The document analyzes perceptions of cooperatives based on focus groups conducted in five cities globally. It found that while perceptions varied between cities, there were also many universal views. Participants generally understood the cooperative model but felt younger generations may be less interested due to increasingly individualistic values. There was some concern that large cooperatives could become less aligned with cooperative principles as they grow. The study aimed to provide insights for cooperative leaders attending an international summit.

1. The
Coopera-ve
Movement
A
global
research
study
on
percep8ons
towards
coopera8ves.
Date:
June
11th,
2012
©
2012
Ipsos
and
UQAM.
All
rights
reserved.
Contains
Ipsos'
and
UQAM’s
confiden8al
and
proprietary
informa8on
and
may
not
be
disclosed
or
reproduced
without
the
prior
wriHen
consent
of
Ipsos
or
UQAM.
Job
Number:
12-­‐021144-­‐01

2. Table
of
Contents
Introduc-on
3
Summary
of
Methodology
4
Summary
of
Markets
5
Outline
of
the
Discussion
11
Percep-ons
Towards
Coopera-ves
12
Future
of
Coopera-ves
39
Conclusions
and
Key
Insights
44
2

3. Introduc-on
In
the
context
of
the
Interna8onal
Year
of
Coopera8ves
and
the
Interna8onal
Summit
of
Coopera8ves,
the
Chair
of
public
rela8ons
and
marke8ng
communica8ons
at
l'Université
du
Québec
à
Montréal
organized
a
research
study
on
communica8ons
and
coopera8ves.
The
summit
will
allow
officers
of
coopera8ves
from
all
over
the
world
to
share
their
opinions
and
concerns
about
the
industry,
and
to
gleam
insights
from
a
series
of
studies
that
were
conducted
on
its
behalf.
As
a
result
of
a
dona8on
made
by
Desjardins,
the
Chair
was
able
to
mandate
Ipsos
with
the
task
of
uncovering
the
percep8ons
that
exist
towards
coopera8ves.
More
specifically,
a
qualita8ve
research
methodology
was
undertaken
and
ten
focus
groups
were
organized
across
five
ci8es:
Quebec,
Manchester,
Paris,
Buenos
Aires,
and
Tokyo.
These
ci8es
were
selected
in
order
to
gain
a
global
picture,
and
to
have
a
representa8on
of
individuals
from
nearly
every
con8nent
on
earth.
In
each
city,
one
group
was
held
among
people
who
are
currently
members
of
a
coopera8ve,
while
the
other
was
held
among
non-­‐members.
Overall,
81
individuals
took
part
in
this
study,
and
while
certain
conclusions
were
clearly
unique
to
each
city,
there
was
also
much
convergence
in
the
results,
demonstra8ng
that
there
are
in
fact
universal
percep8ons
towards
coopera8ves.
The
following
pages
highlight
the
results
of
this
study,
which
was
designed
for
UQAM
and
which
will
be
presented
in
a
forum
this
October.
3

4. Summary
of
Methodology
Methodology
10
focus
groups
(2
in
each
city)
Ci-es
Quebec,
Manchester,
Paris,
Buenos
Aires,
and
Tokyo
Selec-on
criteria
All
par8cipants:
•
Between
25
and
64
years
old
•
50%
men
and
50%
women
•
Do
not
work
in
the
marke8ng
research
or
adver8sing
industries
•
Have
lived
in
their
city
for
at
least
2
years
•
Are
able
to
name
at
least
one
coopera8ve
in
their
city
•
Have
never
par8cipated
in
a
focus
group
about
coopera8ves
before
•
Have
not
par8cipated
in
a
focus
group
in
the
past
6
months
Members
•
Are
currently
members
of
at
least
one
coopera8ve
•
The
fact
that
an
enterprise
was
a
coopera8ve
must
have
played
a
posi8ve
role
in
their
decision
to
become
a
member
Non-­‐Members
•
Are
not
currently
members
of
any
coopera8ve
•
The
fact
that
an
enterprise
is
a
coopera8ve
must
have
a
nega8ve
or
neutral
influence
on
their
decision
to
do
business
with
it
Project
management
Chris8ne
Melançon,
Vice-­‐President,
and
Tom
Rigby,
Research
Manager
Discussion
guides
4

5. Summary
of
Markets
Markets
Covered:
•
Quebec
City,
Canada
•
Manchester,
England
•
Paris,
France
•
Buenos
Aires,
Argen-na
•
Tokyo,
Japan
5

6. Summary
of
Markets
Members
Quebec
City
•
Popula-on:
765,706
(GQA)
•
Date
of
groups:
April
18th,
2012
•
Best
known
coopera-ve:
Desjardins
(banking,
insurance)
•
Percep-ons
at
a
glance:
The
par8cipants
here
felt
that
the
coopera8ve
industry
in
Quebec
revolved
around
one
main
enterprise,
Desjardins.
Aside
from
this,
it
was
generally
believed
that
the
other
small,
local
coopera8ves
were
implicated
in
helping
their
communi8es,
but
were
rarely
discussed
in
the
media.
Most
of
the
par8cipants
had
clear
percep8ons
about
what
the
coopera8ve
model
entails
and
were
proud
of
the
principles
it
stands
for.
However,
there
was
a
strong
percep8on
that
the
younger
genera8ons’
values
were
much
more
individualis8c
and
money-­‐oriented
than
their
own
or
their
parents’,
and
that
as
a
result,
the
relevance
of
coopera8ves
would
diminish
over
8me.
In
addi8on,
there
was
some
concern
that
as
coopera8ves
grew
in
size,
they
became
less
true
to
their
original
principles,
and
were
more
likely
to
resemble
regular
corpora8ons.
Non-­‐members
6

7. Summary
of
Markets
Members
Manchester
•
Popula-on:
2
200
000
(GMA)
•
Date
of
groups:
April
23rd,
2012
•
Best
known
coopera-ve:
The
Coopera8ve
(food,
banking,
insurance,
travel,
etc)
•
Percep-ons
at
a
glance:
There
was
a
strong
associa8on
between
coopera8ves
in
general
and
“The
Coopera8ve”,
which
was
thought
to
be
the
largest
in
the
industry.
The
members
here
felt
an
aHachment
towards
coopera8ves,
and
considered
them
to
be
part
of
Manchester’s
historical
landscape.
However,
they
also
felt
that
the
younger
genera8ons
were
not
growing
up
with
the
same
emphasis
made
on
coopera8ves,
and
that
these
enterprises
will
become
less
relevant
over
8me
as
a
result.
The
non-­‐members
knew
the
basic
principles
of
coopera8ves,
but
ques8oned
whether
they
actually
operated
any
differently
than
private
companies.
This
was
omen
on
account
of
the
size
that
some
coopera8ves
had
aHained.
Non-­‐members
7

8. Summary
of
Markets
Members
Paris
•
Popula-on:
12,089,098
(GPA)
•
Date
of
groups:
April
25th,
2012
•
Best
known
coopera-ve:
Crédit
Mutuel
(banking,
insurance)
&
Crédit
Agricole
(banking,
insurance)
•
Percep-ons
at
a
glance:
The
coopera8ve
industry
in
France
was
believed
to
be
concentrated
most
in
the
financial
and
food
sectors,
and
the
two
best
known
coopera8ves
were
Crédit
Mutuel
and
Crédit
Agricole.
The
members
felt
pride
in
doing
business
with
a
coopera8ve
and
agreed
strongly
that
they
do
contribute
to
a
beHer
world
overall.
However,
both
they
and
especially
the
non-­‐members,
felt
that
as
coopera8ves
gained
in
size,
they
ceased
to
be
“true”
coopera8ves.
In
effect,
the
larger
they
became,
the
more
they
were
perceived
as
being
like
every
other
enterprise.
In
addi8on,
the
non-­‐members
considered
coopera8ves
to
be
per8nent
in
rural
areas
and
in
the
agricultural
sector,
but
less
so
in
large
ci8es
or
in
finance.
Overall,
the
Parisian
par8cipants
showed
the
most
skep8cism
about
coopera8ves
adhering
to
their
principles.
Non-­‐members
8

9. Summary
of
Markets
Members
Buenos
Aires
•
Popula-on:
12,801,365
(GBAA)
•
Date
of
groups:
May
2nd,
2012
•
Best
known
coopera-ve:
Banco
Credicoop
(banking,
insurance)
•
Percep-ons
at
a
glance:
There
was
a
percep8on
in
Buenos
Aires
that
coopera8ves
are
closely
linked
to
the
government,
and
that
the
laHer
plays
a
role
in
controlling
how
coopera8ves
operate.
In
addi8on,
some
par8cipants
thought
that
the
organiza8on
of
coopera8ves
had
played
an
important
role
in
preven8ng
factory
closures
or
home
evic8ons
during
the
na8onal
crisis
of
2001.
As
such,
both
members
and
non-­‐members
saw
these
as
important
organiza8ons,
but
thought
they
were
more
targeted
to
rural
areas
or
lower
income
classes.
Finally,
similar
to
the
other
markets,
the
par8cipants
omen
felt
that
large,
highly
profitable
coopera8ves
were
not
really
representa8ve
of
the
coopera8ve
model.
Non-­‐members
9

10. Summary
of
Markets
Members
Tokyo
•
Popula-on:
35,676,000
(GTA)
•
Date
of
groups:
May
14th
and
15th,
2012
•
Best
known
coopera-ve:
COOP/コープ (food
and
groceries)
•
Percep-ons
at
a
glance:
The
Japanese
par8cipants
felt
very
posi8ve
towards
food-­‐based
coopera8ves
specifically.
They
perceived
these
coopera8ves
as
having
stricter
standards,
and
thought
they
were
more
steadfast
in
their
commitment
to
quality
and
safety.
This
hit
home
in
Japan
where
the
tsunami
and
earthquake
affected
nuclear
plants
and
radioac8vity,
threatening
the
safety
of
Japanese-­‐grown
food.
However,
large,
urban-­‐based
coopera8ves
were
considered
to
be
more
disconnected
from
the
original
principles,
which
raised
skep8cism.
In
addi8on,
a
few
par8cipants
men8oned
stories
of
coopera8ves
ac8vely
recrui8ng
over
the
phone,
as
do
the
fringe
religious
groups,
which
heightened
concerns.
Non-­‐members
10

11. Outline
of
the
Discussion
Introduc-on
â
Percep-ons
Towards
Coopera-ves
â
Perspec-ves
of
Members
â
Perspec-ves
of
Non-­‐Members
â
The
Future
of
Coopera-ves
â
Conclusion
11

12. Members
&
Non-­‐Members
Percep-ons
Towards
Coopera-ves
12

13. First
Words:
Summary
Quebec
City
At
the
start
of
each
group,
the
par8cipants
were
asked
to
write
down
the
first
words
that
come
to
mind
when
they
think
of
“Coopera8ves”.
This
exercise
allowed
us
to
gain
insights
into
the
top-­‐of-­‐mind
artudes
that
people
have
about
coopera8ves,
and
to
determine
how
informed
they
are
about
them.
Manchester
Throughout
this
exercise,
the
par8cipants
(both
members
and
non-­‐members)
were
more
likely
to
associate
posi8ve
terms
with
coopera8ves
than
nega8ve
ones,
sugges8ng
that
coopera8ves
generally
have
a
good
reputa8on.
The
idea
of
the
collec8ve
or
the
group,
and
sharing
or
mutual
ownership,
were
the
Paris
first
words
that
were
heard
most
omen.
In
addi8on,
coopera8ves
were
frequently
associated
with
agriculture
or
agricultural
loca8ons,
and
par8cipants
saw
these
smaller,
naturally
close-­‐knit
communi8es
as
more
relevant
to
the
coopera8ve
movement.
Buenos
Aires
When
nega8ve
words
were
men8oned,
they
typically
revolved
around
a
lack
of
trust
or
skep8cism.
Comments
of
this
nature
were
heard
most
in
Paris
and
Buenos
Aires,
and
stemmed
from
a
percep8on
that
coopera8ves
do
not
actually
adhere
to
the
principles
they
stand
for.
Tokyo
13

14. First
Words:
Quebec
City
In
Quebec
City,
both
groups
shared
the
percep8on
that
coopera8ves
equal
teamwork
and
community.
Importantly,
in
the
second
group,
the
detail
and
depth
of
responses
was
less
than
in
the
first,
and
the
non-­‐
members
were
more
likely
to
associate
coopera8ves
with
money
or
commerce,
seeing
them
as
just
another
type
of
corpora8on.
While
their
artudes
towards
coopera8ves
were
not
necessarily
nega8ve,
they
did
demonstrate
a
lack
of
understanding
or
familiarity.
Quebec
City:
Quebec
City:
Members
Non-­‐members
Teamwork/community
Solidarity/community/group
Economical/savings
Members
Profit
sharing
Profit
sharing
Money/commerce
Desjardins
La
Coop
Fedérée
Members
Associa8on
Democracy
14

15. First
Words:
Manchester
Although
Quebecers
focused
most
on
the
no8on
of
teamwork,
par8cipants
in
Manchester
were
more
preoccupied
with
the
idea
of
mutual
ownership
and
profit
sharing
(the
financial
element).
Once
again,
the
non-­‐members
proved
to
be
less
informed
about
coopera8ves,
but
did
not
appear
to
harbor
any
nega8ve
percep8ons
or
feelings
towards
them.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
when
these
non-­‐members
discussed
shares
or
dividends,
they
were
omen
misinformed
and
under
the
impression
that
coopera8ves
were
similar
to
public
companies
and
that
one
received
dividends,
vo8ng
rights,
or
could
earn
capital
gains
based
on
the
“number
of
shares”
he
or
she
purchases.
Manchester:
Manchester:
Members
Non-­‐members
Owned
by
the
members
Owned/run
by
members
Dividends/profit
sharing
Shares
in
the
organiza8on
Coopera8on/teams
Provides
dividends
Employers/work
Community
members
Fair
trade/ethical
15

16. First
Words:
Paris
The
Parisian
par8cipants,
like
the
Quebecers,
associated
coopera8ves
most
omen
with
groups,
teams,
and
unity.
The
par8cipants
here
also
saw
coopera8ves
as
prominent
in
the
agriculture
sector
(and
usually
less
applicable
in
urban
regions).
The
level
of
skep8cism
surrounding
coopera8ves
was
higher
in
Paris
and
manifested
itself
in
different
ways.
There
was
distrust
of
coopera8ves’
managers,
who
according
to
some
par8cipants
have
been
accused
of
mishandling
their
enterprises’
finances,
but
also
distrust
of
the
coopera8ve
industry
as
a
whole,
which
some
saw
as
standing
for
principles
that
they
did
not
adhere
to.
Paris:
Paris:
Members
Non-­‐members
Group/team/unity
Group/together
Sharing
Agriculture
Mutual
Common
interests
Agriculture
Associa8on
Associa8on
Unclear
No
image
Distrust
16

17. First
Words:
Buenos
Aires
Both
the
members
and
non-­‐members
in
Buenos
Aires
saw
coopera8ves
as
represen8ng
solidarity
or
coopera8on,
and
they
aHributed
many
posi8ve
terms
to
these
enterprises.
Unlike
the
other
markets,
however,
members
here
had
a
strong
percep8on
that
coopera8ves
were
affiliated
with
the
government.
In
addi8on,
mul8ple
members
were
convinced
that
all
coopera8ves
func8on
as
non-­‐profit
organiza8ons,
similar
to
chari8es.
A
few
of
the
non-­‐members
had
the
same
reserva8ons
about
coopera8ves
as
those
in
Paris
did,
and
were
concerned
that
these
enterprises
did
not
actually
put
principles
ahead
of
profits.
Buenos
Aires:
Buenos
Aires:
Members
Non-­‐members
Unity/solidarity
Mutual
aid/coopera-on
Community
ac8on/coopera8on
Having
a
specific
goal
or
objec8ve
Friendly
Commitment
Associa8on
Non-­‐profit
Distrust
Personalized
service
Government/poli8cal
Efficient
17

18. First
Words:
Tokyo
Both
groups
of
par8cipants
in
Tokyo
used
similar
terms
to
describe
coopera8ves,
and
perceived
these
enterprises
to
be
non-­‐profit
oriented
and
commiHed
to
mutual
aid
and
common
interests.
These
par8cipants
also
felt
that
coopera8ves
were
generally
more
firng
and
appropriate
in
agricultural
regions.
In
both
groups,
the
specific
Consumer
COOP
was
omen
men8oned
as
it
was
popular
for
its
grocery
delivery
service.
Tokyo:
Tokyo:
Members
Non-­‐members
Non-­‐profit
Consumer
COOP
Helping
each
other
Agricultural
coop
Agricultural
coop
Membership
system
Consumer
coop
Non-­‐profit
Run
by
members
Common
interests
Common
interests
Strong
recrui8ng/persuasion
18

19. Coopera-ves
Known
Quebec
City
Manchester
Paris
Desjardins
The
Coopera-ve
Crédit
Mutuel
Crédit
Agricole
Mountain
Equipment
Coop
Credit
Union
“Coop
d’assurances”
“Coop
quincallerie”
John
Lewis
Banque
Populaire
“Coop
d’habita8on”
Coop
Leclerc
La
Coop
Fédérée
Caisse
Épargne
“Coop
funéraire”
MAAF
CoopZone
MACIF
CAMIF
19

20. Coopera-ves
Known
Buenos
Aires
Tokyo
Banco
Credicoop
Consumer
COOP
“Telephone
Coop”
“Re8rement
home
Coop”
“Ceramics
Coop”
“Agricultural
Coop”
“Housing
Coop”
“Housing
Coop”
“Taxi
Coop”
“Fishery
Coop”
Trust
Coop
20

21. Coopera-ves
vs.
Tradi-onal
Enterprises
In
most
markets,
the
par8cipants
did
not
see
any
difference
in
the
quality
of
products
and
services
between
coopera8ves
and
tradi8onal
enterprises.
However,
the
case
was
different
in
Japan
where
there
was
a
higher
concern
for
tainted
food
products
(radioac8ve
problems
following
the
earthquake
and
tsunami),
and
these
par8cipants
(par8cularly
the
members)
thought
that
coopera8ves
were
more
commiHed
to
ensuring
the
quality
of
their
food.
Most
people
felt
that
coopera8ves
did
not
exist
solely
to
earn
profits,
and
that
because
they
were
required
to
redistribute
the
profits
that
they
do
earn,
less
money
remained
for
marke8ng
and
R&D
ini8a8ves.
As
such,
coopera8ves
were
omen
seen
as
less
popular
(less
of
an
adver8sing
presence)
and
less
innova8ve
or
up-­‐to-­‐
date
in
terms
of
the
technology
they
employ.
On
the
posi8ve
side,
coopera8ves
were
consistently
thought
to
be
more
commiHed
to
providing
excellent
customer
service.
In
fact,
many
felt
that
while
tradi8onal
enterprises
put
profits
above
all
else,
for
coopera8ves,
excellent
customer
service
was
the
ul8mate
boHom
line.
(con8nued
on
page
22…)
Quebec
City
Manchester
Paris
Buenos
Aires
Tokyo
Coopera8ves
No
difference
between
coopera8ves
Quality
of
products/services
have
higher
and
tradi8onal
enterprises
quality
Research
and
development
Coopera8ves
were
perceived
as
inferior
to
tradi8onal
enterprises
Customer
service
Coopera8ves
were
perceived
as
superior
to
tradi8onal
enterprises
Popularity
Coopera8ves
were
perceived
as
less
well
known,
and
thus
less
popular
21

22. Coopera-ves
vs.
Tradi-onal
Enterprises
Percep8ons
of
coopera8ves’
pricing
changed
between
markets.
Those
who
perceived
coopera8ves
to
have
higher
prices
(Paris
and
Tokyo)
typically
inferred
that
the
principles
of
coopera8ves
would
encourage
them
to
purchase
locally
manufactured
products,
or
to
employ
local
labour.
As
a
result
of
these
more
expensive
prac8ces,
it
was
believed
that
coopera8ves
would
have
to
charge
premium
prices.
On
the
other
hand,
in
Quebec,
Manchester
and
Buenos
Aires,
the
par8cipants
thought
that
because
coopera8ves
put
other
variables
ahead
of
profits,
they
would
be
more
inclined
to
charge
prices
that
benefit
society
rather
than
earn
high
margins.
Furthermore,
these
par8cipants
felt
that
coopera8ves
were
kept
in
business
primarily
through
their
membership
fees,
and
therefore,
did
not
require
the
same
types
of
margins
on
the
products
or
services
that
they
sell.
Quebec
City
Manchester
Paris
Buenos
Aires
Tokyo
Pricing
Coops
are
Coops
are
Coops
are
Coops
are
Coop
prices
usually
usually
priced
the
cheaper
are
more
cheaper,
cheaper,
same
or
stable,
but
not
but
not
higher
but
usually
always
always
higher
22

23. SWOT
Analysis:
Summary
S
•
Beber
service,
more
aben-on
to
customers
•
More
expensive
products/services
W
•
Willing
to
sacrifice
profits
to
do
what
is
“right”
•
Less
money
for
R&D,
less
innova-ve
•
Honorable
and
respectable
business
model
•
Do
not
promote
or
adver-se
as
much
•
Customers
are
more
proud
to
shop
there
•
Difficult
to
generate
sufficient
financing
•
Business
model
benefits
society
•
Not
always
clear
who
is
a
coopera-ve
•
Can
save
jobs,
come
to
the
“rescue”
O
T
•
Community
-es
are
becoming
weaker
•
Trend
of
buying
local
•
Greedier,
more
capitalis-c
society
•
Greener
ajtudes
•
More
individualis-c
society
•
Higher
costs
of
living
•
Cheap
foreign
labour
•
Growing
size
of
coops
23

24. SWOT
Analysis:
Strengths
When
examining
the
specific
strengths
that
were
men8oned,
it
is
important
to
note
that
the
majority
were
“intangible”
in
nature.
For
example,
aside
from
customer
service,
most
of
these
strengths
related
to
the
feeling
that
one
gets
when
shopping
at
a
coopera8ve
or
the
moral
principles
of
these
enterprises.
This
resulted
in
many
current
members
sta8ng
that
the
coopera8ve
model
is
good
for
humanity
and
that
these
enterprises
are
less
likely
to
suffer
from
the
type
of
scandals
that
have
been
in
the
news
recently
(CEO
compensa8on,
subprime
mortgage
crisis,
etc).
However,
what
this
also
demonstrates
is
that
there
is
a
need
to
more
strongly
communicate
the
specific,
tangible
advantages
of
coopera8ves,
as
these
moral
appeals
do
not
resonate
with
everyone,
especially
during
tough
economic
8mes.
“Saving
jobs”
or
“coming
to
the
rescue”
was
a
percep8on
that
was
heard
exclusively
in
Buenos
Aires.
The
par8cipants
here
were
under
the
impression
that
when
Argen8na
was
experiencing
financial
collapse,
coopera8ves
helped
prevent
factory
closings
and
the
loss
of
homes.
S
W
•
Beber
service,
more
aben-on
to
customers
•
More
expensive
products/services
•
Less
money
for
R&D,
less
innova-ve
•
Willing
to
sacrifice
profits
to
do
what
is
“right”
•
Honorable
and
respectable
business
model
•
Do
not
promote
or
adver-se
as
much
•
Customers
are
more
proud
to
shop
there
•
Difficult
to
generate
sufficient
financing
•
Business
model
benefits
society
•
Not
always
clear
who
is
a
coopera-ve
•
Can
save
jobs,
come
to
the
“rescue”
(BA)
O
T
•
Community
-es
are
becoming
weaker
•
Trend
of
buying
local
•
Greedier,
more
capitalis-c
society
•
Greener
ajtudes
•
More
individualis-c
society
•
Higher
costs
of
living
•
Cheap
foreign
labour
•
Growing
size
of
coops
24

25. SWOT
Analysis:
Strengths
“We’re
not
just
a
number
in
a
coopera3ve.”
-­‐Member,
Quebec
“At
companies
you
are
just
a
number,
in
a
coopera3ve
the
aim
is
to
know
everyone
by
name.”
-­‐Non-­‐member,
BA
“Coops
have
more
values.”
“You
are
just
a
number
at
a
regular
mul3na3onal.”
-­‐Members,
BA
“The
objec3ve
of
a
coop
is
not
to
make
money,
it’s
to
have
great
service.”
-­‐Member,
Quebec
“I
feel
good
when
I
go
in
a
coop
store.
I
am
glad
I
shop
there.”
-­‐Member,
Manchester
“Because
I
feel
that
(shopping
there)
is
the
good
thing
to
do.”
-­‐Member,
Manchester
“Coops,
rather
than
pursuing
profits,
their
goal
is
to
improve
the
quality
of
life
of
all
members.”
-­‐Member,
Tokyo
“I
feel
safer
with
the
food
at
Coops.”
-­‐Member,
Tokyo
“Some
people
will
never
have
access
to
a
house
except
through
a
coopera3ve.”
-­‐Member,
BA
“When
you
are
drowning
and
you
desperately
need
help,
then
you
organize
a
coopera3ve.”
-­‐Non-­‐member,
BA
S
W
•
Beber
service,
more
aben-on
to
customers
•
More
expensive
products/services
•
Less
money
for
R&D,
less
innova-ve
•
Willing
to
sacrifice
profits
to
do
what
is
“right”
•
Honorable
and
respectable
business
model
•
Do
not
promote
or
adver-se
as
much
•
Customers
are
more
proud
to
shop
there
•
Difficult
to
generate
sufficient
financing
•
Business
model
benefits
society
•
Not
always
clear
who
is
a
coopera-ve
•
Can
save
jobs,
come
to
the
“rescue”
(BA)
O
T
•
Community
-es
are
becoming
weaker
•
Trend
of
buying
local
•
Greedier,
more
capitalis-c
society
•
Greener
ajtudes
•
More
individualis-c
society
•
Higher
costs
of
living
•
Cheap
foreign
labour
•
Growing
size
of
coops
25

26. SWOT
Analysis:
Weaknesses
In
contrast
to
the
strengths,
many
of
the
perceived
weaknesses
of
coopera8ves
were
tangible
in
nature,
and
had
a
direct
and
no8ceable
impact
on
the
products
or
services
received.
For
instance,
many
par8cipants
felt
that
by
not
being
purely
profit-­‐driven,
coopera8ves’
products
and
services
were
more
expensive
(locally
produced),
and
less
innova8ve
(insufficient
profits
to
invest
in
R&D
or
curng
edge
technology).
Furthermore,
most
par8cipants
inferred
that
the
reason
why
they
do
not
hear
about
coopera8ves
as
much
as
tradi8onal
enterprises
was
because
of
a
lack
of
investment
in
marke8ng
or
awareness
campaigns.
Some
par8cipants
felt
that
another
weakness
of
coopera8ves
was
not
always
including
the
word
“coopera8ve”
in
their
8tle
(John
Lewis
was
cited
as
an
example).
This,
combined
with
less
of
an
adver8sing
presence,
made
it
more
difficult
for
non-­‐members
to
remember
that
coopera8ves
are
an
alterna8ve,
and
to
know
which
enterprises
are
coopera8ves
and
which
are
not.
S
W
•
Beber
service,
more
aben-on
to
customers
•
More
expensive
products/services
•
Less
money
for
R&D,
less
innova-ve
•
Willing
to
sacrifice
profits
to
do
what
is
“right”
•
Honorable
and
respectable
business
model
•
Do
not
promote
or
adver-se
as
much
•
Customers
are
more
proud
to
shop
there
•
Difficult
to
generate
sufficient
financing
•
Business
model
benefits
society
•
Not
always
clear
who
is
a
coopera-ve
•
Can
save
jobs,
come
to
the
“rescue”
(BA)
O
T
•
Community
-es
are
becoming
weaker
•
Trend
of
buying
local
•
Greedier,
more
capitalis-c
society
•
Greener
ajtudes
•
More
individualis-c
society
•
Higher
costs
of
living
•
Cheap
foreign
labour
•
Growing
size
of
coops
26

27. SWOT
Analysis:
Weaknesses
“The
prices
are
more
expensive
for
what
they
are
offering.”
-­‐Non-­‐member,
Paris
“The
systems
they
use
are
not
as
modern.
They’re
just
not
as
geared
up
as
other
companies.”
-­‐Member,
Manchester
“Private
companies
can
spend
money
on
R&D.
Coops
have
limited
budgets,
can’t
spend
on
-­‐Non-­‐member,
Tokyo
research.”
“I
don’t
find
the
marke3ng
is
strong
with
coopera3ves.
Capitalist
(companies)
have
a
-­‐Member,
BA
stronger
marke3ng
presence.”
“
They
need
to
promote
more
clearly
the
advantages
that
coopera3ves
offer
to
consumers,
-­‐Non-­‐member,
Paris
say
why
we
would
go
there
more
than
to
the
others
(non-­‐coopera3ves).”
“They
can
only
get
money
from
their
members
(their
members
are
their
‘pie’).
Private
-­‐Member,
Tokyo
companies
can
go
outside
membership
base
for
sales.”
“People
need
to
know
more
who
is
a
coopera3ve
and
who
isn’t.”
-­‐Non-­‐member,
BA
“Not
all
coops
make
it
known
that
they
are
coops
so
some
people
are
not
running
to
them.”
-­‐Member,
Manchester
S
W
•
Beber
service,
more
aben-on
to
customers
•
More
expensive
products/services
•
Less
money
for
R&D,
less
innova-ve
•
Willing
to
sacrifice
profits
to
do
what
is
“right”
•
Honorable
and
respectable
business
model
•
Do
not
promote
or
adver-se
as
much
•
Customers
are
more
proud
to
shop
there
•
Difficult
to
generate
sufficient
financing
•
Business
model
benefits
society
•
Not
always
clear
who
is
a
coopera-ve
•
Can
save
jobs,
come
to
the
“rescue”
(BA)
O
T
•
Community
-es
are
becoming
weaker
•
Trend
of
buying
local
•
Greedier,
more
capitalis-c
society
•
Greener
ajtudes
•
More
individualis-c
society
•
Higher
costs
of
living
•
Cheap
foreign
labour
•
Growing
size
of
coops
27

28. SWOT
Analysis:
Opportuni-es
The
par8cipants
in
the
groups
were
omen
at
odds
about
which
direc8on
they
thought
society’s
moral
compass
was
taking.
For
example,
those
in
the
groups
who
were
more
op8mis8c
felt
that
sustainable
development,
buying
local,
and
buying
and
living
“green”
were
becoming
more
common
and
that
socie8es
were
becoming
more
aware
of
the
importance
of
these
ini8a8ves.
Furthermore,
these
par8cipants
thought
that
recent
scandals
(CEO
compensa8on,
subprime
mortgage
crisis,
etc)
would
actually
benefit
society
in
that
they
would
demonstrate
the
need
to
adopt
new,
less
capitalis8c
and
materialis8c
artudes.
As
a
result,
these
par8cipants
thought
that
the
coopera8ve
model
would
benefit.
In
addi8on,
these
same
par8cipants
thought
that
as
the
cost
of
living
con8nued
to
increase,
coopera8ves
would
present
a
more
aHrac8ve
alterna8ve.
S
W
•
Beber
service,
more
aben-on
to
customers
•
More
expensive
products/services
•
Less
money
for
R&D,
less
innova-ve
•
Willing
to
sacrifice
profits
to
do
what
is
“right”
•
Honorable
and
respectable
business
model
•
Do
not
promote
or
adver-se
as
much
•
Customers
are
more
proud
to
shop
there
•
Difficult
to
generate
sufficient
financing
•
Business
model
benefits
society
•
Not
always
clear
who
is
a
coopera-ve
•
Can
save
jobs,
come
to
the
“rescue”
(BA)
O
T
•
Community
-es
are
becoming
weaker
•
Trend
of
buying
local
•
Greedier,
more
capitalis-c
society
•
Greener
ajtudes
•
More
individualis-c
society
•
Higher
costs
of
living
•
Cheap
foreign
labour
•
Growing
size
of
coops
28

29. SWOT
Analysis:
Opportuni-es
“I
think
there
will
be
a
point
when
people
put
more
emphasis
on
buying
local.”
-­‐Member,
Quebec
“(Because
of
the
financial
crisis)
it
will
be
a
good
impact,
there
will
be
more
need
for
coopera3ve
-­‐Member,
BA
value-­‐oriented
companies.”
“Coopera3ves
are
a
good
solu3on
if
you
have
a
crisis.”
-­‐Non-­‐member,
BA
“With
a
higher
cost
of
living,
maybe
the
coop
will
be
more
important
in
the
future.
To
create
-­‐Non-­‐member,
Quebec
more
ideas
that
will
help
you
save.”
S
W
•
Beber
service,
more
aben-on
to
customers
•
More
expensive
products/services
•
Less
money
for
R&D,
less
innova-ve
•
Willing
to
sacrifice
profits
to
do
what
is
“right”
•
Honorable
and
respectable
business
model
•
Do
not
promote
or
adver-se
as
much
•
Customers
are
more
proud
to
shop
there
•
Difficult
to
generate
sufficient
financing
•
Business
model
benefits
society
•
Not
always
clear
who
is
a
coopera-ve
•
Can
save
jobs,
come
to
the
“rescue”
(BA)
O
T
•
Community
-es
are
becoming
weaker
•
Trend
of
buying
local
•
Greedier,
more
capitalis-c
society
•
Greener
ajtudes
•
More
individualis-c
society
•
Higher
costs
of
living
•
Cheap
foreign
labour
•
Growing
size
of
coops
29

30. SWOT
Analysis:
Threats
The
less
op8mis8c
par8cipants
had
a
wholly
different
view
on
society’s
changing
artudes,
and
felt
that
the
recent
scandals
in
the
news
proved
that
society
was
becoming
less
community-­‐oriented,
and
more
individualis8c
and
greedy.
As
such,
these
par8cipants
thought
that
the
coopera8ve
model
would
become
less
relevant
for
future
genera8ons.
Aside
from
society’s
artudes,
other
perceived
threats
included
cheap
foreign
labour,
which
can
reduce
the
compe88veness
of
enterprises
who
support
domes8cally
produced
products
and
services.
One
percep8on
that
was
consistently
raised
was
that
coopera8ves
have
become
larger
in
size
over
8me,
and
that
as
a
result,
they
no
longer
represent
“true”
coopera8ves.
If
this
con8nues
to
happen,
it
was
believed
that
the
principles
and
promises
of
democracy
would
be
phased
out.
S
W
•
Beber
service,
more
aben-on
to
customers
•
More
expensive
products/services
•
Less
money
for
R&D,
less
innova-ve
•
Willing
to
sacrifice
profits
to
do
what
is
“right”
•
Honorable
and
respectable
business
model
•
Do
not
promote
or
adver-se
as
much
•
Customers
are
more
proud
to
shop
there
•
Difficult
to
generate
sufficient
financing
•
Business
model
benefits
society
•
Not
always
clear
who
is
a
coopera-ve
•
Can
save
jobs,
come
to
the
“rescue”
(BA)
O
T
•
Community
-es
are
becoming
weaker
•
Trend
of
buying
local
•
Greedier,
more
capitalis-c
society
•
Greener
ajtudes
•
More
individualis-c
society
•
Higher
costs
of
living
•
Cheap
foreign
labour
•
Growing
size
of
coops
30

31. SWOT
Analysis:
Threats
“Coops
seem
to
have
been
more
popular
a
while
ago,
people
are
becoming
more
individual
-­‐Non-­‐member,
Quebec
oriented,
don’t
have
3me
to
take
care
of
others,
I
will
work
for
me
and
my
family.”
“The
younger
genera3on
don’t
know
anything
about
coops,
they
don’t
know
why
they
should
go.”
-­‐Member,
Manchester
“
I
don't
think
that
talking
about
helping
the
community
is
the
main
message,
it
is
the
product
and
-­‐Non-­‐member,
Quebec
the
offer
these
days
that
maXers
most.”
“Globaliza3on.
Other
developing
countries
offer
much
cheaper
salaries,
harder
to
compete
with.”
-­‐Member,
Quebec
“I
can
clearly
see
that
they
are
trying
to
get
bigger
so
they
are
becoming
more
like
a
private
-­‐Member,
Tokyo
company.”
“When
it
is
too
big
it
doesn't
work
anymore
and
it
loses
its
values.”
-­‐Non-­‐member,
Paris
S
W
•
Beber
service,
more
aben-on
to
customers
•
More
expensive
products/services
•
Less
money
for
R&D,
less
innova-ve
•
Willing
to
sacrifice
profits
to
do
what
is
“right”
•
Honorable
and
respectable
business
model
•
Do
not
promote
or
adver-se
as
much
•
Customers
are
more
proud
to
shop
there
•
Difficult
to
generate
sufficient
financing
•
Business
model
benefits
society
•
Not
always
clear
who
is
a
coopera-ve
•
Can
save
jobs,
come
to
the
“rescue”
(BA)
O
T
•
Community
-es
are
becoming
weaker
•
Trend
of
buying
local
•
Greedier,
more
capitalis-c
society
•
Greener
ajtudes
•
More
individualis-c
society
•
Higher
costs
of
living
•
Cheap
foreign
labour
•
Growing
size
of
coops
31

32. Reasons
For
Membership
Five
segments
of
members
were
observed
within
the
groups,
each
of
which
had
a
different
primary
mo8va8on
for
joining
a
coopera8ve.
The
“Moralists”
formed
the
largest
segment,
and
the
driving
force
behind
their
membership
was
a
belief
in
the
coopera8ve
model
and
the
principles
that
coopera8ves
espouse.
The
“Lifers”
were
found
exclusively
in
Manchester,
and
were
individuals
who
had
learned
about
coopera8ves
as
school
Deal
children,
who
had
grown
up
going
to
coopera8ves
with
their
seekers
parents,
and
who
perceived
them
to
be
part
of
Manchester’s
history.
For
the
most
part,
they
never
ques8oned
joining
a
coopera8ve.
Moralists
The
“Service/product
seekers”
were
those
who
placed
a
Service/
premium
on
great
customer
service
or
higher
quality
products.
For
most,
coopera8ves
delivered
the
best
on
product
customer
service,
and
for
those
in
Tokyo,
they
also
seekers
represented
superior
product
quality.
The
“Deal
seekers”
were
not
part
of
coopera8ves
for
any
Lifers
moral
reason.
They
simply
joined
because
it
was
with
their
specific
coopera8ve
that
they
received
the
lowest
price
or
the
highest
price/quality
ra8o.
This
segment
would
be
the
most
easily
lured
away
from
a
coopera8ve
to
a
tradi8onal
enterprise
by
superior
promo8ons
or
offers.
32

33. Reasons
For
Non-­‐Membership
Four
segments
of
non-­‐members
were
observed,
each
of
which
had
at
least
one
main
reason
for
having
not
joined
a
coopera8ve.
The
“Deal
Seekers”
formed
the
largest
segment
and
were
comprised
of
individuals
who
were
only
concerned
with
gerng
the
best
deal.
These
par8cipants
appreciate
the
principles
of
coopera8ves,
and
all
else
being
equal
would
be
open
to
becoming
a
member,
but
their
ul8mate
decision
rests
solely
on
who
makes
the
best
offer,
and
they
do
not
think
that
coopera8ves
are
compe88ve
enough.
Skep-cs
The
“Unaware”
were
interested
in
the
idea
of
coopera8ves
but
lacked
sufficient
knowledge
or
educa8on
on
who
is
a
coopera8ve
and
who
is
not.
Deal
seekers
The
“Unfamiliar”
were
encouraged
by
what
they
heard
about
coopera8ves
during
the
group,
but
for
most,
this
was
the
first
8me
they
had
really
learned
the
details
of
them.
They
require
Unfamiliar
knowledge
and
familiarity
about
what
the
coopera8ve
model
is
all
about,
and
exactly
how
it
differs
from
tradi8onal
enterprises
(and
what
tangible
advantages
it
offers).
Unaware
The
“Skep-cs”
were
mostly
found
in
Paris
and
Buenos
Aires,
and
were
leery
of
the
promises
made
by
coopera8ves,
ques8oning
whether
in
reality
they
were
any
different
from
most
companies.
33

34. Awareness
of
Principles:
Members
During
the
groups,
each
par8cipant
was
provided
with
a
print-­‐out
of
the
seven
principles
that
coopera8ves
adhere
to.
They
were
then
asked
to
indicate
which
principles
they
were
aware
of,
and
whether
any
came
as
a
surprise.
In
turn,
it
became
apparent
that
each
principle
could
be
classified
into
one
of
three
categories:
those
that
par8cipants
were
aware
of
and
that
they
had
observed
in
coopera8ves,
those
that
they
were
aware
of
but
were
skep8cal
about,
and
finally,
those
that
they
did
not
know
were
part
of
the
coopera8ve
model.
Aware
of,
and
observe
Overall,
the
members
were
familiar
with
the
majority
of
the
principles,
and
• Members
par8cipate
economically
agreed
that
they
omen
observed
them
• Membership
is
on
a
voluntary
basis
and
available
to
everyone
in
the
way
coopera8ves
operate.
• The
organiza8on
is
autonomous
and
independent
However,
two
principles
came
as
a
surprise
to
the
members,
and
some
• Democra8c
power
is
exerted
by
members
even
ques8oned
whether
they
were
• Coopera8ves
are
commiHed
to
their
communi8es
actually
part
of
the
coopera8ve
model.
Aware
of,
but
are
skep-cal
about
The
first
of
these
was
the
coopera8on
between
different
coopera8ves.
Most
par8cipants
typically
felt
that
although
coopera8ves
were
part
of
the
same
model,
they
did
not
work
together
in
unison.
Unaware
of
The
second
was
the
educa8on
and
informa8on
provided.
Many
members
• Coopera8ves
cooperate
amongst
each
other
felt
that
coopera8ves
were
rarely
heard
about
or
adver8sed
to
the
general
• Educa8on,
training
and
informa8on
are
provided
public.
34

35. Awareness
of
Principles:
Non-­‐Members
Aware
of,
and
observe
The
non-­‐members
shared
the
same
opinions
as
the
members
about
most
• Members
par8cipate
economically
of
the
principles,
but
were
surprised
• Membership
is
on
a
voluntary
basis
and
available
to
everyone
to
learn
that
community
commitment
and
democra8c
power
were
officially
• The
organiza8on
is
autonomous
and
independent
part
of
the
coopera8ve
mantra.
To
this
point,
the
non-­‐members
ques8oned
exactly
how
large,
mul8billion
dollar
coopera8ves
could
deliver
on
these
promises.
More
specifically,
the
non-­‐
Aware
of,
but
are
skep-cal
about
members
were
skep8cal
that
with
• Democra8c
power
is
exerted
by
members
thousands
of
members
and
upper
levels
of
management,
decisions
could
• Coopera8ves
are
commiHed
to
their
communi8es
truly
be
made
democra8cally.
Unaware
of
In
addi8on,
these
non-­‐members
ques8oned
what
specifically
has
been
done
to
benefit
communi8es
(where
is
• Coopera8ves
cooperate
amongst
each
other
the
proof)
because
they
had
not
heard
of
about
ini8a8ves
in
this
regard
• Educa8on,
training
and
informa8on
are
provided
(except
in
Buenos
Aires).
35

36. Awareness
of
Principles
“Prices
are
not
cheaper
and
they
are
not
pursuing
profits
so
where
is
the
money
going?
Lots
of
aspects
that
you
can’t
see.”
–Non-­‐member,
Tokyo
“The
last
one
(educa3on
principle)...it
is
surprising
because
I
didn’t
think
that
they
did
that.”
–Non-­‐member,
Manchester
“For
a
coopera3ve
to
be
successful
you
need
to
know
the
specific
needs
of
the
people
who
are
part
of
it,
you
can’t
do
that
in
big
ci3es,
there
are
too
many
people.”
–Member,
Buenos
Aires
“When
it
started
it
was
to
help
people
develop,
but
today
they
are
just
regular
businesses.”
-­‐Non-­‐Member,
Paris
“I
see
the
advantages
but
I
don’t
see
any
ac3on
in
them.
It
sounds
good,
but
(in
the
end)
it
doesn’t
make
a
difference.”
–Non-­‐member,
Quebec.
36

37. Industry
Appropriateness
Industry
Perceived
relevance
Reasons
given
Agriculture
High
Close-­‐knit
communi8es,
more
interdependence
between
residents.
Food
High
Dependant
on
farmers
as
suppliers,
coopera8ves
naturally
invest
in
locally
grown
products
which
is
most
appropriate
for
the
food
sector.
Housing
High
Apartment
complexes
allow
for
a
small
group
of
individuals
to
come
to
unanimous,
democra8c
decisions.
Banking/finance
Moderate
Much
history
in
this
sector
and
customer
service
is
cri8cal,
but
advanced
technology,
larger
companies,
and
large
profits
reduce
the
percep8on
of
being
a
“true”
coopera8ve.
Insurance
Moderate
Idem
as
banking.
Technology-­‐based
Low
Lack
of
R&D
investment
is
considered
to
be
a
main
drawback
for
coopera8ves,
so
technology
based
companies
do
not
seem
appropriate
for
the
coopera8ve
model.
37

38. Past
Experience
With
Coopera-ves
Members
Non-­‐Members
Most
of
the
members
were
very
sa8sfied
with
their
coopera8ve
experience,
and
were
unlikely
to
change
to
tradi8onal
enterprises.
They
appear
to
be
loyal
members
and
are
not
at
risk
of
abandoning
their
membership
posi8ons
any
8me
soon.
The
“Deal
seekers”
would
be
the
most
at
risk
group,
but
provided
that
prices
and
quality
remain
the
same,
they
will
likely
stay
with
coopera8ves.
Most
non-­‐members
did
not
have
any
experience
with
coopera8ves
in
the
past,
and
had
not
considered
them
closely
before.
However,
some
were
made
interested
in
the
coopera8ve
model
during
the
groups,
and
if
provided
proof
of
their
adherence
to
the
principles,
their
interest
would
increase.
38

39. Future
of
Coopera-ves
39