The year 2011 was declared the 'European Year of Volunteering' to recognise the contribution volunteers make to society. Such cross-national events reflect the high profile of volunteering and political imperatives to promote it. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive review of current knowledge (articles published between 2005 and 2011) regarding the role of volunteering in improving older people's quality of life (QoL) and to identify areas requiring further research. Volunteering was defined as an activity that is freely chosen, does not involve remuneration and helps or benefits those beyond an individual's immediate family. Our search identified 22 studies and 5 review articles that addressed the benefits of volunteering on older people's quality of life. Most of the research had been conducted in the United States, Canada and Australia using data from longitudinal studies. The majority of the studies concluded that there is a positive association between older people's quality of life and engagement in volunteering. Due to the study designs and the heterogeneity of the research, causality is difficult to demonstrate and the knowledge the studies bring to the subject is variable. This review shows that volunteering may help to maintain and possibly improve some older adults' quality of life. However, there are still major gaps in our understanding of who actually benefits, the social and cultural context of volunteering and its role in reducing health and social inequalities.

Many Western states have sought in recent years to harness the energies of voluntary agencies and charitable bodies in the provision of welfare (Brandsen and Pestoff, 2006; Milligan and Conradson, 2006; Haugh and Kitson, 2007). More than ever is expected of the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) in supporting people and communities, entering into partnerships with governments, and delivering public services (Lewis, 2005; Macmillan, 2010). The mainstreaming of the VCS has been associated with a push towards market reform and reducing state obligations for welfare provision (Amin, 2009). In some European states – for example, Germany and the Netherlands – a three-way mix of state, market and voluntary sector dates back to the nineteenth century (Brandsen and Pestoff, 2006). In the UK too, on which this review article focuses, the delivery of public services by voluntary organisations and charities is far from new, but over the past decade local government and health services, especially in England, have been required to step up their engagement with VCS organisations (VCSOs) (Alcock, 2009; Di Domencio et al., 2009; Macmillan, 2010). Commitment to this sector by the government under New Labour was signalled by the creation for England of the Office of the Third Sector within the Cabinet Office in 2006 and the associated appointment of the first dedicated Minister of the Third Sector, initially Ed Miliband MP. Working with charities, social enterprises and community and faith-based organisations appeals to politicians across the mainstream British political spectrum (Di Domencio et al., 2009; Alcock, 2010); the ‘Big Society’ agenda of the Coalition government elected in 2010 promises a continuation in this direction of travel, albeit in a new regime of reduced budgets, service cuts and demands of more for less.

This paper considers the balance between promoting volunteering in sport by emphasising the personal rewards to prospective volunteers themselvesthe dominant management approach and promoting it by the long term development of the values of volunteering. We review the motivations and rewards of sports volunteers and how these can be used to promote volunteering as being a transaction between volunteer and organisation. This is contrasted with a life-course approach to understanding volunteering, and evidence that an understanding of the value of volunteering can be inculcated that underpins continued volunteering. The two approaches regard potential volunteers respectively as 'consumers' and as 'citizens'. We suggest that a shift to treating volunteers as consumers can lead to volunteering being regarded as transactional. The discussion has implications for volunteering in general; in particular, how it can be promoted in a society where narratives of 'the consumer' increasingly dominate over those of 'the citizen'.

This paper examines a new form of philanthropic fundraising as pioneered by the YouTuber MrBeast. We argue that MrBeast, by harnessing the advertising revenue sharing model of YouTube’s Partner Program, has created an innovative model of philanthropic giving funded by mobilising what Marxist communication theorists refer to as the ‘audience’ or ‘prosumer commodity’. Through this method, MrBeast has been able to use the algorithmically managed, revenue sharing model of YouTube, and the spectacle of philanthropy, to draw in ever larger audiences and thus create large amounts of advertising and sponsorship revenue to fund philanthropic activities. This revenue in turn funds even larger philanthropic acts in subsequent videos, drawing more audiences and revenue. Unlike previous media-based fundraising, which would ask audience members to contribute their own money or time to a cause, MrBeast positions his audiences as a knowing audience commodity whose viewership funds direct contributions of other people’s money to good causes, merely by watching and being entertained. We assess the implications of this both for current debates around the ‘work’, labour’, and ‘exploitation’ of audience and prosumer commodities, and their monetisation for philanthropic giving.

Funding for England and Wales’ Charity Commission has been cut by 48% between 2007 and 2016, affecting its ability to deliver its core regulatory functions. Conversations around what charity regulation should look like and how it should be funded have, therefore, gained momentum. These debates, however, are not limited to England and Wales, and in this article, we contribute to them by exploring public attitudes to these questions, presenting the findings of four focus groups. We find that although public knowledge of charity regulation is low, people are, nonetheless, clear that charities should be regulated. There is no clear preferred method of funding a charity regulator and a significant amount of complexity and nuance in public attitudes. People trust charities, but this can be eroded if they do not have confidence in how they operate. A visibly effective regulator supporting and supported by charities is central to maintaining trust.