Enhancing inclusion through a service infrastructure of kindness

Abstract

We introduce the concept of a service infrastructure of kindness, defined as the underlying features of an organisation that embed kindness into service delivery. Our findings identify four features of a service infrastructure of kindness: culture, materialities, socialities, and imaginaries. Drawing on in-depth research with a non-profit organisation, our theorisation demonstrates the cumulative and exponential power of seemingly minor aspects of the service encounter that have significant value for supporting inclusion. Our contributions reveal kindness as an animating force underpinning service inclusion, the tensions that can emerge in implementing a service infrastructure of kindness, and the micropolitical consequences of kindness that can be re-humanising for excluded consumers.

We introduce the concept of a service infrastructure of kindness, defined as the underlying features of an organisation that embed kindness into service delivery. By exploring how a service infrastructure of kindness supports inclusive service delivery, our theorisation responds to calls to address inequities and exclusions in service provision through human-centred approaches (e.g. Field et al., 2021; Fisk et al., 2018). Kindness offers the potential to build a more human marketplace (Saunders and Truong, 2024), and we suggest it could play an important role in redressing the dehumanising impacts of exclusion (Echeverri and Salomonson, 2019; Pierce, 2024). However, despite the increased institutionalisation of kindness (Brownlie, 2024), marketing theory has largely overlooked the role of kindness in service inclusion and embedding acts of kindness into value exchange logic remains a challenge (Saunders and Truong, 2024).

We address the following research questions: How can kindness be embedded in service infrastructure? How is inclusion enabled by a service infrastructure of kindness? We draw on ‘an infrastructure of kindness’ (Brownlie and Anderson, 2017), a concept from sociology that we apply and extend to the service domain. Infra is a Latin prefix that means below or underneath. In recognising that infrastructure underpins everyday life experiences (Berlant, 2016), a service infrastructure of kindness lens allows us to examine a range of background, yet important aspects of an organisation that provide meaning and structure to the flow of kindness.

The substantive contribution of this article is to demonstrate how a service infrastructure of kindness enhances inclusion. We theorise that culture, materialities, socialities, and imaginaries are the underlying features of an organisation that embed kindness into service delivery. Our theorisation of a service infrastructure of kindness offers contributions by drawing attention to the cumulative and exponential power of seemingly minor aspects of the service encounter that have significant value for supporting inclusion. We also suggest a service infrastructure of kindness has micropolitical consequences for excluded consumers.

Theoretical foundations

Kindness

Kindness is a relational concept that ‘emerges in our relationship with others and their reciprocal relationships with us’ (Hamrick, 2002: 2). Although it is often regarded as instinctive (Phillips and Taylor, 2009), kindness is not easily definable and conceptualisations are often marked by ambivalence as kindness becomes associated with overlapping prosocial concepts (Brownlie et al., 2025). Indeed, some scholars intentionally avoid definitions of kindness to leave space ‘for plurality and possibility’ (Williams and Weigand, 2022: 3) and ‘the varying constellation of ideas, practices and emotions to which the word attaches’ (Brownlie, 2024: 755). This broad scope reflects how kindness occurs in all manner of interpersonal contact from close family to strangers in ways that can disrupt conventional understandings of kinship (Brownlie and Anderson, 2017). However, an everyday understanding of kindness is ‘people expressing concern for the well-being of others through their feelings, thoughts, and actions’ (Cazenave, 2024: 4).

We follow Brownlie and Anderson (2017) who identify four distinctive features of kindness. First, its infrastructural quality refers to small-scale everyday acts of kindness that may attract little attention but are deeply significant for individuals and society. Second, kindness should not be regarded as an obligation but, rather, emerges as a voluntary response. Third, kindness has an animating character that becomes evident when small-scale contextual acts of kindness spill over and lead to broader cumulative impacts. Fourth, kindness has a micro or inter-personal focus that distinguishes it from more collective concepts such as solidarity or community. Bringing these four features together leads to the following definition: ‘kindness involves low-level, unobligated, interpersonal acts and relationships which have direct practical but also affective or atmospheric consequences that are subtly transformative of the relationships in which they occur’ (Brownlie and Anderson, 2017: 1228).

In line with enactments of kindness that are oriented to improve the well-being of others (Cazenave, 2024), Brownlie and Anderson (2017) are interested in how kindness enables positive transformations. Positive transformations are evident in a range of settings such as healthcare where a combination of high-tech medical care and human kindness improves patient outcomes (Berry et al., 2017, 2024). Additionally, research with migrant survivors of sexual and gender-based violence reveals how kind encounters with strangers reinstall trust in humanity (Phillimore et al., 2025). Saunders and Truong’s (2024) analysis of non-monetary value exchange suggests an ‘economy of kindness’ can be leveraged to improve individual and community well-being and legitimise a more human marketplace. At a macro level, kindness has the capacity to encourage positive transformation in the face of societal challenges (Willis and Kavka, 2021). Within challenging sociocultural contexts that often lead to feelings of powerlessness, kindness is associated with enchantment and hope (Brownlie, 2024).

Despite the positive transformative power of kindness, it is important to recognise its tensions to avoid a romanticised account (Thrift, 2005). Of relevance is how the inclusiveness of kindness is not guaranteed. An Australian survey found that approximately one-third of respondents identified groups they perceived as less deserving of kindness (Habibis et al., 2016). Although these groups are narrow in scope and refer to those who have violated societal norms, it nevertheless suggests that kindness can become tied up in assessments of deservingness. Another tension emerges in the co-option of the language of kindness into neoliberalism and corporate culture in a way that undermines its authenticity (Brownlie et al., 2025; Nutbrown et al., 2021).

Kindness is perceived to overlap with or is used interchangeably with other relational and prosocial concepts such as warmth, empathy, compassion, or care (Gilbert et al., 2019; Phillips and Taylor, 2009). The relationship between kindness, empathy, and warmth can be explained in terms of breadth, with kindness being the most expansive (Berry et al., 2017; Hake and Post, 2023). The warm component of kindness supports its role in fostering well-being (Hake and Post 2023), while empathy is a kindness dimension important to the mission of healing and to create a kind society (Berry et al., 2017; Bove, 2019).

Research on warmth has roots in social cognition theory, particularly the stereotype content model, that identifies warmth and competence as two dimensions used to make sense of others (Fiske, 2018). Güntürkün et al. (2020) conclude that warmth dominates for marketing outcomes reflecting a relational bond between customers and service provider while competence dominates for outcomes reflecting a transactional bond. Although not featured highly within inclusion research, some consumer groups clearly perceive lack of warmth in service encounters, for example, Echeverri and Salomonson (2019) identify dehumanising treatment in interactions with service providers.

Drawing on interdisciplinary scholarship, Wieseke et al. (2012) suggest that empathy is best understood as comprising interacting cognitive and emotional dimensions that enable an individual to consider another’s perspective and share their emotions. The relevance of empathy to inclusion is clear when we consider that ‘empathy motivates helping behavior, facilitates social bonding and enhances social support’ (Bove, 2019: 32). Empathy not only informs interpersonal interaction but can also catalyse broader social action, through, for example, empathetic cultural models of homelessness (Blocker and Barrios, 2015).

Compassion is another related concept but while kindness has broad applicability to any interpersonal context, compassion refers to a sensitivity and commitment to alleviating suffering (Gilbert et al., 2019). Although compassion is a kind emotion (Malti, 2021), a key point of distinction is compassion requires the analysis of suffering, but kindness does not (Gilbert et al., 2019). O’Donohoe and Turley’s (2006: 1446) study on the compassion exhibited by service providers dealing with bereaved consumers reveals that compassion emerges best in ‘an organic, informal fashion that is both antithetical and non-amenable to managerial systematization and control’.

Another closely aligned concept is care. Habibis et al. (2016: 399) suggest the ‘normativity’ of kindness can be distinguished from more ‘profound’ expressions of care. From this perspective, an infrastructure of kindness may offer a foundation for care, aligning with Brownlie and Anderson’s (2017: 1235) suggestion that an infrastructure of kindness can create ‘bedrocks upon which other things can be built’. Care can exist without emotional attachment (Winham, 2022), evident, for example, in discussions of marketised care (Chatzidakis et al., 2025). In contrast, kindness does not exist ‘without benevolent feelings, thoughts, and actions’ (Cazenave, 2024: 11). Engaging in caring actions with kindness may therefore enhance the quality of care (Winham, 2022).

In sum, our review of pro-social concepts establishes kindness as the most expansive: it subsumes warmth and empathy, it lacks the potentially paternalist analysis of suffering associated with compassion, and it may provide the foundation for expressions of care.

Service infrastructure of kindness

Brownlie and Anderson (2017) explore an infrastructure of kindness in the context of everyday help and support in city living, such as collecting newspapers for a neighbour or passing on parking tickets in pay and display carparks. They argue the urban setting reveals how the indifference typically associated with city living can coexist with small acts of kindness. While Brownlie and Anderson (2017) draw attention to how kindness is differentially shaped by the material contexts of various city spaces, we focus more deeply on just one space. Our perspective recognises that daily acts of kindness are likely to be encountered in organisations which ‘perform a contextualizing function for kind acts’ (Hamrick, 2002: 131). Thrift (2005: 144) also captures the contextualisation of kindness as ‘a social and aesthetic technology of belonging to a situation, rather than as an organic emotion’. We therefore see relevance in exploring how kindness can be embedded in service organisations. In doing so, we build on Brownlie and Anderson’s (2017) dual emphasis on material and social infrastructure to the expanded service infrastructure of kindness framework we discuss in our findings.

Service infrastructure can be defined as all underpinning features of the organisation that shape the conditions for service delivery. Infrastructure is a term traditionally used to describe the material aspects of urban spaces but, following an infrastructural turn, its meaning has become more expansive to accommodate its deep impact on individual identities and prospects (Amin, 2014). Consequentially, focus has shifted from hard to soft infrastructure that encompasses services, community groups, and personal support systems (Dyer et al., 2019). In line with Berlant (2016: 393), this suggests infrastructure as ‘the movement or patterning of social form’. Table 1 summarises the defining properties of infrastructure identified by Star (1999) and includes examples to highlight the relevance of each to service infrastructure. This table recognises the broad scope of service infrastructure in providing meaning and structure by encompassing background, yet important aspects of an organisation that enable it to function (Star, 1999). This background focus is what differentiates service infrastructure from other concepts such as servicescapes or service systems.

Table 1.

Service infrastructure.

Infrastructure property	Meaning (Star, 1999)	Service infrastructure example
Embeddedness	‘Infrastructure is sunk into and inside of other structures, social arrangements, and technologies’ (p. 381)	Service infrastructure becomes embedded in all aspects of service delivery e.g. feminism embedded in the culture, servicescape design, and social relationships of a women’s aid group
Transparency	Infrastructure ‘does not have to be reinvented each time or assembled for each task, but invisibly supports those tasks’ (p. 381)	Organisation culture creates a climate where norms and procedures become taken for granted e.g. care as a taken-for-granted approach in health
Reach or scope	‘This may be either spatial or temporal – infrastructure has reach beyond a single event or one-site practice’ (p. 381)	Service infrastructure could extend beyond a single organisation to the entire service eco-system e.g. whole supply chain approach to tackling food waste
Learned as part of membership	‘Strangers and outsiders encounter infrastructure as a target object to be learned about’ (p. 381)	Socialisation activities provided for new organisation members e.g. induction training for volunteers in non-profit organisations
Links with conventions of practice	‘Infrastructure both shapes and is shaped by the conventions of a community of practice’ (p. 381)	Organisations are affected by and affect conventional processes e.g. service innovation must align with health care conventions of practice
Embodiment of standards	‘…infrastructure takes on transparency by plugging into other infrastructures and tools in a standard fashion’ (p. 381)	Organisations seek to conform to industry quality standards e.g. food hygiene standards in hospitality
Built on an installed base	‘Infrastructure does not grow de novo; it wrestles with the inertia of the installed base and inherits strengths and limitations from that base’ (p. 382)	Service infrastructure is enabled and constrained by supporting infrastructure e.g. rail transport services are dependent on available networks
Becomes visible upon breakdown	‘The normal invisible quality of working infrastructure becomes visible when it breaks’ (p. 382)	Service failures bring service infrastructure to light e.g. technology breakdowns prevent service delivery
Is fixed in modular increments, not all at once or globally	‘Because infrastructure is big, layered, and complex…. Change takes time and negotiation’ (p. 382)	Service innovation takes time and is often at a grassroots level e.g. poverty alleviation is complex due to the diversity of local needs and actors involved

Servicescape analysis considers the impact of the environment on consumers and employees (Bitner, 1992). While the original conceptualisation prioritised physical environment, researchers have expanded the servicescape framework to include social, socially symbolic, and natural environmental stimuli (Rosenbaum and Massiah, 2011). Research suggests the socio-spatial features of servicescapes can play a role in consumer exclusion. For example, Beudaert et al. (2017) consider the sensory overload experienced by people with auditory disorders. Others draw attention to how exclusion is exacerbated by poor treatment from service providers (Echeverri and Salomonson, 2019). The service infrastructure perspective we adopt moves beyond environmental staging to also encompass non-environmental aspects of service delivery. While servicescape prioritises the service environment, service infrastructure prioritises the service foundations. The embeddedness of service infrastructure (see Table 1) means that it is ‘sunk into and inside of’ the servicescape (Star, 1999: 381). This enables consideration of more subtle aspects of service delivery and brings to the fore background and foundational aspects of service delivery that may be less obviously noticed by consumers.

A service system is a ‘configuration of people, technologies, and other resources that interact with other service systems to co-create value’ (Maglio et al., 2009: 395). Interaction within a service system happens only when actors’ dispositions and connections align (Chandler and Lusch, 2015). Service systems offer an encompassing view of service inclusion. For example, Fisk et al. (2023) suggest a systems perspective is helpful in exploring four pillars of service inclusion – enabling opportunities, enabling choices, nurturing healing, and fostering happiness. The focus of service system research is outcome oriented towards value and a whole systems approach rather than individual interactions. As Table 1 indicates, it is possible for the reach of service infrastructure to extend beyond a single organisation. However, our interest on the small scale means that this level of analysis is beyond our scope.

In sum, a service infrastructure lens enables us to take a step back to consider the foundations on which servicescapes and service systems can be built.

Method

Research design and context

Our research is based on a non-profit organisation, ‘The Gathering Space’ (TGS), that houses an exhibition space, retail space, museum, archive, and library and aims to enable access to resources to enact positive differences in users’ lives. TGS has been operating for over 30 years. It began as a small grassroots project with volunteer support, evolving into an established organisation with 13 paid members of staff and over 80 volunteers. It is frequented largely but not exclusively by women and has a broad range of users including those experiencing marginalisation, such as migrants and adults with literacy needs. The events on offer are varied: one-to-one educational provision, small group work such as crafting, regular events such as reading groups, and one-off exhibitions and talks. Individuals often participate in more than one of these activities, with some becoming involved on a deeper level over time. TGS works closely with other local community and cultural organisations.

Data collection

Data collection took place between April 2020 and March 2022 and involved 56 in-depth interviews; arts-based research; historical analysis of the organisation’s archives; and participant observations (Table 2). Combining interviews with other sources of data enhanced the rigour of our qualitative research by strengthening the validity and reliability of findings (Epp and Otnes, 2021).

Table 2.

Summary of data sources.

Method	Source	Dataset
In-depth interviews	56 participants	1166 pages of transcripts Interviews lasted from 30 mins to over 1.5 hrs
Arts-based workshops + interviews	2 × 1.5 hour art-based workshops where participants creatively expressed their interactions and relationship with TGS Follow-up semi-structured interviews on the artwork process	11 artworks 65 pages of transcripts
Archive analysis	Historical analysis of the organization’s archives Analysis of newspaper archives	505 photographs of a range of items including visitor books, documents on organisational history, material artefacts, plus associated notes 137 media pieces
Participant observations	Each researcher kept field notes and a reflective diary of their experience of TGS and attendance at events (online and in-person) Photographs	3 × researcher diaries 228 photographs of the TGS space and events

We used purposive and snowball sampling for interviews, aiming to gather perspectives from as wide a variety of those involved with TGS as possible. This included users, staff, volunteers, and community networks (see web Appendix). Interviews used the long interview technique (McCracken, 1988). They were framed around a set of loosely structured questions focused on participants’ background experiences, impetus for becoming involved with TGS, the projects and events they attend, experiences of the space, and wider impacts of TGS on their lives. Probes and follow-up questions were used to elicit deep, rich data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

We ran two arts-based workshops where participants created artworks to represent their feelings about TGS. In collaboration with a local artist, these workshops gave participants the freedom to express their feelings in a more creative and less mediated way than interviews (Rydzik et al., 2013). We conducted short follow-up interviews with 11 workshop participants to unpack the meanings and experiences behind the finished artwork. Archival and media analysis informed understanding of the curation and development of TGS over time. Finally, researchers attended online and in-person events as well as spending time in the servicescape to gain understandings of how it is used.

Data analysis

Analysis commenced with each researcher independently reading and re-reading interview transcripts, additional data, and field notes to familiarise ourselves with the entire dataset. We independently open-coded for emerging themes, using descriptive codes to represent the data in a way that preserved participant meanings (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). We conducted systematic and iterative rounds of discussion of our coded themes using the constant comparative method, considering data across participants and sources and the emerging conceptual framework (Spiggle, 1994). This collaborative and iterative approach allowed for discussion and review of different interpretations of the same piece of data. During analysis, similar codes were combined into first-order concepts and second-order themes. Moving iteratively between empirical data and theory, we developed a framework of a service infrastructure of kindness (see Web Appendix).

Findings

Our findings suggest a service infrastructure of kindness encompasses culture, materialities, socialities, and imaginaries as the underlying features of an organisation that embed kindness into service delivery. For each, we identify an animator of kindness that prompts its spread. Culture of kindness is animated by organisational values, materialities of kindness are animated by objects, socialities of kindness are animated by people, and imaginaries of kindness are animated by stories. The animating quality of kindness reflects how small-scale kindnesses can have broader and more productive impacts (Brownlie and Anderson, 2017: 1227). In our case, the broader impact is to enhance service inclusion.

Culture of kindness

Culture of kindness is animated by organisational values that provide an infrastructural foundation for kindness. As well as organisational values of addressing inequalities, TGS also have values of openness, respect, and empowerment. While the former directly tackle inclusion by aligning with the proposition that service inclusion should enable opportunities (Fisk et al., 2018), the latter indirectly tackle inclusion by overlapping with a culture of kindness (Berry et al., 2024). Our field notes confirm the language of kindness is regularly employed by TGS staff:

‘The language of kindness features overtly and prominently in the programme of upcoming events. The book club and a craft workshop have the specific intention “to get people thinking and talking about kindness” through reflecting on personal experiences of kindness and how it shapes communities’ (March 2021).

Sharing and promoting such events supports kindness becoming a strong discursive resource associated with TGS and reinforces how organisations can ‘perform a contextualizing function for kind acts’ (Hamrick, 2002: 131). This contextualisation creates the conditions for kindness to circulate.

Some of our data collection took place during the COVID-19 lockdowns when physical access to TGS was impossible. For Monica, this allowed her time to reflect:

‘Yesterday we did a Zoom thing […] I suddenly realized in it, during this event, how much I actually was missing the kindness of [TGS] and how it has stopped me being kind, because we’re so isolated now, you don’t get the sorts of opportunities I suppose to be kind to people. […] But just realizing that this is one of the things, for me, that [TGS] once again exemplifies: this sense of being kind and caring, to each other and to yourself, and I think I hadn’t realised how much I’ve been missing that’ (Monica, user/volunteer).

For Monica, TGS’s culture of kindness is a rich soil in which ‘opportunities’ to enact kindness can easily grow. Her observations highlight the benefits users perceive in harmonising their own values with those of the organisation. Monica’s experience of re-engagement with TGS made her realise that the absence of TGS and its enactment of kind practices had impacted on her own practices, reinforcing how organisational values are underpinning animators of individual kind acts.

Taylor, a volunteer, explains how the values of TGS encourage a ‘natural’ approach to interactions that enhance inclusion:

‘[it’s about] always trying to keep in mind that everyone has had different lived experiences. […] It was something that I had beforehand, but [TGS] really showed me how to put it into practice, how to do it without being… I’m struggling to find the right word, but to do it in a natural way, I guess. Not do it with saying like, “oh we’re inclusive,” for brownie points, they’re doing it so that everyone can genuinely experience it in the same way. Everyone can get the same benefits, which is what everyone deserves; everyone deserves to be able to have the same experience when they go there. They’re really doing it with the right values and goals in mind’ (Taylor, volunteer).

Taylor’s words reveal how a natural authentic approach to inclusion is vital to avoid undermining its authenticity. She highlights how TGS’s practice of inclusion that everyone is respected equally and their needs fully recognised are underpinned by the organization’s core values. The enactment of their values acts as an animating force for kind practices, showing Taylor how to behave. Her enthusiasm for the ‘natural’ approach at TGS suggests kindness cannot be managed or regulated. Viewing a culture of kindness as socially constructed rather than a management tool aligns with the understanding that a key feature of kindness is its voluntary nature (Brownlie and Anderson, 2017).

Organisational values do not always animate the smooth reproduction of kindness because of the unintended consequence of creating challenges for staff. As Dora (staff member) suggests, ‘an expectation of kindness, that is a weight to deliver for the whole team’. Judy (staff member) makes a similar observation: ‘if [TGS]’s being held up as a model of good practise then we can always anticipate that people will be scrutinising that and rightly so. With that kind of reputation comes more responsibility’. Like compassion fatigue, a culture of kindness risks a form of kindness fatigue that could reduce well-being of staff (Cocker and Joss, 2016). Elaine explains how this manifests when offering support to users who have shared emotional experiences of exclusion:

‘There have been times where learners have said stuff and I’ve been upset […] if we need support then we will go to colleagues […] everybody is really good at listening and problem-solving. It’s just the way that the whole place works’ (Elaine, staff member).

Elaine’s description explains how kindness fatigue is avoided through open communication and support from other staff members. Within TGS, kindness is therefore not solely directed towards service users but also flows between staff. From this perspective, a culture of kindness is a ‘mutually, socially constructed environment’ that emerges through the sensemaking of all organisation members (Thurlow, 2022: 46). We can conclude that values-driven kindness that is collectively enacted is a stronger enabler of inclusion than managerially imposed kindness.

Materialities of kindness

Materialities of kindness are animated by objects, such as décor or material artefacts, that offer infrastructural support for kindness. It is important to distinguish between materialities that enable inclusion and materialities of kindness. The material design of TGS has many features that directly enable inclusion from ramps and accessible exhibition displays to learning resources available in multiple languages. In contrast to these formal and sometimes policy-driven strategies, the materialities of kindness we focus on are everyday material features that cultivate a sense of belonging. Materialities of kindness therefore indirectly enhance service inclusion by going beyond accessibility. The materialities of kindness within TGS offer what McCracken (2005) refers to as a homey space:

‘It feels really cozy and informal. There are all those seating areas and we have this big round table and all the chairs sat around it. It’s just really as if you’re sitting in a living room, in someone’s cozy living room, so that also makes you feel free to behave like you would at home or at a friend’s house’ (Anika, intern).

A homey servicescape aligns with a service infrastructure of kindness as kindness is intuitively more likely to be associated with domestic rather than marketplace settings. While Saunders and Truong (2024) focus on how kindness in interpersonal connections can create a more human marketplace, we extend this to materialities. Materialities of kindness draw attention to non-verbal aspects of kindness. Although each individual aspect of the material staging is minor, collectively they have powerful resonance for those who encounter exclusion in other contexts with one user and volunteer describing TGS as ‘just amazing. Such heart, what a space to be in’ (Field note, March 2022). Drawing from Thrift’s (2005) suggestion that kindness should be built into spaces, the material construction of the TGS servicescape is one way the service infrastructure of kindness is made meaningful.

Findings suggest that having a space that feels cared for, in turn, communicates to users that they are cared for and worthy of kindness. This is explained by Eve who used TGS to host a series of workshops to support inclusive access to the arts for young people:

‘A sense of somewhere that is safe is absolutely critical, and especially when you’re working with people who are marginalised in other settings. It takes so much energy to get people to come to somewhere new. For good reason, they have good reason to be worried and wary […] the chance to offer that hospitality was so important. […] those tables - because they’re long and thin - you’re able to see each other. You can have all the stuff right in front of you and it’s small enough to feel quite cosy and secure […] having that space and having it be attractive and well-lit and you can have the lamps and it’s not industrial lighting… having that space was absolutely critical to making the girls feel safe and able to start relaxing enough, and that is something that is consistently undervalued in terms of community work’ (Eve, staff from an organisation in TGS’s network).

The staging within TGS differentiates it from more commercial or less cared for environments. In line with our infrastructural lens, many of the objects that Eve mentions such as the tables or lamps can be characterised as ordinary and unremarkable. They are likely to become so embedded that they ‘fade out of focus and remain peripheral to our vision’ (Miller, 2005: 5). However, as Eve explains, they are deeply significant for making people feel safe, particularly those who have faced exclusion and marginalisation such as the young people she supports from ‘unstable’ and ‘chaotic’ backgrounds. Eve runs events for marginalised groups in a range of venues and compares the cared for environment of TGS with an alternative space she sometimes uses that she describes as ‘horrible’ and ‘uninspiring’. While both venues arguably offer inclusion by providing a place for marginalised people to gather, the materialities of kindness at TGS enhance inclusion through recognition cues (Figueiredo et al., 2021) that make tangible the underpinning service infrastructure of kindness.

While homey staging and material objects make kindness tangible in ways that enhance inclusion, some aspects of the material infrastructure had the unintended consequence of risking exclusion. This is particularly evident in the open plan setting that made some participants feel self-conscious: ‘I was aware that when I was in the group that we were disturbing the entire [space]’ (Iris, service user). Susie describes a similar experience:

‘I’m working with a bunch of quite working-class women, quite loud, speak their minds, you know, using humour as a way to kind of deflect, using humour as a coping mechanism, laughing, all of that kind of thing, and then we would be told to, like, keep the noise down and stuff’ (Susie, professional network).

The range of users who frequent TGS raises challenges in ensuring the space is perceived as equally welcoming for all. For Susie, perceptions of class difference mean that the embodied practices of laughter and loudness that the women in her group use to create a comfortable environment are not welcomed by all. These comments suggest that private spaces are important for users who have struggled with exclusion. The difficulty of meeting all service users’ needs perfectly within any one space suggests a mixture of open and private spaces can best accommodate the needs of diverse user groups.

Socialities of kindness

Socialities of kindness are animated by people, including employees, volunteers, and users. Our findings suggest socialities of kindness enhance feelings of inclusion. A prime example of the socialities of kindness within TGS is the welcome, captured in our field notes when an attendee of a group reading event says entering is like ‘being wrapped in a hug the minute you come in’ (Field note, March 2022). Welcome is important because ‘[h]ow we land affects our entire experience’ (Preece et al., 2022). Many TGS users recall their first interactions with TGS staff as memorable:

‘I walked in, and [staff member] was reading the Eleanor Oliphant book […] I sat at the back, unobtrusively, and I listened to her read. I just… I felt I was Eleanor Oliphant, you know, it was a book that I identified with, being isolated and stuff like that, and feeling not fitting in. I felt safe, part of the group. I had just walked in, and I got a wee cup of tea and here was somebody telling me a wee story. I just loved the whole experience […] a lot of people go in there feeling broken and they get healed - in a gentle way, at your own space and your own time’ (Theresa, service user).

The experience of ‘landing’ in a site always needs to be considered in relation to an individual’s broader personal context (Preece et al., 2022). Within TGS, the sociality of kindness associated with a warm landing is important for participants such as Theresa who previously felt isolated. Theresa is retired and lives alone, and her feelings of exclusion were exacerbated throughout the COVID-19 lockdowns. Drawing on Miller (2005), we suggest the objects within TGS determine normative behaviours connected to the spread of kindness, for example, offering hospitality through cups of tea, a standard TGS practice. Theresa’s comment supports the understanding that within a service infrastructure of kindness, small things can have a much broader impact. The offer of a cup of tea is a form of sociality that crosses the boundary between public and private domains (Debenedetti et al., 2014) and encourages a sense of safety and familiarity. This kind act of hospitality was the catalyst for Theresa to regularly frequent TGS, enhancing her sense of inclusion and enabling her to feel involved with a community.

Figure 1 provides an example from our arts-based research that further illustrates how hospitality in the form of cups of tea is a central feature of the socialities of kindness at TGS. Elaborating on her work, Rose notes:

‘I didn’t have a lot of stability […] it was a very strong pull to be part of it and to learn from it and then, now I sort of feel like embedded into it. Where I’m landing, that is me, if it wasn’t obvious, the little person who’s rode the waves and then has landed in a cup of tea. There’s something about the cup of tea that’s a bit about tradition and a bit about homeliness and... it says home on it, doesn’t it? Home sweet home’ (Rose, staff member).

Figure 1.

Rose’s artwork.

Rose’s reflection on the security she feels being ‘embedded’ within TGS shows a form of place attachment, a place where she could feel ‘at ease, content and safely ensconced’ (Borghini et al., 2021: 90), highlighting the important role TGS has played in offering her emotional support at a time when her life was unstable. Both Rose and Theresa’s descriptions of the transformations they have experienced in TGS are reminiscent of how service inclusion can nurture healing (Fisk et al., 2023). Socialities of kindness enhance inclusion by supporting shifts from isolation and instability to feelings of belonging.

Likewise, Fatima describes the central role TGS played in her life following her arrival in the city:

‘Before joining [TGS], I was very somehow sad, you could say. I was feeling some homesickness and [missing] my family and everything, but when I joined I felt like a family member. When you’re a newcomer in a new place, you feel homesickness and nostalgia. So I felt in the start too much. After that I felt that [TGS] was the best place for me to be familiar […]. It proved for me a learning point for everything: not only the [TGS] atmosphere, but also the outside. So now I am fully confident to go everywhere’ (Fatima, service user/volunteer).

Fatima uses TGS to compensate for the loneliness she feels in living so far away from her family. The description of feeling like a family member reflects the many small kindnesses Fatima experiences in TGS, such as explaining local customs and offering emotional support during periods of homesickness. For Brownlie and Anderson (2017: 1228), kindness can ‘challenge fixed categories of belonging’. We find that when Fatima is unsettled through moving countries, a service infrastructure of kindness enhances inclusion by allowing her to feel belonging through the chosen family she finds in TGS. This becomes an important step for Fatima to restore her sense of self. Fatima’s words also reveal broader positive implications that extend beyond the servicescape boundary to prompt well-being in other activities, spaces, and relationships. If we understand kindness as a ‘sympathetic identification with the vulnerabilities and attractions of others’ (Phillips and Taylor, 2009: 4), the social relations within TGS are clearly aligned with this perspective. We consider this a form of infrastructural kindness for more vulnerable members of society who can benefit most from inclusion.

We did not find any evidence of socialities of kindness leading to unintended consequences that risk exclusion. As will be discussed in the next section, there were some minor misalignments between lived experience at TGS and expectations, but these were not considered significant enough to undermine inclusion.

Imaginaries of kindness

Imaginaries of kindness are animated by stories that reinforce broadly shared understandings of the service provider as a kind organisation. Certain stories were recounted to us many times, as described in this field note:

‘The story of the broken heating has been repeated to us so many times over the last couple of years. It seems to have become something of a shared narrative and nearly always takes the same format: the coldness of the temperature did not diminish the warmth of the atmosphere!’ (Field note, March 2022).

The story of the broken heating clearly resonates with staff, volunteers, and users who regularly recount this experience. On each retelling, the warm component of kindness (Hake and Post, 2023) is central to the story with the cold temperature almost romanticised to emphasise the warmth of the atmosphere in the group. Stories catalyse the spread of imaginaries and enable them to become shared resources for meaning making (Taylor, 2004). The stories are based on shared experiences and are retold in group settings to reinforce this collective process.

Imaginaries of kindness extend through social media or word of mouth to those without any personal experience with TGS. These are powerful enough to prompt further acts of kindness in the form of donations of money or resources from those who have never physically entered the space but appreciate the inclusion it offers others:

‘I’m always amazed when people have not been in […] but they still want to give, it’s just a really fascinating thing, isn’t it? That idea of what’s in their imagination, like they want this vision of something and they’re not even benefiting from being welcomed in but they want it for others. I think that’s a really beautiful gesture of kindness’ (Dora, staff member).

Imaginaries of kindness function to reproduce kindness as a frame of reference that animates further kind acts. This extends Brownlie and Anderson’s (2017) observations about the animating quality of kindness to include not only recipients of kindness but also those who witness it even from a distance. Extending research on gift economies driven by embedded access and personal experience (Debenedetti et al., 2014), we argue that a service infrastructure of kindness can establish a broader gift economy that goes beyond a direct interactional process. This occurs when even those without any personal experience get emotional and behavioural cues from circulating imaginaries that inform how they feel and act towards the organisation.

Tensions emerge when TGS have difficulty in meeting the high expectations circulating in the stories that animate the imaginaries of kindness. Although most of our data reveals alignment between imaginaries of kindness and user’s experiences, we did encounter some instances of misalignment, for example, failures in hospitality or users who did not achieve expected social benefits:

‘TGS pride themselves on - as soon as you arrive, you get a cup of tea. Except you don’t. […] you’ve got to figure out where the kitchen is and then, you know, navigate that. […] I’m actually just really trying to struggle to think of a time where somebody got up and made everybody a cup of tea’ (Susie, professional network).

‘I felt a bit like I was just living in this strange city where I didn’t really know anyone…I did sort of make one friend, but no not really. I wouldn’t say [social benefits were] a huge part of it. In fact, that was the thing I went there looking for, but it didn’t really [happen]. I think it did help me but maybe just not in the ways I was expecting it to […] just feeling part of “it” – I do think it is like a really special place. I always look back at it fondly… the kind of nurturing aspect of it does make you feel like you’re useful and that you have knowledge to contribute’ (Olivia, intern).

For Susie, the absence of tea stands out as significant given the prominent role it typically plays in stories that circulate about TGS. However, Susie still explains feeling ‘safe’ in TGS and experiences ‘a very warm sense of place when you go in’. For Olivia, the sociality she expected is not entirely absent, but misalignment occurs because she does not form the meaningful friendships she craved. Olivia’s description of feeling ‘part of “it”’ suggests her interactions with TGS still lead to inclusion. Susie and Olivia’s experiences are not reflective of a lapse of kindness. They experience kindness in other interactions with TGS but particularly notice these apparent missing animations – lack of tea (objects), lack of friendships (people) – because they have been prominently highlighted in stories about TGS. As noted by Brownlie et al. (2025: 4), stories of kindness ‘produce concern because of the possibility that they may turn out to be nothing more than a story’.

Susie and Olivia’s experiences suggest that imaginaries of kindness can be characterised by fragility. This is of relevance for nonprofit organisations, who often face fluctuating funding, staffing levels, and resource availability. Ensuring consistent experiences via practices which are less dependent on financial resources (e.g. volunteer welcome practices and setting up homey spaces to convey the service infrastructure of kindness) can help to mitigate this risk.

Discussion and conclusion

The substantive contribution of this article is to introduce a service infrastructure of kindness as a route to enhancing inclusion. Research has uncovered either broadly identified service inclusion pillars or inclusionary strategies tailored to specific consumer groups (Fisk et al., 2018, 2023; Husemann et al., 2023). We shift focus to the underpinning service infrastructure of kindness that enhances such inclusionary pillars and strategies. We believe this is a unique aspect of our findings that is not yet addressed in existing research.

Our theorisation of a service infrastructure of kindness draws attention to the cumulative and exponential power of seemingly minor aspects of the service encounter that have significant value for supporting inclusion. This reinforces the animating quality of kindness (Brownlie and Anderson, 2017). We identify various animators that enable kindness to spread in a way that supports inclusion. Culture of kindness is animated by organisational values, materialities of kindness are animated by objects, socialities of kindness are animated by people, and imaginaries of kindness are animated by stories. Building on interpersonal human enactments of kindness, we also highlight the role played by non-human aspects of the service infrastructure, such as materialities and culture, in catalysing its spread.

The outcomes from the service infrastructure of kindness animate outwards to prompt inclusion in other activities, spaces, and relationships. However, tensions can emerge that create a barrier to the animating quality of kindness. In particular, building on concerns that the co-option of kindness into corporate culture risks undermining its authenticity (Brownlie et al., 2025; Nutbrown et al., 2021), a service infrastructure of kindness that is inauthentic will put the organisation at risk of what we might term ‘kindwashing’. Like other reputational strategies, such as carewashing (Chatzidakis and Littler, 2022), kindwashing refers to the prioritisation of marketing communications that promote a ‘kind’ image of the organisation over the genuine well-being of excluded consumers. Authenticity is particularly evident in relation to culture of kindness and imaginaries of kindness. Like other prosocial concepts (O’Donohoe and Turley, 2006: 1446), a culture of kindness works best when it emerges authentically in ‘an organic, informal fashion’. In the same way that anxieties surrounding the authenticity of kindness narratives intensify during times of societal instability (Brownlie et al., 2025), we find that stories that animate imaginaries of kindness are under increased scrutiny during times of individual instability and exclusion.

A service infrastructure of kindness may have micropolitical consequences for excluded consumers. Brownlie (2024) suggests that the tendency to focus on collective emotions overlooks how other ‘quieter’ relations can be equally important to social change. We see a similar focus in marketing theory which has shown how the solidarity of larger groups is important in addressing inclusion (Hutton, 2019; Scott et al., 2025). For example, a focus on social movements illustrates the value of macro and meso approaches to inclusion-related social change (Scott et al., 2025). In contrast, research is less likely to consider the political potential of micro approaches to inclusion that stem from everyday smaller-scale interpersonal relations. Given the de-humanising and careless treatment often faced by excluded consumers in their interactions with service providers (e.g. Echeverri and Salomonson, 2019; Hutton, 2019), a service infrastructure of kindness can be viewed as micropolitical in terms of how small-scale acts of kindness can have re-humanising effects. Phillimore et al. (2025) suggest kind encounters with strangers can disrupt norms and offer hope for those experiencing exclusion. We extend this perspective to service provision and suggest a service infrastructure of kindness acts as a form of social repair to redress the infrastructural failures of other service providers. As noted by Berlant (2016: 393), the ‘repair or replacement of broken infrastructure is […] necessary for any form of sociality to extend itself’. Drawing on Thrift’s (2005) discussion of physical repair, Hall and Smith (2015: 11) argue that social repair involves individual acts of kindness that ‘help hold us all together’. Our analysis builds on this insight to reveal how the cumulation of enactments of kindness works to support inclusion. This exposes the politics and patterning of kindness and how service providers can either enable or constrain access to kindness.

There is no universal way of designing and implementing a service infrastructure of kindness, so further research may uncover diverse approaches. Future work could consider how a service infrastructure of kindness varies according to different missions and agendas such as different types of for-profit services, or services with a political, activist, or religious ethos. Future research could usefully explore the role of AI technology in a service infrastructure of kindness. Kipnis et al.’s (2022) research on service robots reveals consumers do not perceive that kindness is possible outside of human-to-human interaction. Will advancements in this field reduce consumer scepticism and change opinions about the distinctiveness of human-to-human relationships? What are the ethical implications of increased technology-facilitated kindness for service inclusion?

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material - Enhancing inclusion through a service infrastructure of kindness

Supplemental Material for Enhancing inclusion through a service infrastructure of kindness by Kathy Hamilton, Juliette Wilson, and Holly Porteous in Marketing Theory.