Volunteering: an ignored governance tightrope

Andrew Corbett-Nolan explores a moral exercise in balancing ethics, efficiency and accountability

In the vast machinery of public sector organisations – think NHS trusts with thousands of staff navigating complex care pathways – volunteers often appear as the unsung heroes, stepping in to add that human touch. But what happens when these 'extras' become essential?

As someone who has chaired boards in charities reliant on volunteer input and been on NHS boards myself, I have seen firsthand the governance dilemmas this creates. Volunteering is not just about goodwill. Like any other governance issue, it needs to be understood also as a moral exercise in balancing ethics, efficiency and accountability. In this piece, I explore these tensions, drawing particularly on the NHS, where volunteers are increasingly woven into the fabric of service delivery.

Consider the scale: a typical NHS foundation trust might employ over 10,000 staff yet leans on hundreds of volunteers for roles like patient navigation, befriending or even supporting discharge processes. These contributions are invaluable – The Institute for Volunteering Research VIVA analysis of a small set of NHS pilot sites estimated the economic value of volunteering at around £700,000 per year in hospital trusts (Teasdale, 2008), helping to ease pressures on overstretched systems. But herein lies a core governance issue: when does dependency on free labour cross into ethical territory?

In the NHS, volunteers are meant to provide 'the extras' – those enhancements that enrich patient experience without supplanting core staff duties. Yet in practice, many hospitals now rely on volunteers for practical necessities, such as guiding visitors through labyrinthine NHS estates or assisting with mealtimes. This shift raises questions for boards: are we inadvertently competing with paid roles, or worse still, displacing them?

Ethical quandary

The ethical quandary of replacing paid staff with volunteers is profound. Public sector bodies, funded by taxpayers, have a duty to steward resources responsibly. But leaning too heavily on volunteers can erode job security for employees and undermine professional standards.

Volunteers might inadvertently fuel tensions with paid staff who perceive their roles as threatened, leading to a Pandora's box of interpersonal and operational strife. Ethically, boards must ask ‘is this fair labour practice?’ In one charity board I served on, we grappled with this when volunteers provided DIY help to disabled individuals in their homes. It seemed benevolent, but the supervision costs – training, insurance, coordination – outweighed the benefits. We ultimately closed the service, opting to contract local tradespeople who were more reliable, responsive, and accountable. The lesson? Voluntary does not equate to cost-free or superior. It demands rigorous governance oversight to ensure it does not compromise service quality or exploit goodwill.

This brings us to dependability and professionalism. Volunteers bring enthusiasm, but voluntary input can sometimes mean variability – absences, skill gaps, or inconsistent commitment.

In governance terms, boards must mitigate these risks through robust policies: vetting, training and integration akin to staff as seen in NHS volunteer policies requiring ID badges and clear role definitions. The mantra should be ‘voluntary does not mean amateur.’ The ultimate beneficiary – the patient, client or community – must remain paramount. Without this focus, organisations risk reputational harm or service failures, turning a strength into a liability.

Reciprocal benefits

Moreover, volunteering's purpose extends beyond the organisation. It can and indeed often offers therapeutic value to volunteers themselves. Studies show volunteering fosters a sense of purpose counteracting isolation and boosting wellbeing social bonds.

This reciprocity is beautiful, but it poses a governance puzzle: who is the volunteer service truly for? If the primary gain is the volunteer's personal growth – a form of 'social prescribing' – does that justify the organisational investment? Boards must weigh this against mission alignment. In public sector behemoths, where resources are finite, overemphasising volunteer benefits could divert from core duties, creating a moral imbalance.

And we must not forget the hidden costs. Volunteer programmes are not free; they require management, with UK evidence suggesting that every £1 invested in training and oversight can yield £11 in service value (The King’s Fund (Galea, Naylor, Buck, Weaks) (Nov 2013), Volunteering in acute trusts in England: Understanding the scale and impact), but only if managed effectively. In the UK public sector, similar overheads – recruitment, DBS checks, insurance – can make outsourcing more economical, as in my DIY example. Governance demands cost-benefit analyses: do the savings from 'free' labour outweigh these outlays, or are we better served by professional contracts?

Governance tightrope

Volunteering in massive public bodies like NHS trusts is a governance tightrope – a moral choice laden with practical pitfalls. Boards must champion ethical frameworks, perhaps drawing on NHS-specific guidance, to ensure volunteers enhance rather than erode systems. This means strategic integration: clear boundaries between core and extra roles, investment in professionalism, and regular reviews of dependencies and costs. Ultimately, governance here is about higher principles – fairness, accountability, and human flourishing.

As leaders, let's reflect: are our volunteer strategies truly serving the greater good, or merely papering over systemic cracks? The answer demands courage and clarity.