CO-OPERATIVES ARE MORE THAN ‘CARROTS AND COFFINS’: Towards a Transformative Principle 7: ‘Concern for Community
This extended blog seeks to explore the potential of an imaginative application of the International Co-operative Principle (nos7) “ Concern for Community” in empowering and increasing civic participation and addressing social injustice and isolation. Drawing on the experience and research from a number of sources it will hope to show how local community radio, community development studies and practice, ethical retail shopping, strength-based approaches to social care and the concept of “beloved communities” can increasingly become a reality through and by a Co-operative integrated response
THE CO-OPERATIVE PARADOX OF ‘CONCERN
FOR COMMUNITY’ (P7)
How the
Co-operative Commonwealth views this International principle is primarily
evidenced by how it is translated and experienced by communities. Airton Cardoso
et al (2014) points out that it
represents the way co-operatives interact with its community, especially in a
social aspect” (1). That interplay implies social responsibility
but also the “paradigm of the gift- the obligation to give, receive and
reciprocate.” (2)
The general
public see Co-operatives in terms of its’ high street retail stores, funeral
services, maybe through its insurance services and, up until recently the now
hedge funded Co-operative banks. Selling “carrots and coffins” or drawing out
cash from a wall, dwarfs, even in the UK, the amazing variety and scope of
Co-operative activity and enterprise. The Co-operative Group (Coop) every year
celebrates its donations (gifts) to local causes thus helping environmental and
economical sustainability, whilst at the same time fulfilling its obligation to
local Co-operative members in deciding which causes are to benefit from their
benevolence.
It is worth
at this juncture highlighting just how much money is involved. The Coop Group’s
revenue (2018) was £10.2b, a not insignificant increase of 14% in 2017: £60m
was returned to its members and £19m gifted to some 4000 local community
projects (3). The Group emphasises that it is building “stronger
communities by championing a better way of doing business”(4) and, arguably,
in so doing trades on its ethical brand. In the words of Group Chair Allan
Leighton, “it is important to understand that our Co-ops commercial activity
and its community and campaigning work go hand in hand. It’s beyond
philanthropy and traditional social responsibility programmes....”(5). This point is important to us, considering that the
Group considers that Principle 7 is interdependent with all the proceeding
Principles of Co-operation. We need to therefore look at gift giving and local
environmental and economic sustainability alongside voluntary and open
membership (P1); democratic member control (P2); member economic participation
(P3) : autonomy and independence (P4); education and training and information
(P5); and finally co-operation among Co-operatives (P6). Community concern and social
responsibility for the Co-operative Group specifically and the sector generally, is, therefore, central to its ethical brand and reputation, which in turn becomes a
significant strategic marketing priority to avoid reputational damage (6). I have only
been in and around the Co-operative sector the relatively short time of some
dozen years but learnt very early on from lifelong seasoned co-operators that
never stereotype the Group leadership as fluffy hippy throwbacks to the 1960s,
they are mostly ‘hardnosed business executives’! The public may well
buy their carrots from local coop stores and plan their coffins at Funeral Care
but are nevertheless acutely aware that groceries and burials reflect the ethical basis of
Co-operatives and trust it.
Cardoso
adapts from Srour (2003) the Dimensions of Social Responsibility.(7) Broad Social Responsibility is classified as Social Philanthropic actions whilst Narrow Social Responsibility is
value to its members. The former requires a Modern Vision, the latter an
Economic one.
The
obligation within Care for Community to benevolence has, in my opinion, distorted
and marginalized the obligation inherent in Principle 7. It is not just about
engaging with or even in the community, it is about being of it. Building stronger
communities require a clear and dynamic vision of social responsibility and community development. This, in turn, requires all Co-operative retail
outlets/ businesses and services to mobilize its membership to address
significant local social issues rather than just rely on selecting a range of local causes in which the Group can donate some cash! Lest I be accused of being
grossly unfair and unreasonable to the Group, let me celebrate the following by
being an unleashed co-operative critical friend.
The 2017/18 campaigns related to Modern day Slavery was, and is, a spectacular example of going beyond philanthropy or gifting to local causes. The Group’s campaign tackling loneliness was (with some reservations on my part) a a significant contribution to increasing awareness, and additionally, was one of very few current narratives that seriously explored loneliness from a cross generational perspective. Both campaigns are to be commended. The Group’s strategic “ Stronger Co-ops , Stronger Communities” initiative, whilst now in its second year, again evidences a wide range of social issues, including, but not exclusively, education, community safety and funeral poverty. What, however, is now required is to facilitate and encourage civic empowerment and participation of different communities, affirming they are valued members, not only of the Co-operative (for they already are). Beyond this, we should foster holistic support and friendship to peers, promoting intergenerational talents to those living in excluded and marginalized communities, often on the doorstep of Co-operative stores in neighbourhoods. The Local Community Fund represents an important and welcomed first step in meshing “Care for Community” within overall Co-op Principles and moving beyond the paradigm of gift giving. Understanding community need via Community Wellbeing Indexes; the role of Member Pioneers offer incredible opportunities using as it does local Co-op stores ( a theme I pick up later) as does the Co-op Foundation’s Belong programme tackling youth loneliness.
Gifting to
the traditional Charity sector, however worthy does not in and of itself
empower or address power imbalances and arguably remains a 19th
century approach to a 21st century issue of social alienation and
exclusion. Adult social care for example, is generally considered to be in
crisis. Social injustice and breaches of human rights remain with us and
communities too often marginalized, forgotten and discriminated against with
some devastating consequences, for example, Grenfell. Such communities exist
in rural and urban areas alike and certainly in our cities across the UK.
Deepening our understanding of community need, developing community wellbeing
indexes, establishing member pioneers, empowering young people, and tackling
loneliness must be viewed through a more visionary and radical lens. Thus
whilst celebrating all these developments, is the Co-operative a social
movement of which the Group is a part, not its centre?
The Cardoso
paper I have been quoting openly acknowledges that integrated community
development is required and that in critiquing ‘Concern for Community’, social
responsibility and the theory of Gifting it draws attention to the
discrepancies, and thus the paradox
between them (8). There is yet to be research to
evidence their theses. For our purpose, however, it acts as a useful proposition
that Co-operative community development has to be the heart and be the spirit
of Concern for Community whilst not sacrificing it on the alter of
philanthropic endeavour- or is it visa versa? Perhaps we need to refocus, recalibrate and
re-invent Principle7, but above all we need to be clearer about what we mean by
community and co-operative community development.
‘BELOVED’ COMMUNITIES OF CO-OPERATION
I came
across the term “beloved communities” in the publication “Understanding Community,” an excellent book by Professor Peter
Somerville of the University of Lincoln.UK (9) He
rightly poses the question as to what is meant by community a “much used and
abused word with countless definitions and interpretations” (10) This point made, I do not intend here to debate the
issue but it is only right that I make clear the definition I am using, namely
community “ is a kind of state of being or existence, which is both subjective
and objective, or in which the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity
is dissolved” (11). It is about “ being together”- a
state of being- “living together, working together, learning together, caring
together, acting together” (12) Somerville points out that whilst community is
ambiguous and contested its “ value as an idea lies in its core meaning as
social attachments, bonds, ties or obligations beyond the family” (13)
It is the
term ‘beloved communities’ I find resonates in the context of Co-operatives and
co-operation. It is, as Somerville argues, “a community whose spirit is one of
compassion or loving kindness for all...characterized by freedom from
exploitation and domination, with a radically open membership, and always in the dynamic process of becoming, being made and remade into more free and equal and
less coercive forms of life” (14)
In
Somerville’s chapter on Community economic development he discusses community
ownership, worker and community co-operatives. (15) Whilst the benefits of community ownership is beyond dispute for a
Co-operator it is a “slow and laborious process and exists in a variety of
contexts and activities- some of which are contradictory”. Worker co-operatives
exist outside ‘carrots and coffins’, but whilst being communal, “are largely
dependent on capitalist markets “(16) Community
Co-operatives, however, “exist primarily for the benefit of the community as a
whole, not just for their members” but can be largely indistinguishable from
many voluntary associations”(17)
It is time
to draw these conceptual threads together. Concern for Community is at the
centre, but not disconnected from the Principles underpinning Co-operatives.
Communities are defined in terms of social attachments, bonds and ties
characterized by social justice and inclusion. A Co-operative community is part
of a co-operative one which does not exploit its members who own, control and
benefit the business, service or enterprise. In addition, Co-operatives are
part of a social movement and one of solidarity. Community development
(economic and social) adds value, not just in terms of money, capital growth or
even job creation. (18) Co-operative Community Development
facilitates, builds and strengthens poorer communities, exploited communities
and excluded communities. It addresses social exclusion and social injustice.
It does not confuse benevolence and welfareism with civic participation and
social justice. It is never
patronizing and paternalistic.
The Coop
Group is well-placed to take into account the limitations of professional
community development as it understands and exists within a capitalist reality.
However Care for Community can be, should be, must be rooted in a
transformative and radical social vision and responsibility leading to civic
participation and social justice that sees “carrots and coffins” can be, must
be in the minds of managers and staff of local high street store or funeral service
about selling a vision of social inclusion and justice.
A TRANSFORMATIVE DIFFERENT WAY OF
THINKING
If we accept
the premise that co-operation should be at the heart of our communities we have
to accept David Rodgers claim that “you can’t shift responsibility onto society
without shifting power”(19)
Addressing social
exclusion and injustice requires systemic change rather than simply hanging up
a sign outside a Co-op store saying come in for a cup of tea and have a chat
with other lonely people, or organising local initiatives under the .coop
marque and concluding that they in and
of themselves will bring about ‘beloved communities’. Campaigns of course do
have a crucial part to play, but to create a movement requires a significant
number of people. An active membership base of 1.6m people, if mobilized with a
vision, can indeed become such a movement. A principle of local co-operative
community development concerned with social injustice and exclusion requires
leadership from the very community in which it exists. £19m to some 4000 local
causes is not insignificant, but, if gifted to non-co-operatives then, it will,
yes, be of some benefit to those lucky enough to have been selected by members,
but it will not in my view build stronger communities, let alone beloved ones.
The Group’s social purpose, through a successful commercial enterprise with a
£4.500 gift to local causes, whether that be to Bromley in London, or Dundee,
Bradford or Manchester, will not, in my opinion, make a significant difference in
those locations and certainly not enrich the lives across the UK. Let me be
clear. I am not saying £19m is to be sniffed at, but distributed in chunks of
£4,500 to a population of say 250,000 people does not address the systemic
causes of social isolation or injustice in Dundee, Bradford, Bromley,
Birmingham or Manchester. I readily admit it was not intended to but the
rhetoric underpinning gifting can imply it does. A UK mobilization however of
some 4.6m active Co-operative members could, just could, turn that rhetoric
into a reality if underpinned by imagination and the necessary community
development processes put in place. Steve Murrells, Chief Executive of the
Co-op Group is as CEO, impressive and says in his contribution to the Strategic
Report quoted above “our social purpose means our ambitions are far greater than
the Group’s bottom line”.(20) The question is, is that ambition
great enough? This blog is a constructive provocation not a gratuitous
criticism or devaluation of the celebration rightly made in the Group’s Annual
Strategic Report.
I wish now
to explore the potential of a number of initiatives that do not rely on
gifting. They do however require resourcing of a different kind. They also have
the potential to be transformative Co-operative responses in meeting the
underlying spirit and purpose of Concern for Community and incorporate “carrots
and coffins.” They require a whole systems approach of integration rather than siloed
activity or top-down coordination and leadership, but rather empowerment at a
local level with local people owning and controlling.
The examples
are:
·
Increasing
the number of Councils involved in the Co-operative Councils Innovation Network
(CCiN)
·
Community
radio for civic participation and engagement
·
Co-operative
retail eg: development of VoxWorld Coop
·
Strength/Asset Based Community Development in
the context of adult social care
I have
selected them on the basis of my direct knowledge and experience of them and
thus fully aware they do not, in of themselves, represent a blueprint or even
template. They each have inherent challenges but however provide and offer
incredible opportunities in our quest for a transformative Principle 7
Co-operative Councils Innovation
Network (CCiN) Unleashed
There exist
a number of Councils signed up to this non-party political, policy development
and practice Network. The network is an active hub for co-operative policy
development, innovation and advocacy (21) . It seeks to help Councils translate
Co-operative polices and Principles into practice. A Review and Forward View of
CCiN undertaken in 2017 concluded that “ Coop Councils must become Co-operative
Places” and “ this should be the ultimate test of the next few years” It also
at the same time concluded that whilst Councils in the Network had “made
important progress against its stated aims they could not evidence a relationship between co-operative ambition,
principles and a positive shift in local communities”(22)
The CCiN has, however, established itself as an important influence within Local Authorities
and recognised the challenge from an interviewee quoted in the Report: “Coop
won’t make a difference unless it is put into the fabric and infrastructure of
the organisation” (23). This takes leadership, courage and
creativity and again the Review clearly stated the Network “will need to be
different, based on co-operative values and principles into a deeper account of
how we create positive change in our communities through collaborative systems
and places”(24)
My reasoning
for name-checking this potentially transformative Network is that Councils have
an incredibly important role, not just in terms of its electoral Ward Councillor
structure but its reach across different communities within and between wards,
the business sector, local Third Sector organisations and those communities
living with social and economic exclusion and injustice. The Network therefore
within its membership sharing the Principles and value base of Co-operatives
evidence transformative community development not just within their specific
local authorities but across the UK.
My
contention is that local Councils at all its various electoral levels, in
partnership with the Co-operative sector can ensure a whole sector response
including co-operative retail, worker co-operatives, social enterprises based
on co-operation but with the active coop members in their given area. The
Co-operative Council network can encourage investment in Co-operatives; it can
encourage and commission social care services; it can encourage the development
of community radio; it can help in supporting, at the right time, Strength-based
community development; and it can indeed meet the challenge of becoming Co-operative
Places. The evidence suggests that they are on that journey and, who knows? Communities
in those places will become ‘beloved’.
Community radio production unleashed
for civic participation and engagement
Much of my
thinking has been influenced by both my involvement with East London Radio over
a number of years personally hosting near on a 100 shows focused on age and
ageing issues and a product of the Change AGEnts Co-operative Collective but
more recently hearing about the development of Older Voices, a monthly show produced and hosted by older adults (NE1fm) and supported by Arlind Reuter et al from Newcastle
University (25). The shows are very different in
content and structure and whilst AGESpeaks
(26) draws mainly a professional
listenership, it is Older Voices and
the support and research of Arlind Reuter et al which is of particular
relevance here. In different ways both demonstrate the potential of how
community radio can (and does) support the process of having a voice in ones’
community as part of civic action, and promote community dialogue. Hearing from
and communicating with local people from local communities through radio offers
a platform for people to not just raise concerns and issues but to engage in
discussion and to be informed and influenced, but to also influence. East
London Radio has regular presenters aged from 16- 80yrs and trains volunteers
across different communities and generations
East in radio production and presenting.
When Ian Chambers
the owner and producer of East London Radio and I attempted to engage with the
Co-operative Group in sponsoring or advertising on the station or of particular
shows its silence was deafening. There are, as Reuter points out from her
experience with Older Voices, some
real challenges including “audience engagement, content persistence and process
sustainability”(27) That said ELR and Angel, and in fact
most community radio outlets through
their programming have the potential to increase community participation. Radio
affirms sections of the community that they are valued members “offering
support and friendship of peers, promoting ...talents and ensuring their
talents are acknowledged to a wider audience”(28) “Community radio is non-politically biased and owned by or accountable to
the community that they seek to serve”(29) (30). Community radio encourages local people to become active and quoted in
Reuter “discussions contribute to social capital formation, helping foster
tolerance by strengthening specific communities’ interests and connecting them
with other groups. If dialogue is created between citizens and service
providers, community media can help shape local service delivery” (31)
If we define
the term civic participation as to “voluntary activity focused to helping
others, achieving a public good or solving a community problem including work
undertaken either alone or in co-operation with others we can effect change”(32) The distinction however between participation and
engagement has to be recognised if we wish to develop a Co-operative approach
to community development via radio media. Reuter goes on to clarify that in
whatever definition we use to distinguish participation from engagement they
encompass three important dimensions in the context of radio. Firstly
engagement is about a psychological attentiveness to an issue but participation
implies civic action. Secondly, it is an individual or collective activity and
finally clarity of purpose or outcome of that activity. In her experience
supporting Older Voices in producing their programmes these elements were
critical. The same therefore would apply to the Co-operative sector if it
wished to develop a sustainable community radio as one of its means to address
social isolation and exclusion- Concern for Community. As a regular shopper at
our local Co-op buying my carrots but not yet thankfully my coffin I hear the
in-store radio with its offers, but in-store radio is not community radio, but could it be? Alternatively could not the
local Co-operative economy support existing community radio stations or develop
co-operative programmes that encourage civic engagement and participation, and
could this not be explored by Co-operative Councils?
Retail stores as hubs for dialogue
and conversations: The Voxworld.coop model unleashed
I had never
heard of Voxworld.coop until via LinkedIn some years ago I happened to connect
with the amazing Richard O’Farrell from The E-Communities.Coop Programmes.
Through that connection I became aware
“how visibility, identity and awareness of Vox community brands can
build bridges that span the inequality divide”(33) Vox stands for the ‘Voices of the e-Xcluded’ in communities, a
collective voice that is heard, heeded and through which the silent majority
can speak and where unheard ideas can take root”. Vox is about social inclusion. It has several
strands alongside ethical shoppers (those who buy specific products/services)
to address social exclusion. Arguably the Group are already through’ Care for
Community’ and its Foundation etc are undertaking this role. VoxWorld.Coop is
the ethical Symbol Retailer and promoter of community owned brands that carry the VoxGEM Ethical Label. When our Change
AGEnts Network IPS (now Collective) developed a joint project with VOX we set
up a number of cafe based hubs to engage in conversations with older shoppers.
In summary
VOX is about ethical shoppers purchasing with a social conscience and expanding
the market place to promote social inclusion. How can local coop stores promote
awareness beyond simply showing a video at check out of local charities
receiving money from the money spent collectively to good causes? Local stores
in a given community radio catchment area could open a dialogue with
communities about a whole range of Group and/or become a hub itself by using
potentially available rooms, or by sponsoring
conversation/dialogue local hubs
in other venues available in the community.
Richard
introduced Change AGEnts to the Chaordic Community organisation; a concept
dedicated to the disadvantaged, underserved, the socially excluded starting
with ageing populations which were then followed by what was termed the “coping
classes”. It addressed ageism and community empowerment. VOX is trade rather than aid
based for social innovation. It seeks to engage with the wider Third Sector
through its Community Social Values:
Ø Community Co-operatives- for
Principles
Ø Community Fair Trade – for Standards
Ø Community Tele Centre- for digital
access
Ø Community Hubs – for Social
Innovation
Ø Community Colleges- for classes and
courses
Ø Community Diaspora- for Social Enterprises
Ø Community Third Sector- for intra
Community Collaboration
(Taken from Eriu Community VOX. A Voice
for Ethical Ireland.p8 (34) )
All VOX
communities operations relate to Community Circles, Hubs, Ethical Brands and
ethical retail outlets.
For me it
represents a construct and an approach that continues to inspire. It remains a
fundamental conceptual pillar that is based on vision and transforming how
retail and Concern for the Community at a
local level can be realized.
What does Strength/Asset-Based
Community Development Processes Offer?
When I first
heard Cormac Russell speak (a faculty member of the ABCD Institute and Managing
Director of Nurture Development), it was via a pre-recorded video presentation
at a conference I was attending. It was inspirational. Asset Based Community
Development (ABCD) over recent years has gained considerable traction in
numerous local authorities seeking to explore its strategic and practical
application. It could be said that some Councils’ think it could ease their
financial burden on providing or commissioning care services by redirecting
responsibility to local communities. Such a view is a failure to understand
both social care and ABCD.
A recent
Report from the Institute of Public Care- New
Developments in Adult Social Care
looked at emerging approaches.(35) During 2018
Professor John Bolton examined the responses of 6 local authorities seeking to
develop new approaches in England. For our purpose the asset or strength based
practice was identified as one of three themes, the others were Promoting
Independence and Outcome Commissioning. Arguably they could be three legs of
the same stool. In terms of specific social work practice however he looked at
both pre assessment and assessment processes. The salient issue is, however, to
take ABCD beyond the front door and staff simply acting as gatekeepers or
signposts to existing local services. This presupposes that the staff
undertaking assessments link strength based approaches to “finding solutions to
meeting need from within local communities.”(36) Bolton
raises questions related to the ‘evolution of community development’ within a
given area and the broader understanding of and by a given community’s health
and social care needs. A useful link here to the Co-op Groups Community
Wellbeing Indexes mentioned above. Bolton questioned the front line workers’
knowledge and awareness of what was actually happening within the community and
above all their ability to link the need to the right resource. Fundamentally he
asks if Adult Social Care workers take the lead role in developing community
resources and how closely they are involved in that activity. He also asks how
effectively the Council engage people who might be socially excluded through
community development, particularly those with learning disability.(37)
In relation
to Performance Management, Bolton explored whether commissioning processes
supported finding solutions from outside adult social care budgets and which PM
arrangements are in place that evidences strength-based approaches on both
council finances and communities. The Report did, however, conclude that Strength
based assessments do offer a more positive approach and engagement with the
“customer” but more significantly from our discussion here is the need for and
dependence on “a parallel approach in relation to community development”(38)
At this
juncture, understanding what is so distinctive about ABCD is worth some
attention. I have often thought that the rather ‘pick and mix’ approach of some
coop branded organisations to the Values and seven Principles of Cooperation
can undermine the integrity of Co-operatives. Equally a ‘pick and mix’ approach
to ABCD processes will undermine their effectiveness and to a large extent, in
terms of outcomes for the communities engaging in development, at best will be
disappointing or non-sustainable, and at worse, increase social injustice and
exclusion. Cormac repeatedly emphasises that ABCD is about “enhancing
collective citizen visioning and production” but, in my view, it inevitably moves
us away from State driven, led and controlled responses which are, by and
large, patronizing and paternalistic and people don’t want! The distinctive
nature of ABCD was the very title of a Paper by John Knight and Cormac Russell
(2018) (39) which spell out four essential elements
of an ABCD process: resources, methods, functions and evaluation. Key to our
discussion is that local resources include the citizens’ gifts, skills,
knowledge and passions (note active co-operative members); local associations
including volunteers (note active Co-operative Party members) and local Places
(note CCiN). McKnight and Russell list a whole range of resources and of
particular note is their inclusion of credit union schemes, worker-owned
co-operatives and local shop initiatives.
Listed too are ‘stories’ – the local culture- the community way, shared
visioning and productivity, intergenerational connections- the list is
comprehensively endless (40). I add my own contribution at this
point, community radio!
Community
development the ABCD is “iterative and emergent” (41) but it has to be sequential starting with what local citizens can do
independent of state or institutions. Secondly, what requires a little help and
finally “once these local assets /strengths have been fully connected and
mobilized, citizens can decide collectively on what they want outside agents to
do for them.”(42)
Given that
at its core ABCD is connectivity and the goal is to enhance collective
visioning and production, in so doing the models adopted need to be of the community. ABCD is “without
hierarchy and elements exist simultaneously and dynamically”. Co-operative
Community Development underpinned by its Values and Principles is complementary
and unique and distinctive in its own way- or is it? By looking at the strength-based approaches and process ABCD offers a process in which the Values and
Principles of Co-operation coexist. Concern for Community transformed through
synchronised whole systems “processes and activities by which various interests
within the co-operative can successfully pursue common social, economic and
even cultural objectives.”(43)
Co-operative Values and Principles are
international; ABCD processes are international; social injustice and
inequality exist internationally, the former being a response to the latter –
what a world it would be!
ENDGAME
In this
extended blog I have attempted to not just provide a useful provocation, but
demonstrate how Co-operative “Concern for Community” (Community Development)
can, through harnessing its considerable resources, meet the challenges of
social injustice and exclusion. ABCD often refers to “home based natural
communities” and this is a powerful concept, as is the term “beloved
communities”. Perhaps we should talk about ‘home-based beloved natural
communities’. Change is often seen in the context of institutions doing and
perceiving individuals as being in deficit. Local Councils can be disconnected
from their local communities and defensively taking shelter in their Town halls
or Civic Centres.
Dr Mervyn Eastman
REFERENCES:
1. AIRTON CARDOSO CANCADO Y MARIADE
FATIMA, ARRUDA SOUZA, ARIANDE SCLAFONI RIGO, JEOVA TORRES SILVER JUNIOR:
Principle of ‘Concern for Community’: beyond ‘social responsibility’ in
co-operatives (01.07.14). Boletin de la Ascociacion Internacional de Derech
Co-operativo. University de Deusto
2. CANCADO, Ibid,
3. Co-operative Annual Report 2018.
Strategic report highlights
4. Ibid,
5. ALLAN LEIGHTON. Group Chair.
Introduction p5 in Co-operative Annual Report 2018
6. CANCADO, Ibid,
7. CANCADO, Ibid (p198). From SROUR R.H. Etica emresarial a
gestao
Da reputacao .2nd
ed. Rio de Janeiro: Campus. 2003 (p82)
8. CANCADO, Ibid,
9. SOMMERVILLE Peter. Understanding
Community: Politics, Policy and Practice (2nd Ed). Social Policy
Association. 2006
10. HILLERY G. Definitions of Community:
Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology 20. 1955 in SOMMERVILLE, ibid
11. SOMMERVILLE P, ibid p4
12. NEAL. S, WATERS.S 2008, Rural
belonging and rural social organisations: Conviviality and community making in
the English countryside. Sociology 42, 2,279-97 in SOMMERVILLE P, ibid,
13. SOMMERVILLE, ibid, p17
14. Ibid, p16
15. Ibid, pp135-140
16. Ibid,
17. Ibid, p136
18. Ibid, p141
19. RODGERS. D. Co-operative Communities.
Co-operation at the heart of our communities: Creating a shared stake in our
society for everybody. Local Government Association Leadership LGA: Local
Government Labour Group. Sept 2010. P40
20. MURRELLS. S, Chief Executive: Introduction
to Co-operative Annual Report (2018) Ibid, p6
21. Co-operative Councils Innovation
Network. Publicity blurb (CCiN)
22. KIPPIN .H and RANDLE.A: From
Co-operative Councils to Co-operative Places. A Review and forward view for the
CCiN. Collaborate for Change. Feb 2017. (p18)
23. Ibid, p22
24. Ibid, p24
25. REUTER A, BARTINDALE T, MORRISSEY K,
SCHARF.T and LIDDLE J. Older Voices: Supporting Community Radio Production for
Civic Participation in Later Life. CH 2019. May 4-9th 2019. Glasgow.
Scotland. UK
26. AGE SPEAKS RADIO SHOW produced and
edited by East London Radio. www.eastlondonradio.org.uk
27. REUTER A et al Ibid Abstract
28. Ibid, Abstract
29. European Parliament. The State of
Community media in the European Union. (Sept) 2007 in REUTER et al
30. Ibid in REUTER et al
31. MANUEL L, VIGAR G, BARTINDALE T and
COMBER R. Participatory Media: Creating Spaces for Storytelling in
Neighbourhood Planning. Proceedings of the 2017 SIGCHI Conference in Computing
systems 2017 in REUTER et al.
32. BARRETT M, BRUNTON-SMITH I. Political
and Civic Engagement and Participation. Towards an Integrative Perspective.
Journal of Civil Society 10(1): p5-28.2014 quoted in REUTER et al Ibid
33. VOXWORLD.COOP “ ERIU Community VOX’ A
voice for Ethical Ireland. Ethical Shoppers Retail Campaign to End Social
Exclusion. ( RICHARD O’FARRELL) 2018
34. Ibid p8
35. BOLTON J. New Developments in Adult
Social Care. IPC ( Institute of Public Care): Oxford Brookes University. Jan
2019
36. Ibid p16
37. Ibid p16
38. Ibid p37
39. McKNIGHT J and RUSSELL C. The Four Elements
of an Asset-Based Community Development Process: What is Distinctive about an
Asset-Based Community Development Process. DePaul University ABCD Institute
2018
40. Ibid p2
41. Ibid p6
42. Ibid p6
43. McDONALD, WALLACE and McPHERSON.
Co-operative Enterprise. Building a Better World: Global Co-operative
Development Group. Sept 2013. P111
