist movements are attracting volunteer participants and organisers. Maybe they are the ones turning away from the traditional roles, or maybe they are new joiners. We should know!
And here, just a quick reminder that these three Articles of the Declaration on Human Rights can, but not necessarily always and everywhere, underpin how we can and perhaps should construct volunteering
Bear in mind that even if, or especially if, we construct volunteering underpinned by those principles, they don’t guarantee that everyone who acts as a volunteer under those freedoms does so to protect these freedoms and for everyone.
“Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression…”
“Article 20: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association…”
“Article 21: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country…“
[United Nations 1948]
Let me get to my key argument about active citizenship.
In her speech at the Opening Event of the International Year of Volunteers for Sustainable Development, 5 December 2025, Annalena Baerbock, President of the United Nations General Assembly, states, “without the contributions of volunteers around the world, this institution, the United Nations, would not matter at all. Because it’s your daily work which really reflects the principles in the best way we can”.
She uncritically assumes that “the values that define them are the same: generosity, solidarity, and service.”
No, volunteers don’t all share those values, and we cannot pick or choose which volunteers we mean.
This is the second crucial link we must consider. I argue that collectively we have been selling a pup to the UN and others, a pinata meant to contain a panacea for all sorts of ills, but in fact could bring about the end of the very principles Annalena Baerbock speaks of, when opening the second International Year of Volunteers.
Returning to my earlier point, we’ve been working with the 1990s framing of volunteer involvement, which uncritically assumes that neo liberal economies and established democracies will remain unchallenged from within and outside and constructing volunteer involvement as uniquely suited to civil society in democratic societies. We assumed, wrongly, that volunteers as active citizens will be universally beneficial to democracies and that all we need to do is ask them nicely and put them to work, literally.
My three provocations to you are
I argue that understanding volunteers as active citizens, rather than as unpaid labour, can help explain the decline in democratic standards. Therefore, I suggest we need to change the way we study and research volunteer involvement.
I argue that, as part of this change, the 1990s framing of volunteer involvement calls for fundamental critical review, including its construction as exclusively beneficial.
And to address widespread fears about the decline in democratic standards, I argue that we should urgently research volunteer involvements that threaten democratic standards and seek to identify structural and systemic causes of emergent forms of volunteering.
Here is how you can get in touch [j.grotz@uea.ac.uk]. Thank you for your time.
References
Beveridge, Lord (1948) Voluntary Action, London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Donner, S., Hartmann, H. and Plate, S. (2026) Repression meets resistance - BTI 2026 Global Findings, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Dyer, H. (2026) Researching Digital Society: An Introduction, London: Sage.
European Commission (2011) Brussels, 20.9.2011 COM(2011) 568 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Communication on EU Policies and Volunteering: Recognising and Promoting Crossborder Voluntary Activities in the EU, Brussels: European Commission.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2026) Civil Space Update: Enabling civil society to uphold EU values and strengthen democracy, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Available from https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2026/civic-space-update [Accessed 01.04.2026].
Kropotkin, P. (1902) Mutual aid: A factor of evolution, London: Heineman.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American communities, New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks.
Smith D.H. (2000) Grassroots Associations, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Stebbins, R., and Graham, M. eds. (2004) Volunteering as leisure/leisure as volunteering: An International Assessment, CABI Publishing.
United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, available on the website of the United Nations https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights [Accessed 31.03.2026].
United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme (2011) 2011 State of the World’s Volunteerism Report: Universal Values for Global Well-being, Bonn: United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme. Available from https://www.unv.org/sites/default/files/2011%20State%20of%20the%20World%27s%20Volunteerism%20Report%20-%20Universal%20Values%20for%20Global%20Well-being%20Overview.pdf [Accessed 04.06.2026].
United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme (2015) 2015 State of the World's Volunteerism Report (SWVR) - Transforming Governance, Bonn: United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme. Available from https://www.unv.org/publications/2015-state-worlds-volunteerism-report-swvr-transforming-governance [Accessed 04.06.2026].
United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme (2018) 2018 State of the World's Volunteerism Report The thread that binds - volunteerism and community resilience, Bonn: United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme. Available from https://www.unv.org/publications/swvr2018 [Accessed 04.06.2026].
United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme (2021) 2022 State of the World’s Volunteerism Report. Building equal and inclusive societies, Bonn: United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme. Available from https://swvr2022.unv.org [Accessed 04.06.2026]
United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme (2025) The 2026 SWVR: Redefining the true value of Volunteerism, Bonn: United Nations Volunteers (UNV) programme. Available from https://www.unv.org/news/2026-swvr-redefining-true-value-volunteerism [Accessed 04.06.2026].
Protection of copyright
This work is subject to copyright, held exclusively by the author. The author is safe to assume that the advice and information in this publication are believed to be true and accurate at the date of completion. The author does not give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. This publication may be reproduced free of charge for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced and referenced accurately and not being used in a misleading context.