Co-Operatives Are More Than 'Carrots and Coffins'

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 19^th century approach to a 21^st 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.

So, what is the endgame? A community where citizens live free from injustice and exploitation, safe, secure, healthy, and economically engaged, co-creating care and shaping their local economies in dialogue and conversation with each other and with those who represent them in Town halls, engaged and participating in commissioning decisions that affect their sense of belonging and enabled to care for and in, their own communities with confidence. 


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 .2^nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Campus. 2003 (p82)

8.      CANCADO, Ibid,

9.      SOMMERVILLE Peter. Understanding Community: Politics, Policy and Practice (2^nd 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 4-9^th 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