The limits of focusing on the volunteer

Articles that compare formal and informal volunteering overwhelmingly focus on the characteristics of volunteers. Many studies have set out to examine who engages in formal versus informal volunteering (e.g., Ackermann, Reference Ackermann2019; Ahn et al., Reference Ahn, Phillips, Smith and Ory2011; Qvist, Reference Qvist2024) and consistently find differences between the two (Shandra, Reference Shandra2017; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Mook and Handy2017). In general, individuals who participate in formal volunteering tend to possess greater social and economic resources, while minority groups are more likely to engage in informal volunteering (Martinez et al., Reference Martinez, Crooks, Kim and Tanner2011). Some studies suggest that informal volunteering involves fewer barriers and lower entry costs than formal volunteering (Russell et al., Reference Russell, Kim, Handy and Gellis2020). However, this line of reasoning remains centered on the volunteer and treats volunteering as a supply-side phenomenon, focusing on the motivations and capacities of the volunteer. Alternatively, further insight can be gained by considering the demand side: individuals with fewer resources may be more likely to volunteer informally because the demand for mutual help and support is greater within their social networks (Carlsen & Toubøl, Reference Carlsen and Toubøl2024). On the contrary, more resourceful individuals may engage in formal volunteering as a recreational activity (Stukas et al., Reference Stukas, Hoye, Nicholson, Brown and Aisbett2014).

Another manifestation of the volunteer-centered focus is the large body of research examining what volunteers gain from volunteering or what outcomes and characteristics are associated with formal and informal volunteering, respectively (Appau & Awaworyi Churchill, Reference Appau and Awaworyi Churchill2019; Greenspan & Walk, Reference Greenspan and Walk2024; Lee & Brudney, Reference Lee and Brudney2012; Li & Ferraro, Reference Li and Ferraro2005; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Mook and Handy2017). The rationale behind such studies is often similar: since more is known about formal volunteering, there is a need to test whether existing findings also apply to informal volunteering. Thus, given the growing recognition that volunteering should not be narrowly defined as an activity conducted through formal institutions, the studies argue for the inclusion of informal volunteering to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of volunteer behavior (Clerkin & Fotheringham, Reference Clerkin and Fotheringham2017; Han et al., Reference Han, Shih, Burr and Peng2023; van Tienen et al., Reference van Tienen, Scheepers, Reitsma and Schilderman2011). Consequently, many studies attempt to determine whether the relationships established in the formal volunteering literature extend to informal volunteering as well (Manatschal & Freitag, Reference Manatschal and Freitag2014; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Mook and Handy2017):

However, this approach positions informal volunteering as a secondary form of volunteering, since the core question becomes: How does informal volunteering compare to what we already know about formal volunteering? In effect, the same research questions that have guided earlier studies of formal volunteering are simply extended to include informal volunteering (Ang & Malhotra, Reference Ang and Malhotra2024). Consequently, when analyses show that informal volunteering yields fewer individual benefits, it often appears meaningful to recommend that individuals engage in formal volunteering instead:

Thereby, many studies conclude by discussing the potential recruitment of informal volunteers into formal volunteering (Ahn et al., Reference Ahn, Phillips, Smith and Ory2011; Lee & Brudney, Reference Lee and Brudney2012; Shandra, Reference Shandra2017). This is a natural line of reasoning when the analytical focus remains on the volunteer: if formal volunteering offers greater individual benefits, why not encourage volunteers to choose the form of volunteering from which they gain the most? However, this reasoning does little to advance recognition of informal volunteering. Instead, it implicitly accepts that for volunteers to receive proper acknowledgment, they must transition into formal volunteering, thereby reinforcing rather than challenging the hierarchy between the two forms.

The broader issue with the volunteer-centered focus is that it rests on frameworks of human and social capital, which are well-suited to understanding formal volunteering but less applicable to informal volunteering. Such frameworks make sense for activities typically organized through formal institutions, such as scheduled shifts at a community café or charity event, where participation can be linked to individual skill development, social connections, or personal fulfillment (Stukas et al., Reference Stukas, Hoye, Nicholson, Brown and Aisbett2014; Tse, Reference Tse2020), although some studies suggest that the personal benefits associated with formal volunteering may be overstated or unevenly distributed (e.g., De Wit et al., Reference De Wit, Bekkers, Karamat and Verkaik2015; Mohan, Reference Mohan2024; Paine et al., Reference Paine, McKay and Moro2013). In contrast, the aim of much informal volunteering may not be centered on the volunteer but on the recipient. If comparisons between formal and informal volunteering rely primarily on the perspective of the volunteer, formal volunteering will always appear to be more valuable. However, this systematically undervalues informal volunteering and obscures the purpose that it fulfills.

Conceptual and measurement challenges in capturing informal volunteering

Respondents often have difficulty recognizing informal volunteering (Einolf et al., Reference Einolf, Prouteau, Nezhina, Ibrayeva, D. H., Stebbins and Grotz2016), largely because formal volunteering is more readily identifiable as volunteering. Consequently, studies tend to measure formal volunteering as any unpaid work performed for an association or organization (Ackermann, Reference Ackermann2019; Choi et al., Reference Choi, Burr, Mutchler and Caro2007; Fiorillo & Nappo, Reference Fiorillo and Nappo2015; Greenspan & Walk, Reference Greenspan and Walk2024; Jegermalm & Grassman, Reference Jegermalm and Grassman2011; Russell et al., Reference Russell, Kim, Handy and Gellis2020; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Mook and Handy2017). Measures of formal volunteering thereby rely on an organizational reference point and typically ask respondents to recall activities conducted within volunteer organizations, which makes it easier for respondents to remember and report their volunteering engagement (Cnaan et al., Reference Cnaan, Jones, Dickin and Salomon2011). Further, formal volunteering is typically measured in broad terms, often through a general question about whether respondents have volunteered through an organization, which allows them to interpret and report their own activities within that context. The main variation across studies lies in additional cues: some include examples of different fields of volunteering (Henriksen et al., Reference Henriksen, Koch-Nielsen and Rosdahl2008), others mention specific types of organizations (Helms & McKenzie, Reference Helms and McKenzie2014), and some list examples of volunteering activities (Ang & Malhotra, Reference Ang and Malhotra2024).

Whereas measures of formal volunteering rely on respondents recalling their affiliation with an organization, measures of informal volunteering typically prompt respondents to remember specific helping activities, often related to care (e.g., Liang et al., Reference Liang, Zhang, Ye, Lan, He and Lin2023; Lim & Laurence, Reference Lim and Laurence2015). Accordingly, informal volunteering is more commonly measured through detailed lists of activities, such as helping, caregiving, or providing assistance, rather than through organizational membership. There is considerably more variation in how informal volunteering is measured, as activities range from neighborhood maintenance or repairs (Piatak et al., Reference Piatak, Dietz and McKeever2018; Shandra, Reference Shandra2017), to caring for older adults (Mitani, Reference Mitani2014), to providing more intimate forms of personal care (Strauss, Reference Strauss2019). Some studies include helping relatives as part of informal volunteering (Hank & Stuck, Reference Hank and Stuck2008; Henriksen et al., Reference Henriksen, Koch-Nielsen and Rosdahl2008; Liang et al., Reference Liang, Zhang, Ye, Lan, He and Lin2023), while others explicitly exclude assistance to family members (Greenspan & Walk, Reference Greenspan and Walk2024; Russell et al., Reference Russell, Kim, Handy and Gellis2020). In some cases, regularity of engagement is emphasized as a defining criterion (Ahn et al., Reference Ahn, Phillips, Smith and Ory2011). A few studies measure informal volunteering solely on the basis of organizational context (Ackermann, Reference Ackermann2019; Ahn et al., Reference Ahn, Phillips, Smith and Ory2011), though these remain exceptions. Others combine references to organizational affiliation with lists of specific activities (Plagnol & Huppert, Reference Plagnol and Huppert2010; Russell et al., Reference Russell, Kim, Handy and Gellis2020), yet the emphasis across most studies remains on the activities themselves:

Thus, there is far greater consensus regarding how formal volunteering is measured. However, the core of the issue lies not in measurement itself but in an underlying conceptual ambiguity surrounding informal volunteering, as the literature has a clearer understanding of what constitutes formal volunteering. Indeed, theoretical definitions of formal volunteering are largely consistent across studies, typically defined as an unpaid activity carried out through an organization or institutional affiliation (e.g., Reed & Selbee, Reference Reed and Selbee2000; Russell et al., Reference Russell, Kim, Handy and Gellis2020; Statistics Canada, 1987; Qvist, Reference Qvist2024).

In contrast, definitions of informal volunteering vary more, though most fall into one of two main categories: a broad definition, which frames informal volunteering as any voluntary activity occurring outside of organizations (Ackermann, Reference Ackermann2019; Appau & Awaworyi Churchill, Reference Appau and Awaworyi Churchill2019; Perpék, Reference Perpék2012; Russell et al., Reference Russell, Kim, Handy and Gellis2020), and a narrower definition, which emphasizes informal helping or caregiving directed toward individuals beyond one’s household or close circle of friends (e.g., Helms & McKenzie, Reference Helms and McKenzie2014; Strauss, Reference Strauss2019). However, defining informal volunteering in a consistent way remains challenging, particularly when distinguishing it from other forms of prosocial behavior (Carson, Reference Carson1999; Clerkin & Fotheringham, Reference Clerkin and Fotheringham2017; Lawton et al., Reference Lawton, Gramatki, Watt and Fujiwara2021). One key area of disagreement concerns whether to include helping activities that occur within the household (Choi et al., Reference Choi, Burr, Mutchler and Caro2007; Clerkin & Fotheringham, Reference Clerkin and Fotheringham2017). A common approach is to conceptualize informal volunteering as informal helping or care provided directly to others, typically outside an organizational setting (Helms & McKenzie, Reference Helms and McKenzie2014; Henriksen et al., Reference Henriksen, Koch-Nielsen and Rosdahl2008; Liang et al., Reference Liang, Zhang, Ye, Lan, He and Lin2023; Lim & Laurence, Reference Lim and Laurence2015; Mergenthaler, Reference Mergenthaler and Doblhammer2015; Reed & Selbee, Reference Reed and Selbee2000; Strauss, Reference Strauss2019; Taniguchi, Reference Taniguchi2012; Qvist, Reference Qvist2024):

In sum, the literature exhibits far greater agreement on the definition of formal volunteering, which is consistently understood with reference to organizational membership. In contrast, informal volunteering is either defined as encompassing everything that is not formal volunteering, making it difficult to measure empirically, or as limited to informal caregiving taking place directly between individuals, thereby failing to capture the full range of activities that can occur through informal volunteering, such as coordinating mutual aid through online platforms, or participating in community initiatives outside formal organizations. This illustrates how informal volunteering continues to function as a residual category, defined primarily by its difference from formal volunteering (Dean, Reference Dean2022). Simply put, it is relatively straightforward to define a phenomenon based on organizational membership or affiliation, but much more difficult to define one by the absence of such structures while keeping the concept sufficiently precise to remain meaningful and measurable.

Repertoire of volunteering tasks

A task-centered framework builds on Tilly’s (2008) concept of repertoires of action, understood as the range of actions available to people seeking to achieve particular goals, such as, different forms of protest like sit-ins, demonstrations, or petitions. The concept of action repertoire is usually applied in the context of political struggles to conceptualize different means or activities that can be used to foster change or accomplish a political goal. Applied to volunteering, this idea can be adapted to describe a repertoire of volunteering tasks, that is, the various activities through which individuals can contribute to meeting social needs through volunteering. However, the logic shifts slightly in this context: rather than focusing on the actions available to individuals to reach a certain political goal or contest a political order, it is useful to think in terms of a repertoire of needs to be addressed within civil society through volunteering. From this perspective, people volunteer because they identify needs that require attention, whether that involves contributing to education, alleviating loneliness, supporting someone in need, or wanting themselves to stay active. These needs can be met through a range of volunteering tasks, such as weekly shifts at a social cafe or offering to run errands for a neighbor or a family member. The repertoire of volunteering tasks thus spans a wide range of areas such as education, recreation, culture, and sports, resembling the international classification of non-profit organizations (Salamon & Anheier, Reference Salamon and Anheier1996). The starting point in this framework is the need itself, something that needs to be addressed, and any volunteering action undertaken to address such needs is part of a broader repertoire of volunteering tasks.

A framework centered on needs and tasks is well established in the context of crises and disasters, where disruption generates new needs or temporarily shuts down the usual structures that deal with existing needs (Dynes, Reference Dynes1970; Malinen et al., Reference Malinen, Nikkanen and Kekki2025; Twigg & Mosel, Reference Twigg and Mosel2017). Examples include repairing damaged infrastructure, providing temporary housing to displaced individuals, or sharing information if common channels of communication are shut down. In such situations, it is widely recognized that people organize in civil society, formally and even more often, informally, to address emerging needs that existing institutions can no longer handle (Whittaker et al., Reference Whittaker, McLennan and Handmer2015). Similarly, the literature on social support illustrates an increased need for social support following crises, and the importance of receiving support for affected individuals (Labrague, Reference Labrague2021; McGuire et al., Reference McGuire, Gauthier, Anderson, Hollingsworth, Tracy, Galea and Coffey2018; Sasaki et al., Reference Sasaki, Aida, Tsuji, Koyama, Tsuboya, Saito and Kawachi2019). What unites the literatures on emergent tasks and social support during crises is their analytical focus on the needs of those who receive help and the tasks that arise in response to a disruption. Extending this perspective to non-crisis contexts broadens the analytical scope of volunteering research beyond the volunteer to also include recipients and the tasks being fulfilled. The proposed framework thus argues that the perspective of recipients is as important outside of as well as within a crisis.

Consequently, a task-centered framework centers on the tasks of volunteering and what volunteers seek to accomplish through their engagement. Although the framework includes recipients of volunteering, the needs that are being addressed through the repertoire of volunteering tasks may also relate to the volunteer. A person can choose to volunteer because they experience a need to contribute to society, to do something meaningful or to connect with other people, which is shown repeatedly in research on volunteers’ motivation (e.g., Stukas et al., Reference Stukas, Hoye, Nicholson, Brown and Aisbett2014; Tse, Reference Tse2020). The framework simply posits that the needs being addressed through volunteering can relate to both the volunteer and the recipient, and that both are equally important.

The role of organizational setting in accomplishing volunteering tasks

A task-centered approach does not eliminate or replace the distinction between formal and informal volunteering. On the contrary, by using volunteering tasks as a shared analytical unit, formally and informally organized volunteering can be understood as different strategies for meeting different needs. In this way, formal and informal volunteering represent distinct yet complementary approaches to addressing social needs. Focusing on tasks therefore allows different forms of volunteering to be analyzed through a shared analytical lens while highlighting the circumstances under which informal volunteering plays an important role.

Three characteristics of tasks are particularly relevant for understanding how volunteering activities are organized: the duration of the need, the proximity between volunteer and recipient, and the orientation of the task.

First, the duration and urgency of the need influence how volunteering activities emerge and are organized. Some needs arise suddenly and require immediate responses, such as during crises or disasters. In such situations, volunteering often takes place through flexible and rapidly mobilized forms of coordination, including informal initiatives and community responses (Drabek & McEntire, Reference Drabek and McEntire2002; Malinen et al., Reference Malinen, Nikkanen and Kekki2025; Twigg & Mosel, Reference Twigg and Mosel2017). For example, after natural disasters or emergencies, residents frequently organize ad hoc efforts to distribute supplies or check on vulnerable neighbors before formal organizations are able to mobilize. Over time, if these needs persist, such initiatives may become formalized into structured programs (Drabek & McEntire, Reference Drabek and McEntire2002). Research on episodic volunteering similarly highlights how volunteers may return to participate in short-term activities again and again, particularly when they have prior volunteering experience (Rey-Garcia et al., Reference Rey-Garcia, Mato-Santiso, Meijs and Krasnopolskaya2024). This suggests that episodic engagement may be shaped by the emergence of particular tasks rather than by continuous organizational commitment. Furthermore, a study within the same organization shows that episodic and regular volunteers are often allocated different types of tasks, implying that episodic forms of engagement may be particularly suited to certain activities (Hustinx et al., Reference Hustinx, Haski-Leventhal and Handy2008). A task-centered perspective therefore highlights how the sometimes short-term character of informal volunteering reflects the temporal nature of the needs being addressed rather than a limitation of the activity itself.

Second, the proximity between volunteers and recipients shapes how needs are encountered and addressed. When individuals become aware of needs within their immediate social networks, such as among neighbors, friends, or local community members, they may respond directly through informal acts of support. This perspective shifts the focus from the supply side to the demand side, viewing social networks as demand networks through which people encounter and respond to needs (Carlsen & Toubøl, Reference Carlsen and Toubøl2024). For instance, a neighbor noticing that an elderly resident is struggling with groceries may offer assistance directly, while broader causes, such as environmental protection, may require coordination through organizations that connect volunteers with more distant recipients (Aydinli et al., Reference Aydinli, Bender and Chasiotis2013). This perspective also helps reinterpret observed differences in the resources of formal and informal volunteers (Eimhjellen, Reference Eimhjellen2023; Hustinx et al., Reference Hustinx, Grubb, Rameder and Shachar2022; Southby et al., Reference Southby, South and Bagnall2019). Rather than viewing these differences solely as a matter of supply, they may instead reflect variation in demand: individuals with fewer resources might face stronger or more immediate demands for help within their networks.

Third, volunteering tasks may differ in their orientation toward the recipient or toward the volunteer experience. Many volunteering opportunities provide participants with opportunities for social interaction, personal fulfillment, or skill development (Ang & Malhotra, Reference Ang and Malhotra2024; Stukas et al., Reference Stukas, Hoye, Nicholson, Brown and Aisbett2014). These features are often embedded within structured volunteering settings where organizations provide training or recognition. However, other forms of volunteering emerge primarily from a desire to respond to concrete needs faced by specific individuals or communities. In such cases, the activity may be oriented primarily toward the recipient, and the volunteer may receive little institutional recognition or personal reward beyond the act of helping itself (Dean, Reference Dean2022; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Mook and Handy2017), although research also shows the ability of informal volunteer networks to provide support for each other to foster well-being among crisis volunteers (Nissen et al., Reference Nissen, Carlton and Wong2023). For example, providing regular assistance to a recently widowed neighbor or coordinating informal childcare among parents in a neighborhood may respond directly to pressing needs without involving formal organizational structures (Appau & Awaworyi Churchill, Reference Appau and Awaworyi Churchill2019; van Tienen et al., Reference van Tienen, Scheepers, Reitsma and Schilderman2011; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Mook and Handy2017).

Taken together, these dimensions illustrate how a task-centered approach helps illuminate forms of volunteering that may otherwise remain less visible when attention is focused primarily on volunteers themselves. By beginning with the needs being addressed, whether sudden or sustained, socially proximate or distant, and oriented toward recipients or volunteer experiences, it becomes possible to see how different organizational arrangements emerge to meet these needs. For example, in the case of elderly support, one person may participate in weekly shifts through an organized program, while another may assist an elderly neighbor who recently took a fall informally. The underlying need, support for older adults, is the same, but differences in proximity to the recipient and the onset of the need call for different organizational arrangements and forms of engagement.

This perspective also helps highlight the value of informal volunteering. When activities are assessed primarily through the characteristics or benefits of volunteers, forms of engagement that occur within informal networks or relational contexts may appear less significant. However, when attention is directed toward the tasks accomplished and the needs met, the contributions of informal volunteering become more clearly visible. For example, studies have highlighted the important role of informal volunteering in disaster responses (Nahkur et al., Reference Nahkur, Orru, Hansson, Jukarainen, Myllylä, Krüger and Rhinard2022) as well as the contributions of minority communities through informal helping and community support networks (Martinez et al., Reference Martinez, Crooks, Kim and Tanner2011).

A task-centered framework therefore emphasizes the tasks accomplished and the needs addressed when assessing the value of volunteering. This perspective does not deny that volunteers may gain benefits from their engagement, nor that such benefits are meaningful. Instead, it highlights that these outcomes represent only one dimension of volunteering’s value. Particularly in relational contexts, the primary significance of volunteering may lie in its tangible impact on recipients and communities, often achieved without institutional support or public recognition.