In 2021, is it healthy for an important organization like the Red Cross to impose on its volunteers an outdated rule like the exclusivity clause?

I need to make a necessary disclaimer: I’ve been volunteering for years at an association that’s part of ANPAs, so I’m speaking about a reality I don’t belong to, but in which I see a fundamental problem that I’ll try to convey.

The Context Link to heading

I’ll refer here to the Italian Red Cross OdV, which is the entity that manages activities on the territory, as better specified on their website. I know there are various other areas, starting with the military one where it’s engaged, but those are different entities and I’m not referring to them.

In their statute dated April 30, 2021, we find in Article 16.2/d the following statement:

Volunteer members are also required not to be registered with, nor to register with, associations that pursue purposes in conflict with the principles of the International Movement and/or that carry out activities directly competing with those of the Italian Red Cross;

The Consequence Link to heading

The consequence of this regulation is anything but trivial: a volunteer is required to withdraw their membership from any entity directly competing with the CRI. One might now ask: and what activities does the Red Cross carry out?

From their website, we can summarize as follows:

  • Humanitarian principles and values
  • Health protection
  • Social inclusion
  • International cooperation
  • Disaster preparedness and response
  • Climate change
  • Migration
  • Blood donors
  • Training
  • Youth training activities

Put simply, they cover every type of existing volunteer activity.

To give a more concrete example: by joining the CRI, you would have to withdraw your AVIS membership, since it’s in direct conflict with their activities. Same thing for anyone who is a Caritas member, because it’s in direct conflict with several activities.

My 2 cents Link to heading

As you might have gathered from the tone, I find this kind of approach anachronistic and harmful to the world of volunteering. The core of the issue is being completely distorted.

The world of volunteering is based on people — that is, volunteers who perform activities that create social value, hence volunteering. Associations are a means to organize and optimize such efforts, whereas for the Red Cross, one is first and foremost their follower, then a volunteer, but every activity must take place within their structure, under penalty of exclusion from it.

Such behavior seems to be exclusive to them, since I’ve never heard of an animal shelter binding its volunteers with promises of absolute loyalty (I could be wrong, but they would still be isolated cases and not on such a vast scale).

I fully understand that every association tries to acquire and retain its volunteers, but I don’t think this is the right way to do it, and I believe they should reconsider this kind of attitude. The exclusivity clause seems like behavior worthy of a religious sect rather than a volunteer organization of such importance.

However, I don’t rule out that my point of view may be missing some detail that could flip the conclusion, so I warmly invite you to use the comments section!