Scholars have devoted substantial attention to developing conditional models of volunteer administration and management, but no consensus surrounds the criteria underlying the different models or the rationale. The literature reveals a welter of possibilities but no clear choice. This study conceives the primary managerial challenges as securing access to and guiding volunteer energy into productive volunteering, and the volunteer administrator as the central actor in this process. Based on how volunteers are accessed and guided in their roles, we develop the Volunteer Stewardship Framework, which distinguishes volunteer administration according to two key dimensions: organizational access to volunteer energy (private resource vs. common pool) and guidance of volunteers (unitary vs. shared). Results of a survey of volunteer administration practitioners in the Netherlands show that respondents working under the four models emanating from the Framework recognize different elements of volunteer administration as “Very Important.”

Volunteering appears to be a mechanism that can contribute to societal inclusion. As nonprofit organizations continuously seek more volunteers, opportunities for volunteer inclusion seem limitless. We argue that, in reality, it is not that simple. Volunteer exclusion derives from the failure to seek, recruit, and place potential volunteers with antecedents predicting non-volunteering. This article focuses on the “sending-organization” in dual volunteer management. We look at sending-organizations, such as a corporation or school, that organizes volunteer opportunities for its participants in a “receiving-organization,” i.e., the organization where the volunteer service is performed. Based on qualitative data generated from semi-structured and vignette interviews, we explore the crucial role that gatekeepers at the sending-organization play in the inclusion and exclusion of volunteers in receiving-organizations. We identify three strategies for these sending-gatekeepers to enhance volunteer inclusion: encouraging, enabling, and enforcing.

Volunteering can be understood as a human-made, renewable resource that can be grown and recycled, and whose continuation and volume of flow can be influenced by human beings positively as well as negatively. We extend the metaphor and break down the monolithic concept into three categories: traditional (wild salmon), third party (farmed fish), and spontaneous (marine zooplankton). Each volunteer resource (a) manifests in particular forms of volunteer service, (b) serves different purposes, (c) has different antecedents, (d) is harvested in different ways by different stakeholders meeting different conditions, and requires a specific form of management, based on its (e) benefits and challenges, (f) resource level, (g) propagation methods, and (h) sustainability needs. The three resources are fluid and interact dynamically. The distinction of three volunteer resources and their dynamics extends the conceptualization of volunteering as a natural resource and informs a new research agenda.

Background Healthcare is a highly polluting industry and attention to the need for making this sector more sustainable is growing. The interventional radiology (IR) department is a relatively unique department in the hospital because of its synergetic use of both imaging equipment and medical instruments. As a result, the interventional radiology department causes a significant environmental burden in terms of energy usage, waste and water pollution. The aim of this study was to explore the current state of sustainability within IR by conducting a survey and interviews among IR specialists in the Netherlands. Results The main findings of this study were that there is a high awareness for the need of sustainability within IR, but that there is still limited action. Previous studies point towards the various opportunities in the field of energy, waste and water pollution, yet our study unveils these opportunities are often not implemented because of (1) sustainability not being a priority, (2) a dependency on employees, and (3) factors that simply cannot be changed by an individual IR department or hospital. Generally, our study indicates that there is a willingness to become more sustainable, but that the current system involves a wide range barriers that hinder true change. Furthermore, it seems that no one is currently taking the lead and a leading role from higher management, government, healthcare authorities or professional societies is lacking. Conclusions Despite the hurdles found in our study, IR departments can implement several improvements. An important factor is that sustainability should not lead to lower convenience for employees, which can be ensured by a sufficiently designed waste infrastructure and behavioral nudges. Furthermore, there lies an opportunity in more collaboration between IR departments in knowledge sharing and open innovation.