Introduction

Universities possess a diverse range of resources, including knowledge, time, facilities, and professional expertise across multiple disciplines. However, these resources often remain fragmented and underutilized due to the absence of effective coordination mechanisms. As a result, even abundant resources fail to generate meaningful social value unless they are systematically connected and mobilized. In response to this challenge, this paper introduces the Social Resource Bank (SRB) model developed at Yonsei University—a structured platform designed to store, connect, and activate the resources of university communities for broader social benefit.

Yonsei University was ranked 11th globally and 1st in South Korea in the 2024 Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings, reflecting the growing recognition that universities are not only institutions for education and research, but also key actors with substantial social responsibilities. Within this context, the SRB is proposed as a practical and scalable model for operationalizing such responsibilities through structured and measurable social engagement.

The Social Resource Bank, abbreviated “SRB,” is a system for storing and connecting social resources. Just as a conventional bank allows people to deposit and withdraw money, the SRB is a platform through which time, professional expertise, and services are registered and made available for public use. Students, faculty, and staff register the resources they are able to contribute. The bank then provides information about communities that can benefit from those resources, and the institution supports the resulting activities. Through this process, university members can enhance their own civic consciousness while contributing to a more sustainable society (Figure 1).

The premise of the SRB is that the same individual can generate significantly different levels of social impact depending on how their expertise is matched with contextual needs. A dental professional, for example, may contribute to a session like this one, which is valuable, but their greatest social impact is likely realized in clinical settings where their specific expertise meets a direct patient need. Therefore, the effectiveness of social resources depends not only on their availability but also on their strategic allocation to areas of greatest need. The SRB provides the structure to make that placement possible, extending beyond one-off acts of service to create a system capable of generating lasting social impact. The basic unit of the SRB is time, operationalized through a time-credit system. Contributing two hours of service, for example, generates two-time credits. However, the value of a contribution is not determined solely by the number of hours provided; it is shaped by the expertise behind those hours and the level of social demand being addressed. A contribution of specialized knowledge to a community facing acute need carries a different weight than the same number of hours in a lower-demand context (Figure 2).

The system operates through three stages:

1. Stage 1 (Time Registration): Community members register their available time and areas of expertise on the platform, building a continuously updated inventory of social resources.

2. Stage 2 (Expertise Matching): The platform connects registered resources with identified community needs — linking what the university has with what society requires.

3. Stage 3 (Social Impact Assessment): Rather than simply recording volunteer hours, the system evaluates the actual social impact generated. This transforms participation data into evidence, and evidence into a basis for sustained institutional commitment.

Similar models have been implemented internationally. In the United Kingdom, the Time Bank network uses time as a form of currency within local communities (Bird & Boyle, 2014). Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, when face-to-face interaction was severely constrained, the network facilitated over 80,000 hours of voluntary activity. In the United States, the Partnering Care program operates services including a Ride Partners program; helping patients travel to and from medical appointments and personal care assistance programs that enable neighbors to support one another with household tasks (Wacker & Roberto, 2018). These cases demonstrate that time-based resource exchange systems work in practice, at scale (Figure 3).

In 2024, Yonsei University's Leadership Center conducted a cross-sectional survey to assess the feasibility of implementing the Social Resource Bank (SRB) model. Approximately 200 faculty and staff members across diverse age groups and professional roles participated, reflecting broad institutional interest in the initiative. Data was collected through an online questionnaire that explored motivations, barriers to participation, and willingness to engage in social resource activities, and the responses were summarized using descriptive analysis.

When asked why they would want to engage in social resource activities, respondents identified three main motivations: first, intrinsic motivation and personal fulfillment—namely, the sense of meaning derived from participation; second, a desire to support specific groups in need, such as elderly populations or patients with rare diseases; and third, a perception that such activities are part of their organizational role as members of the university community (Figure 4).

The most significant barrier to participation was the lack of awareness regarding how to engage with social resource activities. Contrary to what might be expected, the most commonly cited reason for not participating was simply not knowing how. This suggests that the primary barrier is not a lack of willingness, but rather a lack of accessible and structured systems. The absence of a clear, accessible platform is what prevents people who are already motivated from acting on that motivation (Figure 5). When asked whether they would participate if such a system were in place, a total of 86% of respondents indicated a willingness to participate if such a system were implemented. In terms of institutional conditions that would support participation, respondents prioritized: official leave time designated for social resource activities rather than requiring the use of personal leave, access to adequate information, and a systematic operational structure.

Respondents rated the importance of universities playing a significant role in social resource contribution at 4.5 out of 5. They rated the personal importance of contributing to social resources at 4.29 out of 5. However, when asked to evaluate the university's current performance in this area, the rating dropped to 3.46 out of 5. Many members of the university community believe that social resource contribution matters both institutionally and personally, but feel that the university's current systems are not yet adequate to support it. This gap points directly to the need for a structured platform such as the SRB (Figure 6).

Volunteering is often framed as an act of sacrifice. But research suggests a more nuanced picture. While prosocial behavior is genuinely motivated by care for others, it also yields real personal benefits and acknowledging this does not diminish its value. Andreoni proposed the concept of impure altruism, which challenged purely altruistic models of giving by highlighting the role of internal satisfaction: what he called the "warm glow" of giving. He argued that public provision of goods does not fully replace private giving, because the personal reward of the act itself cannot be substituted (Andreoni, 1990).

Neuroscientific and health research hass found that helping others releases endorphins, reduces cortisol, and activates the same neural reward circuits as monetary compensation i.e. a phenomenon sometimes called the "helper's high." Studies have also found that the brain activity triggered by acts of giving resembles that associated with the pleasure of eating, and that anonymous giving may yield even greater reward than recognized giving. Stress levels decrease, and activity in the anterior insula and amygdala is reduced. These findings reframe volunteering not as sacrifice, but as a genuine source of personal benefit.

Research on social exchange raises an important practical question: can purely one-directional contribution i.e. giving without receiving, be sustained over time? The SRB addresses this directly through its credit exchange system, in which participants who contribute their time and expertise may also access the contributions of others. Sustainable engagement requires a sense of fair exchange, not just the expectation of ongoing selfless giving. Prior research on time banking and social resource platforms points to three recurring structural problems: a lack of trustworthy organizational infrastructure, a disconnection between generations, and insufficient understanding of how to actually implement participation. These gaps persist even when good platforms exist, because having a platform is not the same as having a community that knows how to use it. The SRB is designed with these lessons in mind. A broader challenge underlies all of this. Across the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, AI and existing technologies have already identified solutions to the majority of the problems we face. The barrier is not knowledge or capability, but coordinated action. The same is true at the university level: the resources exist, the willingness exists, but without structures that translate intention into action, the potential goes unrealized. This is precisely the gap the SRB is designed to close. If the primary barrier to participation is a lack of awareness about how to engage, then education has a critical role to play. Awareness transformation which shifts how people understand their own role as social actors requires deliberate, structured programming. This is the premise behind the SRB's activation framework.

A program to activate university participants in the SRB is proposed in four phases (Figure 7):

1. Phase 1 — Recruitment. Outreach to potential participants across all university roles, making clear that a wide range of resources qualify for contribution.

2. Phase 2 — Awareness and Problem Identification. Participants engage with the rationale for the SRB, examine why existing platforms have not always achieved their potential, and identify specific social problems to which their own resources could be connected.

3. Phase 3 — Program Design. Participants collaboratively design contribution activities suited to their resources and the identified needs, developing ownership and building a practical link between personal expertise and social demand.

4. Phase 4 — Implementation. Participants carry out their designed activities and become ambassadors who can draw others into the system.

The benefits of the SRB operate at three levels. At the individual level, participants develop civic identity, apply their expertise in new contexts, and access the personal benefits of prosocial behavior. At the university level, the SRB provides a mechanism for operationalizing social responsibility and strengthening community relationships. At the societal level, the SRB reduces social isolation, builds community networks, and expands access to specialized knowledge, particularly for populations currently underserved by existing systems.

Conclusion

The Social Resource Bank offers a structural response to a persistent gap between intention and action in university community engagement. Universities are repositories of knowledge, expertise, time, and infrastructure i.e. resources that carry enormous potential social value. But resources must be structured, connected to where they are needed, and measured in their impact before that potential can be realized as sustained social benefit. The 2024 survey at Yonsei University makes clear that the conditions for a successful SRB are already present: 86% of respondents indicated willingness to participate if a system existed, and institutional attitudes toward social contribution were consistently high. The aspiration is there. What is needed is the structure. Built on the principles of Structure, Matching, and Measurement, the SRB draws on a tradition as old as Korean poomasi (“품앗이”) i.e. the communal sharing of labor according to mutual need and applies it to the contemporary university context, where the resource being shared is professional knowledge. The SRB represents a modern, knowledge-based poomasi: a way for universities to work with society, not simply alongside it.

Figure 1.

The Social Resource Bank.

Figure 2.

A Three-stage Operational Mode.

Figure 3.

International Time-Banking Models.

Figure 4.

Survey Results: Primary Motivations for Social Resource Participation (N ≈ 200).

Figure 5.

Willingness to Participate if SRB System is Implemented (N ≈ 200).

Figure 6.

Survey Results: Importance Ratings and Perceived Performance Gap in Social Resource Contribution.

Figure 7.

Proposed SRB Ambassador Program design framework.

References

• Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133Article
• Bird, S., & Boyle, D. (2014). Give and Take: How timebanking is transforming healthcare. Timebanking UK.
• Wacker, R. R., & Roberto, K. A. (2018). Community resources for older adults: Programs and services in an era of change. Sage Publications.

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by