The demise of "voluntourism" and "orphanage tourism" has been widely reported in recent months, based on the argument that it's exploitative to both recipient and volunteer.

But we don't need to write off volunteering overseas altogether to improve the experience for everyone involved.

Most volunteer tourism involves people from developed countries travelling to the less developed world, keen to do good while having a travel and life experience. On face value, noble pursuits.

It's not just school leavers and uni students keen to build a good CV — voluntourists are also career breakers looking to put their skills to good use and retirees giving back in their twilight years.

Voluntourists work on development projects aimed at improving community wellbeing, with a 2005 estimate suggesting the economic value of volunteers abroad from the US alone was $US2.92 billion. Surely then, voluntourism has great potential to offer a win-win for all parties?

In practice, it's not so simple.

As Agnieszka Sobocinska argues, the history of volunteering shows there have always been strings attached.

Voluntourism has reinforced colonial-era divisions in recipient countries, while sending countries have gained political favours and built strategic alliances.

How orphanages smeared 'voluntourism'

Voluntourism has taken a hit in recent times for giving rise to "orphanage tourism".

Here, volunteers are engaged to "build better futures" for orphaned children, often in former war-torn or politically unstable countries like Cambodia and Myanmar.

Where national governments and bona fide NGOs were once at the helm of volunteer-driven projects, control has shifted to locally-based for-profit businesses.

This has led to a veritable explosion of orphanages as more volunteers want to work in orphanages and more tourists want to visit them.

As academic and activist Kate van Doore outlines, poor families are usually coerced into placing their children in orphanages in the hope of giving them better nutrition and education.

Damning data shows most children in these orphanages have at least one surviving parent and are not actually orphans.

Countries that have seen a dramatic increase in the numbers of Residential Care Institutions and numbers of children being institutionalised. ( Supplied: Cambodian Children's Trust )

This is coupled with growing tales of volunteers realising, albeit too late, that something was not quite right.

In many instances, voluntourists are assigned technical work such as teaching English, providing childcare and initiating building projects, with no experience, qualifications or training. Critics argue that denying children their freedom and right to satisfactory care and education is tantamount to modern slavery.

Australia-based ReThink Orphanages has led activism against orphanage tourism with co-founder and coordinator Leigh Mathews arguing that children are best cared for in family environments not institutions.

That children are not tourist attractions is a point that has been made vociferously and this activism has seen moves in the international tourism supply chain to remove orphanage tourism from itineraries.

Two notable examples are global leaders Intrepid Travel and World Challenge. Cynics would see such moves as motivated by pragmatic business concerns rather than a desire to see the back of orphanage tourism.

But at the very least the move highlights the magnitude of the problem and helps create momentum for the international travel supply chain to follow suit.

Calls to ban orphanage tourism outright have become louder with the Australian government moving towards making orphanage visits illegal on the back of the introduction of a modern slavery act.

WA Senator Linda Reynolds has warned Australian groups that many "orphanage" tours exploit children. ( Supplied )

A better way for orphanages

We don't need to ban volunteering in orphanages altogether to improve the sector. But children are still best cared for in family environments and institutional care should be a temporary measure.

To begin with, as Save the Children Australia's Child Protection Adviser Karen Flanagan argues, thorough vetting of volunteers and orphanage operators is essential to ensure child protection practices are adhered to.

Next, volunteers must conduct due diligence when choosing a volunteer assignment.

There are sufficient avenues now from which the pros and cons of undertaking a voluntourism assignment can be ascertained.

Blindly signing up is no longer a legitimate option.

The international travel supply chain also bears pre-eminent responsibility. It is no longer acceptable to claim ignorance of the true nature of organisations on travel itineraries.

At a destination level, governing authorities must do more. The Better Care Network and Forget Me Not offer invaluable guidance for policy makers and planners.

When travelling to destinations synonymous with orphanage tourism, donate to legitimate organisations that support the de-institutionalisation of children. And if you are unsure, avoid making matters worse by donating in an ad hoc fashion. Piecemeal and one-off attempts largely encourage unscrupulous operators to prosper.

As philosopher and bio-ethicist Peter Singer argues, we need to be effective altruists — offering enduring support for causes that demonstrates real evidence of impact instead of making random, individual acts of charity.

The final word goes to academic Jim Butcher who chides that volunteering is not the problem and neither is tourism. For voluntourism to work, realising our shared responsibility is vital.

Dr. Joseph M. Cheer is a lecturer and researcher in tourism at Monash University and with Prof. Alan Lew is joint editor of Tourism, Resilience and Sustainability: Adapting to Social, Political and Economic Change. Shivani Kanodia and Divya Sahasrabuddhe are graduate researchers in sustainable and volunteer tourism.