Community with a shared purpose

One of the propositions that guides this research is that co-operatives could be formed around a shared sense of purpose, or what Pelling and High (2005) would call a Ôcommunity of interestÕ. In the case of TPS, however, what exactly defined its shared purpose seemed a bit muddled to some of its members, as is evident from their survey responses. While some saw it as an enterprise focused on environmental sustainability, others valued its community-ownership, and yet others were upset about its lack of clear focus. The mission statement of TPS focused on both social and environmental objectives. However, it was also a commercial enterprise and its survival depended on its ability to generate revenues.

Arthur, the co-founder and celebrity chef, who initially conceived the project along with producers of a television documentary, was keen on creating a sustainable food co- operative that connected rural farmers with urban consumers. But when he went campaigning for support in the co-opÕs neighbourhood, he told people that being a co- operative, the community of members will decide what will be available in the shop.

This was to assuage fears of low-income residents that his alternative to the supermarket would offer exotic and expensive food that would cater only to middle- and high- income groups. When the co-op opened its shop, members were divided about the kind of produce the co-op should offer. Hence, based on membersÕ feedback the management decided to be as inclusive as possible. High fixed costs of running the store and constant financial pressure to keep the project afloat meant that commercial sustainability objectives triumphed over environmental sustainability objectives. That notwithstanding, the co-op did offer a few sustainable options like local and organic fresh produce (though the majority of fresh produce was non-organic), Fairtrade products, environmentally-friendly cleaning products, and ethically farmed fish and meat alongside popular budget items found in mainstream convenience stores. In the end, the store supplied what its customer base, which comprised more non-members than members, demanded. There were no overt attempts to promote environmentally sustainable food consumption as an everyday practice, most likely for fear of alienating potential customers who did not prioritise environmental concern as a value guiding their food decisions. Consequently, the membersÕ community was also not united around giving priority to the purpose of encouraging pro-environment food consumption behaviour. Instead, the co-op celebrated its identity as a community- owned enterprise that was not just profit driven but also ethics driven, and the leadership team championed this identity.

A few months after the co-opÕs launch, and especially after the telecast of the television documentary, Arthur had stepped away from an active role in the management of the co-op. Kate Bull, the co-founder and retail expert, was entrusted with the responsibility of managing the co-op as its Chief Executive Officer. From what I saw of her as an active member of the co-op, she promoted local and independent suppliers as well as Fairtrade products, though she did not seem to care as much about organic produce. More than anything else, she was a pragmatic manager who wanted the shop to be commercially successful as a community-owned enterprise. Closest to her in the co-op were its employed staff. KateÕs and her employeesÕ careers depended more on the commercial success of the shop than the achievement of its environmental objectives. The board of directors was also clear about the priority of commercial sustainability. This is reflected in the managementÕs advice to other similar ventures: ÔRun a business first, ÔengineÕ of ethics second [because] without cash in the till and defence of margins by stealth, youÕll

go bust Ð and fail to share and spread your valuesÕ (NESTA 2012: 58). From KateÕs talks at membersÕ meetings it was evident that she took pride in the community-based aspect of the initiative. After a membersÕ meeting Kate said on Twitter:

Kate Bull @KateTPSfounder 10 Jan 2013

Members meeting last night - Q. how do we let the world know what makes @TPSLondon different to other supermarkets A. Food waste & Members

Thus, after two years of running the co-op, Kate felt that the co-opÕs constitution as a member-owned enterprise and its efficient handling of food waste was what differentiated the co-op from other food retailers. These were the features that were exemplified in the co-opÕs operations. To demonstrate environmental sustainability, its flagship project was The PeopleÕs Kitchen, which cut down food waste by turning fresh produce that was close to its use-by date into ready meal products for the co-opÕs customers. Besides, TPS encouraged people to re-use shopping bags by making used ones available in the shop or charged 5p for new ones, greatly reducing the use of new plastic bags, according to the management. The co-op also operated a strict recycling policy. To an extent, the co-op made sustainable food options accessible for customers and members who cared about those options but this was not a defining priority for the co-op. As such, there were few social learning opportunities for sustainable food consumption within the co-opÕs community of members.

On the other hand, other co-ops studied in this research had a clearer focus on promoting sustainable food options to their members. For instance, StroudcoÕs primary focus was promoting local produce and strong animal welfare standards. It also encouraged its suppliers to reduce pesticide usage as much as possible. Initially, the co- op was strict about only stocking products from suppliers within a 15-mile radius of the town. Some of its fruit and vegetable produce came from Stroud Community Agriculture, a co-operatively owned farm practising organic farming methods. Occasionally, it also allowed guest suppliers from within a 50-mile radius. Later however, it relaxed its policy based on membersÕ demand to allow non-local fresh produce as well, but only if a particular produce could not be grown locally. It also expanded its product offering to include some wholefoods and cupboard essentials supplied by another ethical co-operative wholesaler.

Similarly, at the University Co-op, local and seasonal fruit and vegetable supply was prioritised in the weekly boxes and was only occasionally supplemented by non-local

options when produce was not available locally. The founding members, who are also members of a studentsÕ society called the Environmental Action Network, did a survey among students and staff of the university to find out what features of the co-op would be most important for them. Price sensitivity ranked highest but was followed very closely by the desire to source local produce. Preference for organic came third but the founding group did not feel that the demand for organic was sufficient to steer the co- opÕs sourcing in that direction. Therefore, the University Co-op aims to provide fruit and vegetables, grown as locally as possible, and at the lowest possible cost to its members.

True Food sources its products from a range of suppliers. Dry items are mainly sourced from wholesale workersÕ co-operatives such as Infinity Foods and Suma and fresh produce is sourced from a mix of wholesalers and local growers. Most of the products are certified organic. However, local fresh produce need not be certified organic where growers can be trusted to avoid harmful chemicals and follow sustainable agriculture practices. The co-op claims on its website (2012): ÔÉyou will not find a range of organic and sustainable groceries as large and well priced as ours anywhere else in ReadingÕ. The clear focus of True Food on environmental sustainability does not necessarily end internal debates about product preferences, but it defines the terms and boundaries of these debates within a set of ethical and environmental principles. As a key informant here explains:

So if I am a bit of a conscience eater, then I come to True Food without having to worry so much about the product. They'll still look at the label and so forth. And also that doesn't stop any debate. In fact, we're still having debates about whether we should be stocking products from certain countries or not. And people can keep continuing to be switched on when they come to True Food and ask you know - what is going on here, why have you not stocked a certain product, whether it has a GM element involved in it's manufacturing.

At the Pimlico Co-op, environmentally sustainable dry wholefoods and household cleaning products were the primary focus of its members. The member who initiated this co-op told me that while people in his neighbourhood could source fresh, local and reasonably priced fruit and vegetables from two local farmersÕ markets and a couple of community growing spaces, they did not have an affordable and ethical source for grains and other food items that could not be grown locally. Therefore, he and a number of other people who were already involved in the Transition Town movement, decided to source non-local food items and ethical products from a supplier whom he considered as Ôa very ethical, a very fair companyÕ since it was run as a co-operative as well. In his

words: ÔThey set a good price and we buy our goods from them which cuts down a huge amount of food miles; it cuts down packaging and it also, at our end, builds community because people are coming together to socialise and talk rather than just buy the actual foodÕ.

Among the five co-ops from which I collected primary data, two Ð TPS and Stroudco Ð were started by founders who initially targeted membership from low-income communities of which they themselves were not part. They did not necessarily offer products that could be seen by members of their targeted communities as unavailable in their localities. Not far from TPS, Waitrose was perceived to be offering a good selection of sustainable food. In Stroud, there was a farmersÕ market and some local shops that catered to sustainable food demand. Both co-ops did, however, offer a community- owned enterprise model, which by itself could attract very few members from the initially targeted low-income groups. Later, the co-ops accepted that they had to look elsewhere to recruit members who valued their democratic business model and ethical values enough to accept limitations in product range and price competitiveness.

The other three co-ops were started by members who were residents of the geographical and interest-based community in which the co-ops were established. In the founding membersÕ experiences of these co-ops, retailers in their respective areas were not making sustainable food options as easily accessible as they would have liked. Hence, they set up sustainable food co-operatives to meet their needs and those of other like- minded people in the local community. Apart from TPS, and to a lesser extent True Food, the other co-ops had much lower financial overheads, and therefore a lot less financial pressure to trade off environmental sustainability objectives against commercial sustainability ones. Hence, it was perhaps easier for the other co-ops to be more single-minded about promoting environmentally sustainable food options.

5.2.2.1 Discussion with reference to other studies

Prior research on food co-ops provides ample evidence that diversity of member concerns can at times lead to disruptive contests about the prioritisation of one purpose over another (Ronco 1974; Cox 1994; McGrath 2004). Briscoe (1988) characterises people holding extreme positions within these debates as ÔtradersÕ and ÔidealistsÕ. ÔTradersÕ are only concerned with economic benefit whereas ÔidealistsÕ steadfastly stick to

their principles and are ready to accept economic losses. In reality, membership communities in food co-ops are more likely to find themselves somewhere between these two extremes. The kind of compromises that are made can depend greatly on specific contexts. For instance, when a co-opÕs customers are predominantly non- members, it is likely that the management team would be less inclined to solely focus on a set of ethical principles to which the members signed up. Non-members may be attracted to the co-op because of its ethics, but also because Ôthey may be using the nearest shop, or the shop with the best prices or range at this point in time, or they are using the shop as one of several possible choices just for a bit of varietyÕ (Calderwood and Davies 2013a: 20). Besides, sales to non-members are not discounted and result in greater margins. This can further tilt the focus on non-members when making decisions about the range of product offering, and especially so when there is a risk of commercial survival.

Unlike at the other four co-ops, promoting sustainable food consumption could not become the primary guiding purpose at TPS, despite it being the main objective of one of its founders. The need to offset high fixed costs to survive, weaker commitment to environmental objectives from the rest of the leadership team, and heterogenous concerns among members, led the TPS management to prioritise responding to customer demand instead of attempting to proactively shape member preferences towards sustainable food consumption. In addition, customer demand at TPS was shaped for the most part by non-member customers, which further distracted from trying to get members to agree upon a set of environmental principles to guide product focus. However, at True Food, which is also open to non-members, the core leadership team continues to prioritise environmental sustainability. This co-op has relatively lower overhead costs compared to TPS, but maintaining financial stability is an ongoing challenge. Since its inception True Food has relaxed some of its policies on sustainable sourcing to accommodate customer demands but these adjustments have not compromised the primary focus on promoting environmentally responsible food choices.

On the one hand, food co-ops with some environmental objectives but a more relaxed and inclusive approach to membership recruitment and product offering may be able to expose members without pro-environmental values to sustainable food and information about its environmental and health benefits. Through the creation of social interaction

opportunities, such co-ops can also facilitate conversations about environmental issues between those members who are already motivated by environmental concerns in making food choices and those that are not. There is a danger here, however, that if the majority of members or customers were not concerned about sustainable food choices, the co-op could steer away from its environmental goals and lose out on members who were inspired by its environmental objectives. On the other hand, food co-ops with a strict policy and commitment to environmental sustainability may only be able to attract those members who are already sensitive to environmental concerns. However, by doing so such co-ops may have a more focused product strategy targeting sustainable food options, and thus create opportunities to make those options more affordable and available for its members through collective bargaining advantages. This could help these co-opsÕ members to both include more variety and more quantities of sustainable food options in their dietary practice.

Evidence from the case studies suggests that within the co-operatives a Ôcommunity of interestÕ (Pelling and High 2005), such as the goal to promote sustainable food consumption, has to be carefully constructed from the ground up. To build a co- operative around a shared purpose it helps if the initial group is committed to a given set of principles and new members are inducted based on their willingness to subscribe to those principles. However, if there is financial pressure to recruit more members, then members with diverse interests can shape co-op objectives in ways that dilute or reject some of the initial principles set by the founders. Pragmatic management of how the co- operativeÕs objectives are interpreted might ensure commercial survival. Moreover, compromises with some of the original objectives may be justified as a necessary trade off to achieve a smaller subset of goals within a broader set of principles. As a Ôcommunity of practiceÕ (Wenger 1998), a consumer food co-op can continuously evolve based on mutual negotiations between members. The co-op might not always reflect its pre-defined identity as a specific Ôcommunity of interestÕ (Pelling and High 2005), unless the shared purpose forms the fundamental basis of association in the first place. In order to pursue ethical and environmental objectives, it is important that co-operators understand the nature of social capital that is available in their community of practice and invest efforts in building a greater consensus towards achieving their objectives (Portes 1998; Valentinov 2004).

Another strategy to promote environmentally sustainable food consumption through a food co-op may be to build the membership community around health and nutrition as the primary objective instead of an explicit environmental concern. Many studies suggest that increasing the intake of fruit and vegetables and reducing meat intake can provide both health and environmental benefits (cf. Saxe 2014; CAT 2013; Scarborough et al. 2012). A number of food delivery projects in the UK are already run as health promotion initiatives funded by the government or third sector organisations. Evaluation studies covering many of these initiatives have reported an increase in the intake of fruit and vegetables in the economically disadvantaged communities they serve. For instance, the evaluation of pilot initiatives in Wales reported that among those customers who were interviewed, many said that they were already using fresh produce in their meals before joining the co-ops, but the co-ops had enabled them to eat more of it and also try more variety with different methods of preparation (Elliott et al. 2006). Another evaluation report of food co-ops in England, which included a number of health promoting food delivery initiatives, found that among low-income groups majority of the customers (76%) reported an increase in their intake of fruit and vegetables as a result of participating in the co-ops (Smith et al. 2012). To the extent that the increase in the intake of fruit and vegetables displaced a proportional amount of meat in the diet, and reduced carbon-intensive packaging and transport, these initiatives additionally fostered an environmentally sustainable food consumption practice.

Although such food delivery initiatives are often referred to as Ôfood co-opsÕ in the literature, they are neither owned by members nor do they systematically attend to other co-operative principles (Caraher et al. 2014). Nevertheless, according to Freathy and HareÕs (2004) topology of voluntary food co-operatives, some of these initiatives are perhaps at an early phase of co-op development. They may have the potential to graduate into formal co-operatives with an aim to enhance social learning opportunities within communities and also to establish themselves on a more independent footing. For instance, as a next step up, existing customers could be offered free memberships