The	  Coopera-ve	  Movement	  A	  global	  research	  study	  on	  percep8ons	  towards	  coopera8ves.	                   ...
Table	  of	  Contents	  Introduc-on               	     	    	     	     	         	  3	  	  Summary	  of	  Methodology   ...
Introduc-on	  In	  the	  context	  of	  the	  Interna8onal	  Year	  of	  Coopera8ves	  and	  the	  Interna8onal	  Summit	 ...
Summary	  of	  Methodology	            Methodology	   10	  focus	  groups	  (2	  in	  each	  city)	                       ...
Summary	  of	  Markets	                                 Markets	  Covered:	                                 	             ...
Summary	  of	  Markets	                                                                                                   ...
Summary	  of	  Markets	                                                                                                   ...
Summary	  of	  Markets	                                                                                                   ...
Summary	  of	  Markets	                                                                                                   ...
Summary	  of	  Markets	                                                                                                 Me...
Outline	  of	  the	  Discussion	                                             	  Introduc-on	                              ...
Members	  	                                     &	                              Non-­‐Members	  Percep-ons	  Towards	     ...
First	  Words:	  Summary	                                                                                                 ...
First	  Words:	  Quebec	  City	  In	   Quebec	   City,	   both	   groups	   shared	   the	   percep8on	   that	   coopera8...
First	  Words:	  Manchester	  Although	   Quebecers	   focused	   most	   on	   the	   no8on	   of	   teamwork,	   par8cip...
First	  Words:	  Paris	  The	  Parisian	  par8cipants,	  like	  the	  Quebecers,	  associated	  coopera8ves	  most	  omen	...
First	  Words:	  Buenos	  Aires	  Both	   the	   members	   and	   non-­‐members	   in	   Buenos	   Aires	   saw	   cooper...
First	  Words:	  Tokyo	  Both	   groups	   of	   par8cipants	   in	   Tokyo	   used	   similar	   terms	   to	   describe	...
Coopera-ves	  Known	             Quebec	  City	                Manchester	                   Paris	            Desjardins	...
Coopera-ves	  Known	            Buenos	  Aires	                   Tokyo	     Banco	  Credicoop	           Consumer	  COOP	...
Coopera-ves	  vs.	  Tradi-onal	  Enterprises	  In	  most	  markets,	  the	  par8cipants	  did	  not	  see	  any	  differenc...
Coopera-ves	  vs.	  Tradi-onal	  Enterprises	  Percep8ons	  of	  coopera8ves’	  pricing	  changed	  between	  markets.	  	...
SWOT	  Analysis:	  Summary	                                                                                               ...
SWOT	  Analysis:	  Strengths	  When	   examining	   the	   specific	   strengths	   that	   were	   men8oned,	   it	   is	 ...
SWOT	  Analysis:	  Strengths	  “We’re	  not	  just	  a	  number	  in	  a	  coopera3ve.”	                                  ...
SWOT	  Analysis:	  Weaknesses	  In	   contrast	   to	   the	   strengths,	   many	   of	   the	   perceived	   weaknesses	...
SWOT	  Analysis:	  Weaknesses	  “The	  prices	  are	  more	  expensive	  for	  what	  they	  are	  offering.”	             ...
SWOT	  Analysis:	  Opportuni-es	  The	   par8cipants	   in	   the	   groups	   were	   omen	   at	   odds	   about	   whic...
SWOT	  Analysis:	  Opportuni-es	  “I	  think	  there	  will	  be	  a	  point	  when	  people	  put	  more	  emphasis	  on	...
SWOT	  Analysis:	  Threats	  The	  less	  op8mis8c	  par8cipants	  had	  a	  wholly	  different	  view	  on	  society’s	  c...
SWOT	  Analysis:	  Threats	  “Coops	  seem	  to	  have	  been	  more	  popular	  a	  while	  ago,	  people	  are	  becomin...
Reasons	  For	  Membership	  Five	  segments	  of	  members	  were	  observed	  within	  the	  groups,	  each	   of	   whi...
Reasons	  For	  Non-­‐Membership	  Four	   segments	   of	   non-­‐members	   were	   observed,	   each	   of	  which	   h...
Awareness	  of	  Principles:	  Members	  During	   the	   groups,	   each	   par8cipant	   was	   provided	   with	   a	  ...
Awareness	  of	  Principles:	  Non-­‐Members	                              Aware	  of,	  and	  observe	                   ...
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives

439 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
439
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ipsos uqam – the world’s perception of cooperatives

  1. 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. 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. 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  lUniversité  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. 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. 5. Summary  of  Markets   Markets  Covered:     •   Quebec  City,  Canada   •     Manchester,  England   •     Paris,  France   •     Buenos  Aires,  Argen-na   •     Tokyo,  Japan   5  
  6. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. Members     &   Non-­‐Members  Percep-ons  Towards   Coopera-ves   12  
  13. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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  dont  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  doesnt  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. 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. 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. 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. 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  

×