b1 ( . a. k - «a; » 1,; V . a a $me ., ‘ ‘ .1: . , . J4. » .‘J 1%! mmwiannMV .m. 1.“. 1.54% i .35.: . .vu a}..h\-\mwufl»dwm§ ‘ ... a? . . 1h .. 5|. 1 .tfi msflmw: .1! .31 . . . .. .. V5; .2 . ‘33; .7351- __ u-.. ‘5... I...“ ..r.u..:....... . an. . V . ”I t «a: X) V ( I ) r This is to certify that the thesis entitled PERCEPTIONS AND INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY OF A CANADIAN HANDICRAFT COOPERATIVE presented by KIM YVONNE HILLER CONNELL has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the MA. degree in Apparel and Textiles Q7 /7 at”? 'rMajoflProfessor’s Signature ‘7 mama/(3f 52mg: Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE were 9 got 5 m3: ‘14 9 2003 6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15 PERCEPTIONS AND INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY OF A CANADIAN HANDICRAFT COOPERATIVE By Kim Yvonne Hiller Connell A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Human Environment and Design 2003 that is center I€I€VIi the ha COOPQ Sustail COOpc grow capita IIICIUC ABSTRACT PERCEPTIONS AND INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY OF A CANADIAN HANDICRAFT COOPERATIVE By Kim Yvonne Hiller Connell The purpose of this study is to conduct a case study of a handicraft cooperative that is operating within a developed country in order to understand how the cooperative conceptualizes sustainable development and to establish a set of indicators that are relevant for assessing the environmental, economic, and social-culttual sustainability of the handicrafi cooperative. Analysis of interviews and documents Show that the cooperative does not perceive environmental sustainability essential for cooperative sustainability. Economic sustainability is important for the cooperative, and the cooperative’s perceptions of economic sustainability include adequate profit, adequate growth, access to dependable and durable economic resources, equitable distribution of capital, and financial responsibility. Social-cultural sustainability is also important and includes characteristics of participation, human dignity, equity, empowerment, cultural integrity, sufficient benefits, effective management, and balanced human resources. Through an understanding of the cooperative’s ecosystem and the cooperative — environment interactions, the study proposes one or more indicators for each of the above characteristics of sustainability. Copyright by Kim Yvonne Hiller Connell 2003 DEDICATION To Mom and Dad: You encourage and support my dreams and Show me unconditional love... To Jeff: You do your best to make sure I get enough sleep, believe in everything that I do, and give me endless love... ...I love you. iv Who hax- Opponur Sontag. )ou 5pc rescarcl Dr. 10h: thesis. Design and sui Classes Coding lTOm t ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Master’s thesis is the result of the combined effort of many different people who have played a pivotal role in me reaching the end goal and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge these people. First, I want to express deep thanks and gratitude for my advisor, Dr. M. Suzanne Sontag. You have guided me every step of the way. Thank you for the countless hours you spent assisting me in developing this thesis, your meticulous editing, and your research expertise. Thank you as well to my committee members Dr. Ann Slocum and Dr. John Kerr. I appreciate your guidance in both my Master’s program and with this thesis. I would also like to acknowledge the Department of Human Environment and Design for funding support and Dr. Sally Helvenston for being flexible with my schedule and supportive of my program. I also greatly appreciate Young-A Lee for covering my classes while I was collecting data and Jongnam Lee for her enthusiastic assistance in coding my data. My research also would not have been possible without generous grants from both The Graduate School and the Kappa Omicron Nu Society. My family and friends all deserve special thanks for your support and encouragement. You are my tireless cheerleading section. Particular thanks to Bev and George F rers and Rochelle Chapman for your hospitality while I was in Vancouver. Lastly, but certainly not least, thank you to the members of Circle Craft who participated in this study. I trust this research reflects your strength and character. This research is possible because of your willingness to share your experiences with me. Dnof ,Q Dual CRAP CHAP CHAP CHAP' TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ........................................................................................ viii List of Figures ......................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................. 1 Statement of the Problem ................................................................... 1 Research Objectives ......................................................................... 5 Research Questions and Rationale ......................................................... 5 Conceptual Framework ..................................................................... 7 Sustainable Development .......................................................... 8 The Human Ecological Perspective ............................................. 19 Interconnected Nature of Ecological Sustainability and Human Ecology ............................................................... 23 Definitions ................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 27 The Role of Cooperatives in Development ............................................ 27 Cooperatives in Developing Countries ....................................... 28 COOperatives in Developed Countries ........................................ 33 Indicators of Ecological Sustainability ................................................. 37 Indicators Defined ................................................................ 37 Frameworks for Indicators ...................................................... 39 Developing Indicators ............................................................ 43 Factors Contributing to Cooperative Sustainability .................................. 50 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS ......................................................... 56 Data Collection ............................................................................. 56 Selection of the Cooperative .................................................... 56 Research Techniques ............................................................. 60 Data Analysis .............................................................................. 63 Validity and Reliability ................................................................... 66 Validity ............................................................................. 66 Reliability .......................................................................... 68 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ......................... 71 Description of Circle Crafi ................................................................ 71 Introduction to Research Participants ................................................... 75 Research Question One: Perceptions of Ecological Sustainability .................. 78 vi CHAP' Apper Apper Apper Appel Amer Appe] Appe Perceptions of Environmental Sustainability .................................. 79 Perceptions of Economic Sustainability ....................................... 81 Perceptions of Social-Cultural Sustainability ................................. 92 Research Question Two: Goals for Ecological Sustainability ...................... 104 Explicitly Stated Cooperative Goals .......................................... 104 Environmental Sustainability Goals .......................................... 106 Economic Sustainability Goals ................................................ 109 Social-Cultural Sustainability Goals .......................................... 1 18 Research Question Three: Indicators of Ecological Sustainability ................. 123 Analysis of Circle Craft Ecosystem ........................................... 123 Indicators of Ecological Sustainability ........................................ 127 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................................. 144 Comparison of the Cooperative’s Characteristics of Sustainability to the Literature ................................................................................... 144 Comparison with Sustainable Development Literature ..................... 144 Comparison with Cooperative Literature .................................... 148 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................ 151 Appendix A: Letter of Introduction to Cooperatives ......................................... 155 Appendix B: Reply Postcard for Cooperatives ................................................ 158 Appendix C: Research Proposal Letter to Cooperative ....................................... 160 Appendix D: Informed Consent Form .......................................................... 163 Appendix E: Interview Guide .................................................................... 166 Appendix F: Letter of Introduction to Potential Research Participants .................... 171 Appendix G: Coding Guide ...................................................................... 174 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 178 vii Table is; LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Primary Characteristics of Each Dimension of Human Ecological Sustainability ................................................................................ l 7 2. CSD Theme Indicator Framework for Social Indicators .............................. 41 3. Summary of Characteristics Contributing to Cooperative Sustainability ...........54 4. Demographics of Research Participants ................................................. 77 5. Comparison of Characteristics of Ecological Sustainability ........................ 148 6. Comparison of Characteristics Contributing to Cooperative Sustainability. . .....149 viii Figure J 'JJ LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. The sustainable development triangle, adapted for a human ecological perspective ..................................................................... 11 2. The human ecological perspective of cooperative — environment interactions .................................................................................. 23 3. The relationship between cooperative — environment interactions and ecological sustainability .............................................................. 24 4. Summary of the perceived characteristics and indicators of economic sustainability .............................................................................. 1 3 1 5. Summary of the perceived characteristics and indicators of social-cultural sustainability ............................................................................... 13 6 ix iscus. effecti destru. focus: come: societ: E‘Cono imEgr Feet, counh and pi dEVCII CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Statement of the Problem Since approximately World War II, the problems confronting humanity have been discussed in the context of development. The assertion, over the years, is that the most effective way to solve the crisis of poverty, human security, and environmental destruction is through a process of development. Conventionally, development has focused on economics and the belief that economic growth leads to development. In this conventional approach, “underdevelopment,” poverty, and other problems facing societies are thought to be a result of economic backwardness -— not producing enough economic growth, not consuming enough goods and services, and not being effectively integrated into the system of world trade (Axinn & Axinn, 1997; Martinussen, 1997; Peet, 1999). A primary belief in the conventional development approach is that if countries build an adequate amount of factories, employ sufficient numbers of people, and produce, sell, and trade enough goods, they will “develop” and through that development, overcome many of the obstacles they face. However, over the past several decades, it has become apparent that the conventional approach to development is not working. Although economic grth is an essential part of development, it alone will not result in lasting development. This approach to development is highly dependent on consumption and waste. Building factories and producing products requires the consumption of massive amounts of natural resources. Likewise, in order to continually sell and trade products, people must consume in mass quantities. Conventional development has also created societies that do not pay living I negahx IfCélVé conscq essenu caem' increas living wages and exploit employees in their work environments. Unfortunately, the negative consequences of an agenda focused solely on economic growth tend not to receive full acknowledgment in conventional development. However, the negative consequences of conventional development are real; and recognition of this fact is essential. Conventional development is not solving world hunger, education and health care remain inaccessible to billions of people, and the natural environment grows increasingly vulnerable. Fortunately, people are beginning to appreciate the need to uncover solutions that are radically different from the status quo and are recognizing that it is time to abandon the belief that economic grth will independently bring development. Throughout the 19705 and 19808 awareness grew about the negative consequences conventional development was creating. Then in 1987, a report, Our Common Future: Brundtland Report, now usually referred to as simply the Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987) increased public awareness of the environmental, economic, and social implications of conventional development. The Brundtland Report also brought to the forefront the concept of sustainable development (Lee, Holland, & McNeil], 2000). In 1992, five years after the Brundtland Report, the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which had representatives from over a hundred nations, resulted in the approval of another document called Agenda 2]: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development (United Nations [UN], 1992). The central concept of Agenda 21 is sustainable development, and its purpose is to outline a plan of action for sustainability. Today sustainable development has become a priority at local, national, and global levels. susunn morerr cooper huerna maea Many different strategies and techniques are involved in the process towards sustainable development. One such strategy is the utilization of the cooperative movement. Development literature is increasingly recognizing the potential role that cooperatives have in contributing to sustainable development (Gertler, 2001; International Cooperative Alliance [ICA], 1995a; Mayoux, 1992). Throughout the world there are close to 800,000,000 people who are members of cooperatives. If immediate family members are factored in for the number of people directly affected by cooperative membership, the number increases to 3,000,000,000 - over half of the world’s population (ICA, 1995b). Cooperatives, considered a form of local development (formed by local people, operated by local people, and benefiting local people), are attractive in international development and widely promoted for their potential to help people meet economic and social needs (Mayoux, 1992). Typically, cooperatives have an element of income generation, and many professionals in international development see cooperatives as an effective method for working towards economic sustainability in communities (Cadieva, 1999; Gertler, 2001; ICA, 1995a; Mayoux, 1992). Also frequently cited as positive aspects of cooperatives are the social benefits of cooperative membership, including providing members with fi'iendship and support networks, education and training, and respect from community and family members (ICA, 1995a; Mayoux, 1992). According to the Intemational Cooperative Alliance (ICA): The link between cooperatives and sustainable development is evident when cooperatives act as economic agents and as social agents, when they promote women’s participation. . . when they give consumers access to quality products at reasonable prices. . . when they seek to increase the potential of their members, and above all when they become an effective mechanism to promote equality and u‘ill IlJl i'ar‘ting 1000; I cooper Toerel bacon: is im; andn COmr 9“ h: 8%]. orga L'nii mo". det- PE: reduce poverty, giving opportunities to all, they become true agents of sustainable development (19950, p. 2-3). However, there are others who have mixed beliefs about the effect cooperatives will have on sustainable development - with the benefits and degree of sustainability varying greatly from one cooperative to the next (Eber & Rosenbaum, 1993; Iglauer, 2000; Jayaweera, 1995; Mayoux, 1992), and still others who believe that quite frequently, cooperatives are not effective in encouraging sustainable development (Cohen, 1998). Therefore, due to the increased utilization of cooperatives as a development tool and because there is a lack of consensus about cooperatives’ contributions to sustainability, it is important to determine whether it is in fact possible for cooperatives to be sustainable and make significant contributions towards sustainable development. Subjective judgments cannot solely determine the sustainability of any country, community, or organization, including cooperatives. Determining sustainability depends on having a way in which to measure where a country or organization is in relation to the goals of sustainable development. In order to meet this need nations, communities, and organizations are developing and using indicators of sustainable development. The United Nation’s aforementioned Agenda 21 (UN, 1992) called for the development of indicators at national and organizational levels and for the use of indicators in sustainable development work. Indicators communicate information about both where one currently is and how far there is to go in relation to sustainable development goals. Assessment of sustainable development is dependent on the development of indicators, and without indicators it is not possible to assess accurately sustainability (Meadows, 1998). This research study investigates one cooperative in depth to determine how it perceives the concept of sustainable development and to develop indicators of sustainable dex‘e body are 0 stud} (hand reseai the b3 are 111‘. ofa NOrii development for the cooperative. The results of this study will contribute to the growing body of knowledge on cooperatives and sustainable development. Although cooperatives are organized in a number of different ways and exist all over the world, this research study focuses Specifically on developing indicators for one particular handicraft (handmade, crafi items) cooperative in North America. The next section of this chapter outlines the study’s research objectives and the research questions. The subsequent section explains the conceptual framework that forms the basis for the study. Finally, the chapter concludes with a number of definitions that are important to the research. Research Objectives This research study sets out to accomplish the following objectives: - to conduct a case study of a handicraft cooperative, that is operating within a developed country, in order to understand how the cooperative conceptualizes sustainable development - to establish, with participation of the cooperative, a set of indicators that: o are relevant at the organizational level 0 can be used to assess the ecological sustainability of a handicraft cooperative within a developed country Research Questions and Rationale The purpose of this research is to develop indicators that assess the sustainability of a North American handicraft cooperative. The research uses a case study approach to que develi develc establi circum 8 (level Olhenx, desired develop indicators for assessing the environmental, economic, and social-cultural sustainability of the cooperative and the cooperative — environment interactions. With the above purpose in mind, the research sets out to answer three specific questions: 1. In relation to their cooperative, what do the members perceive as being the essential characteristics of ecological sustainability? 2. What goals, if any, does the handicraft cooperative have with respect to ecological sustainability? 3. What indicators will measure the cooperative’s ecological sustainability, including the sustainability of the cooperative itself and the cooperative — environment interactions? Since, cooperatives are increasingly utilized as a strategy for sustainable development, it is imperative for us to understand if cooperatives are indeed a valuable development strategy. In addition, as a growing number of development projects involve establishing and operating cooperatives (Harper & Roy, 2000) it is crucial to know the circumstances that contribute to cooperative sustainability. Promotion of cooperatives as a development too] should occur only if they have the potential for sustainability. Otherwise, we are utilizing a multitude of resources on a strategy that can never bring the desired result. Two reasons guided the selection of handicraft cooperatives in North America as the population for this study. The first reason is the fact that, globally, craft production is playing an increasingly important role. Handicraft production and sales, particularly in rural areas, form integral roles in community economic life, with families depending on Uade in 1h: How: e00pi there cocci resea: Rosei 1992; d€\’€l. craft sales for meeting basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing (Grimes, 2000). The importance of handicrafts in the world market is evident in the fact that, globally, craft trade has reached $30 billion in sales annually (Smith & White, 2001). With the growth in the global craft market, there is real potential for growth of handicraft cooperatives. However, effective execution of this requires a better understanding of handicraft cooperatives. The second reason for focusing on North American cooperatives is that there exists very little literature on the role that handicraft cooperatives play in encouraging sustainable development in developed countries. Whereas there is much research on handicraft cooperatives in the developing world (Cohen, 1998; Eber & Rosenbaum, 1993; Grimes, 2000; Harper & Roy, 2000; Jayaweera, 1995; Mayoux, 1992), literature is relatively lacking as far as handicraft cooperative sustainability in developed countries is concerned. Conceptual Framework This next section outlines the conceptual framework that guides this thesis. The framework for this thesis is an integration of two main perspectives: sustainable development and human ecology. The conceptual framework begins with a discussion of the important concepts of sustainable development. The second part of the section explains the human ecological perspective, and the overview of the conceptual framework concludes with a look at how the perspectives of sustainable development and human ecology are interconnected. proyii sustai susiai Susta prexit for Er dCVCIl comp 1311570“ by Sta the ca P'ercer Hoimi del‘elc Probat COW“. anaIIYI Sustainable Development The first part of this section is an examination of sustainable development. It provides a definition of sustainable development, an outline of the three dimensions of sustainable development, and finally an explanation of the interconnected nature of sustainable development. Sustainable Development Defined While a variety of definitions for sustainable development are currently in use, as previously stated, the phrase was brought to public attention by the World Commission for Environment and Development’s 1987 Brundtland Report which defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43). A second important report entitled Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living expands upon the Brundtland definition of sustainable deveIOpment by stating it is about “improving the quality of living of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems” (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 1991, p. 10). Every government, organization, and scholar seems to have a slightly different perception of sustainable development — what it entails and the specifics of its definition. Holmberg (1992) claims that that there are over seventy definitions of sustainable development currently in use. A universal definition for sustainable development is probably not even possible, as sustainable development is so dependent on local conditions and circumstances (Holmberg, 1992). It is beyond the scope of this research to analyze the various discussions and arguments surrounding definitions and how to open nuuo proxfi equn issue blOdl areefl em'in em'in operationalize sustainable development. However, there is a consensus among the majority of definitions that sustainable development entails intragenerational equity that provides for present human needs, while considering future needs and intergenerational equity (Holmberg, 1992, p. 23). Sustainable development is a phrase frequently used in relation to environmental issues (Joshi & Verma, 1999; Redclift, 2000; Soriano, Claudio, & F ansler, 1995). Loss of biodiversity, ozone layer depletion, emissions of greenhouse gases, and water pollution are all factors commonly associated with unsustainability. While issues surrounding the environment constitute a very important aspect of sustainable development, that of environmental sustainability, this in isolation does not equal sustainable development. In fact, Joshi and Verma (1999) along with others (Raskin, 2000; Soriano, et al., 1995), claim that sustainable development programs and policies that focus solely, or even primarily, on environmental issues will never be sustainable. There are in fact, two other important dimensions to sustainable development — economic and social-cultural sustainability. Development literature (Lee, Holland, & McNeill, 2000; Madden & Chaplowe, 1997; Roome, 1998; Serageldin, 1996; Trzyna, 1995) frequently models sustainable development as a triangle, implying the interdependence of the three dimensions of sustainability. The literature typically labels the three dimensions as being ecological sustainability, economic sustainability, and social sustainability, with the totality of the three dimensions described as environmental sustainability. To be compatible with the framework for this research study, a conscious decision was made to modify two of the dimension titles within the sustainable development model a literatu panicu social : impact study i dimen much dimen ecolot; humai Clll'irC CColo; I997; PerSp¢ Ph)’8i( ‘ IIIV'C this st 9hrjrc @010E l'el‘errE CCQIO (n1 model and keep the title of third dimension, economic sustainability, the same as in the literature. Instead of using the literature term social sustainability, this study refers to that particular dimension as social-cultural sustainability. The intertwining of cultures with social systems makes it difficult to draw distinctions between the two. Social systems impact and mold culture, and culture influences social systems. The assertion of this study is that social sustainability depends on cultural sustainability, and therefore, the dimension title of social-cultural sustainability, as opposed to social sustainability, is much more descriptive and representative of the essential characteristics of the dimension. Likewise, this study also relabeled the dimension that literature refers to as ecological sustainability. In the human ecological perspective, ecology encompasses humans, environments, and human — environment interactions and not solely the natural environment. For the most part, sustainable development literature more narrowly uses ecological sustainability in reference to the natural environment (Madden & Chaplowe, 1997; Serageldin, 1996; Trzyna, 1995). However, within the human ecological perspective, ecological sustainability involves more than solely the sustainability of the physical world. In this perspective, ecological sustainability is much more encompassing — involving all environments, humans, and human - environment interactions. Therefore, this study labels the dimension of sustainability that deals with the natural environment as environmental sustainability; and in order to more effectively capture the human ecological perspective, the totality of all three of the dimensions of sustainability is referred to as ecological sustainability (See Figure 1). In addition, this thesis uses ecological sustainable development and sustainable development interchangeably. 10 '73 The Na” A three dim Section 6) discusses EI mass dam prlnClpa] ( and f3Clor; 1“ C0mrasi deVCIOPme III-e. In ad: eni-imnmer actually im] sumainabilii Environmental Sustainability Ecological Sustainability Economic Sustainability Social-Cultural Sustainability Figure 1. The sustainable development triangle, adapted for a human ecological perspective. Demonstrates the interconnected nature of three dimensions of sustainable development. The Nature of Sustainable Development As previously stated, sustainable development is holistic in nature and consists of three dimensions: environmental, economic, and social-cultural sustainability. This section explores each of the three dimensions of sustainable development and further discusses the interdependent nature of the dimensions. Environmental sustainable development. Conventional development has caused mass damage to our natural environment. For example, carbon dioxide is one of the principal contributors to a major environmental problem, global warming; and the cars and factories that conventional development is so dependent on produce carbon dioxide. In contrast to conventional development, the essence of environmental sustainable development is maintaining the vitality and diversity of the natural world in which we live. In addition, because we have already depleted so many stocks of natural resources, environmental sustainability also entails not only reversing the trend of depletion but actually improving the natural resource base. Development focused on environmental sustainability has a very low, if not harmless, impact on the natural world (Madden & ll Chapl CU\IIC Seragi sunihi and bi and pr amam DCnm Sustain Indivjd develol mmdm 2001) t SUsufiru neCESSa: Chaplowe, 1997). Raskin (2000) outlines five goals that form the foundations for environmental sustainability. These goals are to: 1. Stabilize the climate within safe ecological limits. 2. Reduce the flow of materials through conservation. 3. Decrease toxic waste loads on the environment. 4. Ease the pressure on fresh water resources. 5. Maintain the integrity of ecosystems. Serageldin and Steer’s (1994) characteristics of environmental sustainability are very similar to Raskin’s, with ecosystem integrity, living within the Earth’s carrying capacity, and biodiversity being the primary goals. Ultimately, the goal of environmental sustainable development is to be productive and progress towards solving the problems that exist in the world, but to develop in such a manner that we remain within the earth’s carrying capacity and preserve the integrity of the natural environment for present and future generations. Economic sustainable development. Economic sustainability is as essential for sustainable development as is environmental sustainability. Nations, communities, or individuals that ignore economic sustainability will not achieve the goals of sustainable development. Demonstration of economic sustainability is through strong, dependable, and durable growth (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2001) that does not work against other goals (environmental and social-cultural) of sustainable development. Economic sustainability recognizes that profits and economic growth are necessary for deveIOpment but the degrees of both are questioned (Serageldin & Steer, 12 l994l in ecc have : not pr em'in capita sustai 10 met depen elimir collate high 1. distrib EC0110 bem'el people 1994). In conventional development uncontained growth is the norm. In contrast, the goal in economic sustainable development is to discover a balance in which human beings have adequate profit and growth to meet their needs and live a life of dignity that does not prevent others, now and in the future, from doing likewise and that does not threaten environmental or social-cultural sustainability. Economic sustainability provides people access to the economic resources, capital, and credit necessary for achieving self-actualization. The key in this dimension of sustainable development is stability (Carroll, 2001). Loss of capital leaves people unable to meet their needs. Therefore, economic sustainability occurs when sources of capital are dependable and have a degree of permanence. Economic sustainability also requires the elimination of traditional barriers that prevent access to capital (such as lack of collateral). Finally, essential to providing people with capital is reaching and maintaining high levels of employment and having systems in which wages are fair and equitably distributed. In conventional development the rich tend to get richer and the poor, poorer. Economic sustainability calls for a leveling of capital distribution and eliminating the gap between the rich and poor. In sum, economic sustainability is about ensuring that all people have access to capital that is reliable as well as fairly and equitably distributed. Social-cultural sustainable development. Social-cultural sustainability is an aspect of sustainable development neglected by many scholars and policy makers (J oshi & Verma, 1999). However, it is as rudimentary to sustainability as the dimensions of the environment and economics. At the core of social-cultural sustainability are issues of meeting basic needs, equity, participation, social mobility, and empowerment. Also included are ideas surrounding social cohesion, cultural identity, and institutional l3 dfl'CIi sustai uiflit behat meet 1 funda dei'eli needs humai humai men; I ICIlgic SUHai CeFlair development (Serageldin, 1996). Carroll (2001) states the essence of social-cultural sustainability succinctly, “If modern social life can continue to provide the individual with the intrinsic dignity and intimacy that human psychology requires for well-adjusted behavior, the system can be sustainable” (p. 2). Since a large percentage of the world’s population does not have the capacity to meet their most basic needs of food, safe water, health care, and education,1 this is a fundamental priority of social-cultural sustainable development. Ecological sustainable development is about empowerment, but people cannot be empowered without their basic needs met; and the international development community has recognized that meeting humans’ basic needs is a major hurdle on the path to sustainable development Another goal in sustainable development is to eliminate inequities between all humans. A sustainable world is a place where women have the same opportunities as men; where the dichotomy between the rich and poor disappears; and ethnicity, race, religion or any other social category is not a deciding factor in the quality of life. Sustainable development literature makes the argument that since groups such as women, certain ethnic groups, and the poor have been ignored and left behind for so many years, a great deal of “catch-up” needs to occur. Therefore, these groups now need extra consideration (Madden & Chaplowe, 1997). Social-cultural sustainability acknowledges that there are universal human rights that must be equitably accorded, without discrimination to all human beings. Participation is another essential characteristic of social-cultural sustainability. In the past, development relied on a very top-down approach to planning and I There are currently 1.3 billion people in the world who are living in absolute poverty, and 900 million people are undernourished (Raskin, 2000). 14 imple Peet, knew willie. projer unsus comn‘ for 10 mee the fir Slages (Joshi which prOCeg Stand; SOcjai heTllas pan 0: “:arro remalt Changj and, 1h implementation of development projects (Axinn & Axinn, 1997; Martinussen, 1997; Peet, 1999). Because of their education, the development professionals believed they knew best, and it was very common for professionals to go into communities and, without valuing or seeking knowledge from the communities, dictate development projects. The common result when such an approach to development is used is unsustainable projects and policies that are inappropriate and inadequate for the communities they are to serve. Fortunately, with the realization that that there is a need for local participation, development is slowly becoming more responsive to the needs of the people. As Robert Chambers (1983, 1997) discusses, it is time to put the last, first and the first, last. True participation is democratic and involves community members in all stages of development, from planning and implementing to monitoring and evaluation (J oshi & Verma, 1999). Social-cultural sustainability calls for a bottom-up approach in which the people are integrated and equally participating in the entire development process (Chambers, 1997). With the current trends of globalization and Westernization, it is easy to see the standardization of culture that is spreading throughout the world. In opposition to this, social-cultural sustainability encourages people to maintain cultural identities and heritages and protects against what Carroll (2001) calls social degradation. “An integral part of sustainability is the maintenance of relative consistency in the cultural structure” (Carroll, 2001, p. 469). What social-cultural sustainability does not mean is that a group remains static. Change is always occurring; and, likewise, cultures are continuously changing and will evolve over time. Very few cultures today live in complete isolation; and, therefore, external factors will undeniably influence cultures. However, if a group is 15 CUIll trim and free natic are e and : deVe deSp susra attaix that ( the d SECUr Table cuIltii culturally sustainable, the group itself dictates how it responds to the changes and outside influences. Social-cultural sustainability also includes issues surrounding peace and human security. People need to have workplaces that are safe. Working conditions must be fair and should not cause physical, mental, or spiritual harm. People also need homes that are free from violence and abuse, neighborhoods that are safe and absent of crime, and nations not torn apart by terrorism and war. A sustainable world is a world where people are empowered and working towards their full potential. Unfortunately, the lack of peace and security in people’s lives prevents far too many from self-actualization. Sustainable development hinges on the peace and human security that everyone in this world desperately needs. To summarize, many different characteristics combine to form social-cultural sustainability. Ecological sustainable development is centered on empowering people to attain their full potential and some of the essential aspects of social-cultural sustainability that contribute to this process include the meeting of basic needs, equity, participation in the development process, ensuring cultural integrity, and providing for peace and human security. There are many aspects to each of the dimensions of sustainable development. Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of environmental, economic, and social- cultural sustainability. l6 Tabb __——— Dune Envui Econ: Socia Table 1. Primary Characteristics of Each Dimension of Human Ecological Sustainability Dimension Characteristics Environmental Sustainability - maintenance of biodiversity - conservation of resources (renewable & nonrenewable) - decrease in the release of toxins and pollutants - reduction in the consumption of materials - living within the earth’s carrying capacity Economic Sustainability - adequate grth - adequate profit - access to dependable and durable capital - equitable distribution of capital - capital efficiency Social-Cultural Sustainability - empowerment - participation in development process - human dignity - equity - cultural integrity - peace and human security - access to the resources needed to maintain an adequate level of living Interconnected/Holistic Nature of Sustainable Development The interconnectedness of environmental, economic, and social-cultural sustainability makes it essential to think of sustainable development as holistic in nature (Joshi & Verma, 1999; Madden & Chaplowe, 1997; Raskin, 2000; Serageldin, 1996). A society that is working towards sustainable development cannot make authentic progress by ignoring any of the dimensions. A triangle is not a triangle without all three sides; and, likewise, sustainable development is not sustainable development without environmental, economic, and social-cultural sustainability. l7 CVltlEI demor 2000) the res entire cause Prime SUSIa lOu-a Susie The interconnectedness of the three dimensions of sustainable development is evident when examining situations in the developing world, where studies have demonstrated a strong link between poverty and environmental degradation (Raskin, 2000). People who are desperately poor and struggling to feed their families do not have the resources necessary to ensure their lifestyles are not negatively affecting the natural environment. In 1996, the World Bank drew attention to the fact that poverty is both a cause and effect of environmental concerns (Raskin, 2000). Indira Gandhi, a former Prime Minister of India, outlined the connections succinctly: Are not poverty and need the greatest pollutants? Unless we are in a position to provide employment and purchasing power for the daily necessities of tribal people. . .we cannot prevent them from combing the forest for food and livelihood, from poaching, and from despoiling vegetation. When they themselves feel deprived, how can we urge the preservation of animals? How can we speak to those who live in villages and slums about keeping the oceans, the rivers, and the air clean when their own lives are contaminated at the source (Joshi & Verma, 1999, p. 24)? Links between the dimensions of sustainable development exist in all aspects of sustainable development. A development project may successfully make progress towards environmental sustainability. However, the progress will be temporary and superficial if not also accompanied by attention to issues of economic and social-cultural sustainability (OECD, 2001). Therefore, the challenge is to meet objectives of each of the three dimensions while not jeopardizing objectives of the other two dimensions. It is important to mention that, in actuality, fully achieving sustainable development is not possible. “Sustainable (development) is not just a goal to be attained; it is an ongoing, dynamic process. Rather than a destination, it is a journey” (Madden & Chaplowe, 1997, p. 3). The future is unpredictable and ever changing. Therefore, it is next to impossible to predict fully how an action of today will affect generations in the 18 futur that t ourr that ; hum: ands; inuue unera huma the w It rela C001), future (J oshi & Verma, 1999). However, what we can do is live our lives in such a way that they are sustainable for today and do everything that is within our power to preserve our resources for the future. “Complacency is not a valid option for those who believe that passing on a more secure future is a moral imperative” (Raskin, 2000, p. 73). The Human Ecological Perspective The human ecological perspective is comprised of three main components: humans, environments, and human — environment interactions. Humans are biophysical and social beings, and it is actually impossible for a person to live life without interactions with various environments (J oshi & Verma, 1999). Humans depend on these interactions for survival. In the field of human ecology, a primary interest is the study of human — environment interactions, the effect the interactions have on human lives, and the ways in which the interactions affect the environments (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). This section of the chapter further examines the human ecological perspective, as it relates to this study. Cooperatives: The Human Unit of Analysis While environments are essential to the human ecological perspective, the perspective has little meaning without the human unit of analysis (Sontag & Bubolz, 1996). The perspective gains meaning by analyzing interactions between environments and the human unit of analysis. In this research study the human unit of analysis is the handicraft cooperative, inclusive of its members, its organizational structure, and internal processes. 19 esta‘ the l them 50 de Opera Panic equit; distril memt and q feSpOr Cooper pub“C c00pm, COmmU A cooperative is formed when a group of people voluntarily comes together to establish a member-owned, democratically operated enterprise (Gertler, 2001). In 1966, the International Labour Conference defined a cooperative as: An association of persons who have voluntarily joined together to achieve a common end through the formation of a democratically controlled organization, making equitable contribution to the capital required and accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the undertaking in which the members actively participate (International Labour Office [ILO], 1988, p. 6). Central to the cooperative movement are the values of self-help, democracy, equity, and solidarity and the aspiration to meet the economic and social needs of all members (Gertler, 2000). Seven main principles form the basis for cooperatives. First, cooperative membership is open and voluntary. Any individual can be part of the cooperative if she so desires and is able to take on the responsibilities that come with membership. Second, operation of cooperatives is democratic, and all members have an equal vote. Economic participation of all members is the third principle. Financially, all members contribute equitably to their cooperative, capital is democratically controlled, and surplus is fairly distributed. In a cooperative, no one member ever becomes rich at the expense of another member. The fourth principle is that cooperatives are always autonomous, independent, and controlled by the members. The fifth principle is that cooperatives have a responsibility to educate and train their members so they can continue to contribute to the cooperative. Additionally, cooperatives also believe in their responsibility to educate the public about the cooperative movement and its ideals. Co—operation with other cooperatives is the sixth principle and finally, cooperatives’ concern and care for their communities is the seventh principle (ILO, 1988; Cadieva, 1999; Gertler, 2001). 20 dasn senic consu (C00; agNCL hour: noun c00pe c00pe cmegt flincti Coup: as 1hr. del'elt COnuj E” Vir. Many different types of cooperatives are currently in existence. Typically, classification is according to the type of product the cooperative produces and sells or the service that they provide. The main cooperative categories are producer cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, service cooperatives, and credit unions or savings cooperatives (Cooperatives Secretariat, 2000). Producer cooperatives are involved in producing agricultural, fishery, forestry, or handicraft products. Consumer cooperatives can range from small, local stores to large chain stores; and they sell everything from food and clothing to drugs and farm supplies. The third cooperative category is service cooperatives. This category includes services like health care cooperatives, utility cooperatives, and transportation cooperatives. Finally, the last and most common category of cooperatives is credit unions or savings cooperatives; these cooperatives function similarly to a bank but, unlike mainstream banks, are non-profit (ILO, 1988). Cooperatives also vary greatly in terms of size of membership, with some being as small as three or four members and others having several thousand members. Cooperatives frequently serve as a technique for sustainable community development. Chapter Two provides a complete review of literature of the potential contribution that cooperatives have to make towards ecological sustainability. Environments The human ecological concept of “environment” goes beyond the commonly thought of physical environment. Although the natural world that humans live in is a very important part of human ecology, so too are other environments. This research study conceptualizes three primary environments: the human built environment, the social- cultural environment, and the natural-physical-biological environment (Sontag & Bubolz, 21 19 an bel isn dun en\irc thehu Thehc inahr (Smnq CWNOE meNE thatincl t("day b d 1996§(3r 1996). “Environment is the totality of the physical, biological, social, economic, political, aesthetic, and structural surroundings for human beings and the context for their behaviour, growth, and development” (Sontag & Bubolz, 1996, p. 19). The natural physical-biological environment (NE) is perhaps the environment that is most readily associated with “environments.” Comprised of both living and nonliving things, the NE is the biological and physical world in which we live. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the grass we mow, and the gases we burn, are all part of the NE. Human beings and all other living creatures on Earth depend on the NE to meet not only daily, physical needs but also aesthetic needs (Sontag & Bubolz, 1996). Changes in the NE have the potential to directly affect the lives of humans (Griffore & Phenice, 2001); and, therefore, the quality of the NE directly affects the quality of living for human beings. The other two environments, the human-built (HBE) and the social-cultural (SCE) environments, although sometimes less recognized as environments, are also essential to the human ecological perspective. The HBE includes all objects that humans produce. The homes we live in, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, and the buildings we work in all make-up this environment. Humans use the NE to produce the objects in the HBE (Sontag & Bubolz, 1996). In fact, in the process of building the HBE, humans fiequently exploit and overuse the NE — to such an extent that the HBE is overtaking and destroying the NE (Griffore & Phenice, 2001). Lastly, the SCE is a socially constructed environment that includes our relationships with other humans, the institutions we deal with on a day- to—day basis, and the cultural values and norms that guide our lives (Sontag & Bubolz, 1996; Griffore & Phenice, 2001). 22 also al betwe Phenh and in The ll TESCHI the h- inter; must InterE Inlera eColo While the three environments are conceptually distinct from one another, they are also all interrelated with and embedded within one another. Typically, the boundaries between environments are not concrete and are difficult to determine (Griffore & Phenice, 2001 ). There is continuous flux and movement among the three environments and in many cases, the environments are very dependent on one another (See Figure 2). The interconnected nature of the NE, HBE, and SCE is of particular importance to this research study. Figure 2. The human ecological perspective of cooperative-environment interactions. Interconnected Nature of Ecological Sustainability and Human Ecology Central to this research study is both the concept of ecological sustainability and the human ecological perspective of humans, environments, and human -— environment interactions. If a cooperative is going to achieve its goals for ecological sustainability, it must first understand the interactions within the cooperative and the cooperative’s interactions with its environments. The organization of the cooperative and the interactions the cooperative has with its NE, HBE, and SCE will promote or impede ecological sustainability; and, therefore, understanding these interactions is essential. 23 \l'he beer envii CCOIt Ec SLLSt 51131; [he‘ When the cooperative is ecologically sustainable, the cooperative — NE interactions will be environmentally, economically, and social-culturally sustainable. Likewise, the cooperative — HBE interactions and the cooperative -— SCE interactions will also be environmentally, economically, and social-culturally sustainable if the cooperative is ecologically sustainable (See Figure 3). Environmental Sustainability Social-Cultural Sustainability Economic Sustainability Figure 3. The relationship between cooperative — environment interactions and ecological sustainability. Integrating the human ecological perspective with the concepts of ecological sustainability is natural because the two perspectives are compatible with each other. In human ecology, two fundamental values are human betterment and stewardship. Within the value of human betterment, four virtues, adopted from Boulding (1985), are: economic adequacy, justice, freedom, and peacefulness (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). These values and virtues are also fundamental to sustainable development. Therefore, the 24 hun ODE ecol ecol xxhe proc human ecological perspective and sustainable development philosophically combine into one framework. In fact, it is the assertion of this thesis that the inclusion of the human ecological perspective in the framework for this study is essential to assessing the ecological sustainability of the handicraft cooperative. The human ecological perspective, when integrated into a sustainable development framework, demonstrates the dynamic processes that occur along the path to ecological sustainability. Definitions Development is the process of living things evolving and changing over time in order to reach their greatest potential (Axinn & Axinn, 1997). EcologicfiSustainaLle Development meets the needs and improves the quality of life for the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987; UNEP, 1991). It is comprised of three dimensions: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and social-cultural sustainability. Environmental Sustainafiilitv refers to maintaining the vitality and diversity of the natural, physical world. Environmental sustainability is concerned with biodiversity, . conserving resources, decreasing pollution, reducing overall consumption, and living within the earth’s carrying capacity. Economic Sustainability refers to controlled economic growth that is strong and dependable but does not work against the other goals of sustainable development. The characteristics of economic sustainability are: adequate growth and profit, access to durable capital, and equitable distribution of capital. 25 Social-Cultural Sustainability refers to societies centered on equity. In these societies peoples’ basic needs are met, people participate in decision making processes, they have social mobility, and they are empowered. Also fundamental to this dimension are concepts of cultural integrity, peace and human security, and human dignity. Environments are “the totality of the physical, biological, social, political, aesthetic, and structural surroundings for human beings and the context for their behaviour, growth, and development” (Sontag & Bubolz, 1996, p. 19). The Natural Physical-Biological Environment is the biological and physical world in which we live, such as animals, air, water, soil, mountains, oil, and natural gas. The Human Built Environment is made of all human produced objects, such as buildings, handicraft products, machines, tools, and transportation and communication systems. The Social-Cultural Environment is the socially constructed human environment, such as human relationships, social, political, and economic institutions, cultural values, and norms. Cooperative refers to an association of people who have voluntarily joined together to achieve a common end through the formation of a democratically controlled organization, making equitable contribution to the capital required and accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of the undertaking in which the members actively participate (ILO, 1988, p. 6). For the purpose of this study, as long as the group is set up according to the above ideals, the cooperative does not have to be legally recognized by the government. Handicraft Cooperatives are cooperatives that produce any type of handmade items, such as apparel, jewelry, furniture, or decorative items or a combination of such. 26 cooper that ex dexelo sectior indicat identif CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter summarizes what current literature has determined about cooperatives and sustainability. The chapter opens with an overview of selected studies that examine the potential role that handicraft cooperatives have to play in the development process — both in developed and less-developed countries. The second section of the chapter discusses indicators of ecological sustainability and the process of indicator development. Finally, the chapter concludes with the factors that literature has identified as being important tO the sustainability of cooperatives. The Role of Cooperatives in Sustainable Development Many scholars believe that the nature and characteristics of cooperatives are what is needed to foster movement towards sustainable development (Gertler, 2001; ICA, 1995a, 1995b). In 1994, the United Nations Secretary-General recognized the connection between cooperatives and sustainable development. “Cooperative enterprises provide the organizational means whereby a Significant proportion of humanity is able to take into its own hands the task of creating productive employment, overcoming poverty, and achieving social integration” (ICA, 1995a, p. 2). It is the nature and fundamental principles of the cooperative movement that make cooperatives well suited to sustainable development. For example, essential to sustainable development is the ability to meet society’s economic and social needs, which is also a primary purpose of cooperatives. In addition, participation, democracy, and equity are essential characteristics of cooperatives 27 at Cc U11 and are also fundamentals of ecological sustainability. In addition, because cooperatives are locally owned, members tend to have a natural concern for their community and other environments and take the time to invest in building the healthy communities that are fundamental to ecological sustainability (Gertler, 2001; ICA, 1995a) “Few, if any, other organizations combine as well as do cooperatives the economic, social, and community orientations upon which sustainable development is based” (ICA, 1995 a, p. 6). Cooperatives in Developing Countries As previously stated in this thesis, the popularity of cooperatives as a means to sustainable development has increased over the last few decades. In the area of handicraft cooperatives most of the literature currently focuses on handicraft cooperatives and their effect on sustainable development in the developing world (Attwood & Baviskar, 1988; Cadieva, 1999; Cohen, 1998; Eber & Rosenbaum, 1993; Grimes, 2000; Ibeanu & Nzei, 1998; Jayaweera, 1995; Mayoux, 1992). Throughout the literature, the verdict on the effectiveness of handicraft cooperatives for promoting sustainable development in less- developed regions varies from one study to the next, and there are examples of both successes and failures (Harper & Roy, 2000). Cohen’s (1998) case study of the Artisan’s Society of Santa Ana examined a weaving cooperative in Oaxaca — a region in Mexico well known for its successful handicraft cooperatives. However, in this particular study, Cohen focused his research on a cooperative that was more remote than the other, more dominant Oaxacan cooperatives. Cohen discovered that, due to a few main factors, the remote cooperative was largely unsuccessful in promoting sustainable development. First, the cooperative found it very difficult to compete against the other cooperatives in the region. The other cooperatives 28 V CC Wj Fr. were well-established and held knowledge of, access to, and control of local and foreign markets. The second major hurdle that the cooperative was unable to overcome was the fact that members often had to wait several months before they received payment for a completed product. For most members, the delay in payment was economically unsustainable. Lastly, the cooperative also lacked strong leadership that was responsive to the needs of its members. One family primarily ran the cooperative, creating serious concerns about equity and fairness. Cohen does not conclude that handicraft cooperatives are completely unsustainable. Instead, Cohen’s conclusion is that if cooperatives are to contribute to sustainable development, members must be very mindful of the challenges facing them and adapt accordingly. In another study (Mayoux, 1992), Nicaraguan tailoring cooperatives were also largely deemed unsuccessful. The cooperatives in Nicaragua, established in the 19805 as part of a larger economic development plan, initially showed indications that they were accomplishing their goals. Unemployed women were able to find employment with the cooperatives and, therefore, their income increased. The cooperatives also provided members with training and organizational experience, and by belonging to the cooperative the members gained a level of respect and prestige within their communities and families. However, by 1988 most of the cooperatives were struggling financially, with some already having folded, and the majority of the others in serious difficulty. From the start, the tailoring cooperatives were highly dependent on the Nicaraguan government for subsidized raw materials and other economic benefits. In 1988 there was an economic crisis throughout Nicaragua. With a combination of rising costs for raw materials and the government withdrawing their financial support of the cooperatives, 29 most of the cooperatives were financially unable to remain in operation. Additionally, an original goal in establishing the tailoring cooperatives was that they would contribute to widespread changes in gender inequalities. Unfortunately, the cooperatives never managed to make any real progress in this area. Many of the cooperative members did not embrace the ideals of the cooperative movement. For these members, their primary motivation for joining the cooperatives was the access they would have to credit and cheap raw materials. Therefore, there was very little attempt to change gender relations and increase the democratic process. Because of all these different factors, Mayoux concluded that the tailoring cooperatives in Nicaragua were not successful and were unsustainable. Other studies shed a more positive light on the contribution handicraft cooperatives might make to sustainable development. Eber and Rosenbaum’s (1993) study of weaving cooperatives in Chiapas, Mexico found that the weaving cooperatives in that area were sustainable, despite existing challenges. According to the women weavers in the study, the cooperatives provided a way for them to hold onto important aspects of their lives such as children, land, animals, and socio-cultural traditions. The cooperatives also gave members direct access to markets for their products. Previously, the weavers relied on intermediaries, that underpaid the weavers, to sell their products. For the weavers, belonging to cooperatives meant the profit they received for their work was much higher than when they were reliant on the middlemen. Eber and Rosenbaum also viewed the cooperatives in Chiapas as providing women members with a voice and respect in their families and communities. However, the authors also felt that the cooperatives, as of the time of their study, had not reached their full development 30 pOR Col coo; proc indi inth beca COOp thecl move SUCCE BOVer Posni potential and there were definite negative aspects to the cooperatives in Chiapas. Like Cohen (1998), Eber and Rosenbaum saw the delay in payment as a major obstacle for cooperatives in Chiapas to overcome. The considerable financial risk involved in producing items without an immediate return in profit was too much for already poor individuals, and it may have prevented some weavers from joining cooperatives. A second major concern for Eber and Rosenbaum was the fact that much of the leadership in the cooperatives was male. Dominance of male leadership threatened sustainability because, due to cultural traditions and constraints, when the men took charge of the cooperatives, the women took more passive roles and were no longer full participants in the development process. Another study, by J ayaweera (1995) examined the effects of the cooperative movement in Sri Lanka and concluded that the movement there was a mixture of both successes and failures. In the 19805, cooperatives were established by Sri Lanka’s government; and, through the creation of employment, the cooperatives have had a positive impact on poverty and the ability of the poor to meet their daily, physical needs. The cooperatives have also increased people’s access to capital and taught them a variety of new, transferable skills. However, Jayaweera saw the cooperatives as still being largely dependent on the government for economic support and concluded that economic sustainability did not exist with the cooperatives. Despite this, the author still stated “the experiences of the cooperative movement in Sri Lanka demonstrated that the cooperative movement can alleviate poverty by providing the basic needs of the poor and by tackling some of the causes of poverty” (J ayaweera, 1995, p. 102). However, one might question 31 how long any cooperative, while heavily dependent on outside capital, can continue to operate and alleviate poverty. Ibeanu and Nzei (1998) evaluated the role that women cooperatives have played in the effort to empower Nigerian women. They were interested in knowing if cooperative membership had raised the economic capacity of women, assisted in changing power relations between men and women, and increased women’s political power. The study found that a large majority of members were content with their membership. The women felt that there was equitable sharing of profits but that their income had not significantly improved because of j oining a COOperative. Additionally, the cooperatives made little contribution towards the effort to change power inequalities between men and women. Even after joining a cooperative, the members’ husbands continued to make most of the family decisions. Attwood and Baviskar (1988), who believe that cooperatives in developing countries are rarely successful in making significant changes in issues of gender relations and equality, support this finding. Finally, Ibeanu and Nzei also concluded that the cooperatives did little in the way of increasing women’s political participation. Most of the women in the cooperatives were primarily interested in the economic benefits of membership. Ibeanu and Nzei decide that the impacts cooperatives are having on sustainable development are inconclusive. By reviewing the above studies, it is apparent that it is not easy to assess the impact handicraft cooperatives might have on the development process in developing countries. Several of the studies (Eber & Rosenbamn, 1993; Ibeanu & Nzei, 1998; Jayaweera, 1995), found that cooperative membership did result in economic benefits. Additionally, some of the studies, (Eber & Rosenbaum, 1993; Ibeanu & Nzei, 1998; 32 J ayaweera, 1995; Mayoux, 1992) also spoke of the social contributions of the handicraft cooperatives. However, other studies (Cohen, 1998; Mayoux, 1992) found very limited gains in cooperative membership. A review of the literature demonstrates how, as circumstances change from one Situation to the next, so will the effect that the cooperatives have on development and sustainability. Cooperatives in Developed Countries The cooperative movement has also been part of more developed countries for many years and, like in developing countries, frequently thought as an effective approach to sustainably solving societal problems (J ackall & Levin, 1984). For example, in Canada, there are currently over 10,000 registered cOOperatives. These cooperatives have over 15 million members and employ an additional 150,000 people. In addition to employing a significant portion of Canadians, the cooperatives also make a substantial contribution to the economy — with over $169 billion in assets (Cooperative Secretariat, 1998; Hammond-Ketilson & MacPherson, 2001). Unfortunately, very little literature exists about the handicraft cooperative movement in developed nations. In the 19803, Jackall & Crain (1984) conducted a survey of ninety-five worker COOperatives in the United States. A worker cooperative is defined as a cooperative that is producing and selling some kind of an item and would include handicraft cooperatives. Jackall & Crain’s (1984) study intended to understand better the way in which worker cooperatives impact unemployment and workplace issues such as worker alienation. The results of the study revealed that the majority of cooperative members and workers were Caucasian and middle class women. The study also determined that while the cooperatives often gave members a support network and 33 elev' the u Willir avera lacka and Ir thatfl annan incluc need estab] ‘tere. and‘v elevated feelings of self-worth, the cooperatives generally struggled economically. Due to the untraditional nature of the cooperatives, it was very difficult to find banks that were willing to lend to the cooperatives. Wages in the worker cooperatives were also below average, and there were rarely benefits to accompany the cooperative membership. J ackall & Crain (1984) also concluded that burnout rate in worker cooperatives was high, and many members eventually left their cooperative because of the lack of opportunity that the cooperative provided for advancement. Edith Iglauer’s book Inuit Journey (2000) records the cooperative movement among the Inuit of Canada’s North. For decades, Canada’s First Nations peoples, including the Inuit, have been dealing with poverty. In the early 19605, in response to the need for real solutions to poverty in the North, the Canadian government set out to establish Inuit cooperatives. At the time of the cooperatives’ conception, the Inuit people were actually in danger of starvation, and the cooperatives brought a desperately needed and viable form of economic and social development to Northern Canada. The cooperatives encompassed a wide variety of activities, from fishing to forestry; and they also had a small handicraft component. Initially the cooperatives were very successful and achieved positive results. The cooperatives were considered successful because of the capital they brought into the North and the new voice they gave the Inuit in the Canadian government. Through the cooperatives, the Inuit were able to learn how business and politics on the “outside” worked; and the Inuit were able to take greater control over their own affairs. According to Iglauer (2000), for a few decades the cooperatives continued to thrive and successfully solved some of the poverty and development issues of the North. 34 lion coor coop have hand seH.' thecr not I}; achup sover: withoi there ; However, presently there are mixed feelings and opinions about the effect of the cooperatives on the lives of the Inuit. Due to increased competition, many of the original cooperatives have gone out of business, and some of the once thriving cooperative towns have practically disappeared. Markets for many of the Inuit products, including the handicrafts, became saturated; and unlike at the beginning, products are now difficult to sell. The cooperatives that do remain, struggle to be economically sustainable. The Inuit, as reported by Iglauer (2000), believe their lives are better because of the cooperatives coming to the North. There is less death from starvation, and people do not have to work as hard to survive. Some Inuit and non-Inuit people also believe that the achievement in 1999, when the Canadian government officially recognized the Inuit’s sovereignty and gave them their own territory of Nunivut, would not have been possible without the role the cooperatives played in showing the Inuit they had a voice. However, there are also other Inuit who miss the days before the cooperatives changed their lives — the days when people still knew how to survive without a grocery store and a gas-burning furnace. The cooperative movement in Canada’s North has not proven to be completely sustainable. While there are approximately 133 cooperatives in Canada whose primary members are aboriginal (Hammond-Ketilson & MacPherson, 2001), poverty remains a serious problem. Unemployment and substance abuse are issues that plague Inuit communities; and, as of yet, the cooperatives have been unable to provide the necessary sustainable solutions. In another study, M’Closkey (2000) demonstrated how, within a developed country, the lack of handicraft cooperatives has led to unsustainable development. The Navajo Indians of Southwestern United States have been producing their world-renowned 35 “'61“ part ‘ for II New sell tl retail. Weayi (IEVaIl find b (2000 Wantei NaVaji queSUl SUIT“- mepn Once 5 ”’0 w. ragem Weave M’Clo Suslai n weavings for generations; and, throughout this time, the textiles have been an important part of the local economy. Historically, the Navajo did not own or operate cooperatives for the production and sale of their weavings. Without handicraft cooperatives, the Navajo weavers had little other alternative but to rely on outside traders and retailers to sell their textiles. Over time, the weavers became highly dependent on the traders and retailers, and the Navajo lost control over the marketing and pricing of their weavings. Currently, collectors seek the historical Navajo weavings; and cheap, imitation weavings are mass-produced for the tourist market As a result, there has been a serious devaluation of modern, hand woven Navajo weavings; and weavers find it difficult to find buyers for their weavings, let alone earn sufficient wages. According to M’Closkey (2000), in 1987 the Office of Navajo Women and Families in Window Rock, Arizona wanted to determine if it would be viable to organize a weaving cooperative for the Navajo. A large portion of the weavers on the Navajo reservation received a questionnaire, and it was clear from the questionnaire that the weavers were struggling to survive. Over 70% of the people who responded said that they had earned less than $600 the previous year from the sales of their weavings and that weavings that would have once sold for over $1000, were selling for half that amount. Since the time of the survey, two weaving cooperatives actually have been established and operate on the Navajo reservation: the Ramah Navajo Weavers’ Association and the Eastern Navajo Agency Weavers’ Association. The cooperatives were established in the early 19905 but M’Closkey (2000) does not mention how these cooperatives are affecting the sustainability of Navajo weaving. 36 COUF deye sustz Jaya oncn susu COOp hand more h0“'b l‘ndICa \k'h 91h Whereas all of the above mentioned studies, both for developing and developed countries, examine the contributions handicraft cooperatives have made to sustainable development, none of them fully considers the three dimensions of ecological sustainability and their interconnectedness. All of the studies consider the economic sustainability of handicraft cooperatives and some of the studies (Cohen, 1998; Jayaweera, 1995) even go to the extreme of basing a judgment of success predominately on economics. Most of the studies also give a degree of consideration to the social sustainability of cooperatives. However, none of the studies discusses the role the cooperatives might make to environmental sustainability. If a goal is to determine if handicraft cooperatives are a sustainable form of development then studies must focus more evenly on all three dimensions of ecological sustainability. Indicators of Ecological Sustainability This next section of the chapter provides an overview of the literature on indicators for sustainable development. The section begins by defining sustainable development indicators. The section then discusses some of the existing frameworks used to guide the process of indicator development. Finally, the section concludes with a summary of the literature discussing the process of developing indicators. Indicators Defined In all of the studies reviewed in this chapter the researchers made decisions about how to determine if a cooperative was sustainable. The researchers needed signs or indications of a cooperative’s degree of sustainability. In the process of obtaining a goal, whether it is ecological sustainability or any other objective, there needs to be a way to 37 measure and communicate progress towards the goal. In absence of the information that measurement provides, people are left without an accurate sense of where they are in relation to the goal — how far they are to achieving it and what needs to be done in order to succeed. The use of indicators is an effective way to meet this need for measurement. Indicators used at international, national, community, and organizational levels, Show where one presently is, what direction one is headed, and how far one is from the goal (Hart, 1999). “An indicator is something that provides useful information about a physical, social, or economic system. . . .Indicators can be used to describe the state of the system, to detect changes in it, and to show cause-and-effect relationships” (Farrell & Hart, 1998, p. 7). Moldan, Billharz, and Matravers (1997) see indicators as having five major functions. Indicators assess conditions and trends, they compare across places and situation, they assess condition and trends in relation to goals, they provide early warning information, and they anticipate future conditions and trends. Put in simpler terms, indicators reveal the big picture by analyzing a smaller piece of it (Maclaren, 1996), and they can demonstrate changes over time (Hammond, Adriaanse, Rodenburg, Bryant, & Woodward, 1995). Measuring sustainable development is not an easy task and we cannot completely rely on statistics (OECD, 2001). “One of the greatest challenges in measuring sustainability is capturing its breadth, richness, and complexity” (Sustainable Development Indicators Group [SDI], 1998, p. 1). Recently, developing indicators of sustainability is a subject examined and discussed in much literature (Hammond et al., 1995; Hart, 1999; Maclaren, 1996; Meadows, 1998; OECD, 2001; SDI Group, 1998). A wide variety of indicators of sustainable development already exist at global, national, 38 and fror. gUIde 0f SL181 such a Seclon trallSpc (leVeIQ frame“ cre3110: and community levels. However, the indicators and process of assessment vary greatly from one situation to the next (Farrell & Hart, 1998; Hardi & Zdan, 1997). Frameworks for Indicators As discussed by Maclaren (1998) and Meadows (1996) and mentioned in the United Nation’s Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies (2001), in order to develop the necessary indicators, there is a need for a framework that will guide the process of indicator development. The purpose of the framework is to keep indicators organized and focused on the goals of ecological sustainability. Maclaren (1996) suggests that there are six main categories of frameworks to guide indicator development. Domain-based frameworks center on the three dimensions of sustainability. Goal-based frameworks focus on the goals of ecological sustainability such as meeting basic human needs and participation. The third framework category, sectoral, organizes indicators around typical government departments (welfare, transportation, environment, and so on). F ourthly, causal frameworks approach indicator development from a cause and response perspective, and the fifth category, issue-based frameworks center on issues of sustainable development like urban sprawl and job creation. Lastly, there are frameworks that are combinations of the other five categories. The number of possible frameworks for indicator development is innumerous. This is due to the fact that the choice of framework is very dependent on the particular needs of the individual country, community, or organization; and every situation requires a judgment as to the framework that will work best (UN, 2001). It would be impossible to review all of the possible frameworks in the context of this thesis. Instead, this part of the chapter provides an overview of frameworks used by two of the larger organizations 39 im'c [Deta caHe class earn and It quaht throng aWare indica be the POliCie erlViro IDdlCat 2001)_ lCSD)‘ ”let be! asPeCts (D38) f proCEssE lllCllCatOI involved in sustainable development: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations (UN). In the late 19905, the OECD Environment Directorate developed a framework called the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) that, according to Maclaren’s (1996) classification, is a causal framework. The PSR framework, initially developed for use on environmental policies, organizes indicators into three main categories: pressure, state, and response. “Human activities exert ‘pressures’ on the environment and affect its quality and the quantity of natural resources (‘state’); society responds to these changes through environmental, general economic, and sectoral policies and through changes in awareness and behaviours (‘response’)” (OECD, 2000, p. 111). For example, a pressure indicator might be the level of water consumption. An example of a state indicator would be the quality of surface water and a response indicator would be water management policies (OECD, 2001). While the PSR framework can highlight linkages between the environmean and economic aspects of sustainable development, it is weak in organizing indicators for measuring the social-cultural aspects of sustainable development (OECD, 2001) In 1996, when the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) began the task of developing a core set of indicators of sustainable development, they began with OECD’S PSR framework and modified it to include social and economic asPects of sustainability. The resulting framework was the Driving F orce-State-Response (DSR) framework. In this framework, driving force indicators showed human activities, Processes, and patterns that impacted sustainable development. The purpose of state indicators was to show the current state of sustainable development that existed and 40 resp $1151; over suit but \ SUSIE Thel (livid frank Table Th En: \_ Equn‘ Heahl EdUCat l response indicators revealed policy options and responses to changes in the state of sustainable development (UN, 1996). However, after testing the DSR framework with over twenty-two nations, the CSD decided the framework was not suitable and did not suit their needs. Like the PSR model, the DSR worked well for environmental indicators but was weak for economic and social-cultural indicator development (UN, 2001). According to the United Nations (2001), the CSD now uses a theme—based framework for indicator development. The theme-based framework, organized around the dimensions of sustainable development, is an example of Maclaren’s (1996) domain-based framework. The theme-based framework takes each dimension of sustainable development and divides the dimensions into themes, sub-themes, and indicators. Table 2 illustrates the framework by outlining it for the social dimension of sustainability. Table 2. CSD Theme Indicator Framework for Social Indicators Theme Sub-theme Indicator Equity Poverty Percent of population living below poverty line Gini index of income inequality Unemployment rate Gender Equality Ratio of average female wage to male wage Health Nutritional Status Nutritional status of children Mortality Mortality rate under 5 years of age Life expectancy at birth Sanitation Percentage of population with adequate sewage disposal Drinking Water Population with access to safe drinking water Healthcare Percent of population with access to primary healthcare facilities Contraceptive prevalence rate Education Education Level Children reaching Grade 5 of primary education Adult secondary education achievement level 41 Literacy Adult literacy rate Housing Living Conditions Floor area per person Security Crime Number of recorder crimes per 100,000 population Population Population Change Population grth rate Population of urban formal and informal settlements “Note. From Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies. by United Nations. (2001). New York: United Nations. While the CSD’S framework (UN, 2001) was developed for use at a national level, it is adaptable to a wide variety of other situations and circumstances. Because the theme or domain-based framework is flexible, it is applicable at the smaller level of community or organization. The framework allows individual communities or organizations to be able to come up with themes, sub-themes, and indicators that are relevant for them and apply the framework to their unique situation. There is a lack of literature on developing indicators of sustainable development at an organizational level. Indicators that measure unemployment, reforestation, or primary school enrollment are intended for the macro-level and are not applicable to a small organization such as a handicraft cooperative. The majority of literature on indicators of sustainable development approaches indicator frameworks and developing indicators from a broad point of view; and the focus of the literature is at a global, national and community level. There appears to be a lack of literature discussing indicator development from the perspective of a small organization like a handicraft cooperative. The Chicago Foundation for Women has worked on the issues of increasing sustainability of small, nonprofit organizations. The publication A Guide to Building Sustainable Organizations from Inside Out (Chicago Foundation for Women, 2000), lays 42 out the SHOW-21 Model, a set of tools for small organizations to use for assessing their sustainability. However, the model and tools, based on discovering and more efficiently utilizing an organization’s internal assets and capabilities, has a much narrower definition of sustainability than is used in the development literature and this thesis. The SHOW-21 Model conceptualizes organizational sustainability as, “the capacity of an organization to effectively mobilize its assets towards generating the ongoing resources necessary to maintain the mission and carry out quality work” (Chicago Foundation for Women, 2000, p. 67). The Chicago Foundation for Women does not consider organizational sustainability as containing three, interconnected dimensions nor does it consider the intergenerational nature of ecological sustainability. Developing Indicators Because of the great variance in assessing sustainable development and in the process of indicator development, in recent years there have been attempts to reach some kind of a formal and international consensus (Hardi & Zdan, 1997). In 1996, initiated by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, an international group of professionals working with measuring sustainable development met with the purpose of discussing current sustainable development assessment practices. An additional goal was to develop guidelines/criteria that could be used around the world, at various different levels, for developing indicators of sustainability. The result of this international meeting was the Bellagio Principles for Assessment. The purpose of these principles is to direct the entire process of assessing sustainability. Most relevant to the topic of this particular thesis, the principles guide and provide criteria for developing indicators. The Bellagio Principles also intend to guide the stages of data collection, interpreting indicator data, 43 and communication of results (Hardi & Zdan, 1997). AS stated in Hardi & Zdan (1997) and Farrell & Hart (1998), the ten principles that make up the Bellagio Principles are as follows: 1. Guiding Vision ind Goal — assessing sustainable development must start with and have continued guidance from a strong and appropriate vision of sustainable development and goals that relate to the vision. Holistic Perspective — any assessment of sustainable development must see the system as a whole, as well as its parts, and consider the linkages between all three dimensions of sustainability. Both the positive and negative consequences of daily living must also receive consideration. Essential Elements —- assessment of sustainability must be capable of showing inter- and intragenerational equity and disparity; consider environmental systems on which life depends, and take into consideration economic functions. Adequate Scone — assessment of sustainability must be both short- and long- terrn oriented - with the ability to adapt as necessary. Practical Focus —a framework should guide the assessment, and the assessment should have defined parameters, using standard units of measurement. Qpennes -— the entire process of assessment, including methods and data, must be open and readily available to all people. Effective Communicapion — assessment should meet the needs of the audience and its users, be understandable, and use clear and precise language. 44 8. Broad Participation — assessment of sustainability should include input from a wide variety of interested parties (grassroots organizations, professionals, technical expertise, youth, women, and indigenous groups). 9. Ongoing Assessment — in any assessment of sustainability, regular measurement is necessary, with goals and indicators changing as new information is learned and situations change. 10. Institutional Capacity — assignment of responsibilities will ensure that assessment of sustainability will continue. Institutions must be provided with the necessary capacities. The Bellagio Principles, endorsed by the United Nations, are used by the UN’S Commission for Sustainable Development as guidance throughout their process of indicator development (Moldan, Billharz, & Matravers, 1997). Criteria for Indicators Sustainable development indicators must be thoughtful and carefully planned. Fortunately, much of the literature on measuring sustainable development includes criteria that indicators of sustainable development should meet (Hart, 1999; Hart 2000; Maclaren, 1996; Meadows, 1998; OECD, 2001, SDI Group, 1998; UN, 2001). Of primary importance, indicators must be individualized and selected on a case-by-case basis. No two communities or organizations are the same as each other. Everyone has different needs and circumstances; therefore, everyone needs indicators that work for their situation (Hart, 1999). There are many common issues that all communities need to deal with and there will be many common categories of sustainability indicators. All communities need food, jobs, energy, and materials. However, the amount and type of food, jobs, energy, and 45 material will vary considerably. Each community needs to have indicators that work for its specific circumstances (Hart, 1999, p. 29). According to the literature (Hart, 1999, 2000; Maclaren, 1996; Meadows, 1998; OECD, 2001, SDI Group, 1998; UN 2001), in addition to being individualized, indicators of ecological sustainability should also meet a number of other criteria. Good indicators for assessing sustainable development are: understandable, easy to interpret, and free from ambiguity based on measurable data that will be cost-effective to collect relevant to the present and have the ability to be responsive to change over time developed democratically with participation and input from a wide range of people focused on the long term representative and are balanced in the coverage of the key issues of sustainable development analytically sound and scientifically valid address the linkages between the three dimensions of sustainability comparable — over time and to targets limited in number In Hart (1999), Hart (2000), Maclaren (1996), Meadows (1998), and OECD (2001), the criteria they discuss is from the perspective of developing indicators for community, national, and global levels; and the United Nations (2001) is writing for indicator development at the national level only. However, it is plausible to apply the above criteria, as well as the Bellagio principles which were designed to be applicable at all levels, to this thesis and the process of developing indicators of sustainability at the 46 task broa l99‘. can i Who fund; that d Panic cooperative level. For this thesis, because it is dealing with a smaller, organizational level (as opposed to a community or country), one additional criterion needs inclusion in the above list and that is that the indicators must be relevant at an organizational level. Process of Developing Indicators Fortunately, because the process for developing indicators is not a simple or easy task, literature provides guidelines for indicator development. Key to the entire process is broad participation and including a wide variety of people in indicator development (Hart 1999; Maclaren, 1996; Meadows, 1998). The process should include both experts, who can provide the necessary technical skills and knowledge, and grassroots participants, who can ensure the indicators are relevant and understandable (Meadows, 1998). Since a fundamental characteristic of ecological sustainability is participation, it is only logical that development of indicators for sustainability is participatory in nature. Maclaren (1996) outlines a six-step process to follow for indicator development. The participatory process is as follows: 1. Define the problem and the goals of sustainability. 2. Identify the target audience, the purpose of the indicators, and the number of needed indicators. 3. Choose the framework that will guide the process. 4. Select the criteria for indicator selection. 5. Identify possible indicators, checking possible indicators against indicator criteria. 6. Choose a final set of indicators and test. Meadows’s (1996) ten-step process for indicator development closely mimics Maclaren’s (1998). Meadows (1996) process is: 47 8. 9. . Select a small, multidisciplinary group that is responsible for the process. Identify the purpose of the indicators (Are the indicators going to be used for educational purposes, policy making, or evaluating a program?) . Identify the community’s (or organization’s) values and goals. Review existing frameworks, indicator lists, and data. . Identify a draft list of indicators (this step may require several revisions). Present the draft list of indicators to a broader audience for input. Evaluate the indicators on a more technical level (i.e. measurability and statistical relevance). Collect the necessary data. Publish report with results. 10. Update report regularly. Case studies of completed projects that developed indicators of sustainability provide valuable information on the process of indicator development. One such project is the Metrozone Guadalajara Project (International Institute for International Development [IISD], 2000) which objectives were to develop a set of indicators for the community of Guadalajara and to come up with recommendations for future attempts of indicator development. The project involved collaboration between three different organizations. Pro Habitat (from Guadalajara) and Sustainable Seattle were both community grassroots organizations, and International Institute for Sustainable Development was a non-govemmental organization from Winnipeg, Manitoba involved in policy making. In the Metrozone Guadalajara Project, indicator development began by project leaders individually meeting with previously identified participants/organizations 48 and explaining the purpose of the project and each individual role. After the individual meetings, general meetings were held with a large group of people. These meetings laid out the framework for indicator development and discussed and made decisions concerning the main characteristics of sustainable development. From the large meeting, several small focus groups formed and these small groups met individually to develop possible indicators for a specific aspect of sustainability. A list of indicator criteria guided the small groups in their indicator selection. With the establishment of the indicators, volunteers collected and analyzed data and organized preliminary indicator reports. At the completion of the reports was a second general meeting where each group presented their particular indicators. Linkage groups were then set up with the purpose of determining the connections that existed between the various indicators that the small groups had established. Once the linkages had been elaborated and sorted through, a final report was drafted and presented to stakeholders, media, the public, and government. The key feature in this process of indicator deveIOpment was that cooperation guided the entire project, with decisions made democratically, and the final document and indicator list approved by all participants. Public involvement and full participation remained central and key throughout the entire process. It is evident from the literature that it is necessary to develop good indicators in order to assess properly sustainable development. The indicators are necessary to expose where an organization presently is and exactly how far they are from their sustainable development goals. Although literature does not provide a lot of background on developing indicators for the organizational level, guidelines such as the Bellagio Principles and the established criteria for good indicators of sustainable development, 49 of m,- exam1 coop, mark the)’; Point hinde Infikh drmc. give small organizations like handicraft cooperatives some degree of guidance for developing their own indicators. Small organizations can also look to established frameworks and the process of indicator development that larger organizations, communities, and nations have used for direction. Factors Contributing to Cooperative Sustainability Even though to date the literature on cooperatives does not specifically discuss developing indicators for the measurement of cooperative sustainability, the literature has identified aspects and factors of cooperatives that are sustainable and/or unsustainable. By using the factors as starting points, they aided the process of developing appropriate indicators of sustainable development in this research study. Therefore, this last section of the chapter examines and summarizes some of the factors of sustainable cooperatives, as identified in the literature. Jackall and Crain (1984) determined that there is often conflict between the ideals of the cooperative movement and the necessities of sound business practice. As an example, as discussed in both J ackall and Grain and Gamson and Levin (1984), many cooperatives lack expertise in critical areas such as record keeping, accounting, and marketing, and they are reluctant to bring in consultants to assist in the areas in which they are lacking necessary knowledge. Both Jackall and Crain and Gamson and Levin point out that there is also the potential for the democratic nature of cooperatives to hinder sustainability. With all cooperative members having an equal vote, the decision making process can be extremely time—consuming and potentially lead to conflict that is difficult to resolve. Today’s market is highly competitive and rapidly changing. However, 50 the democratic nature of cooperatives tends to slow down response to change and makes it difficult for the cooperative to remain competitive with mainstream businesses. In their study, Harper and Roy (2000) set out to identify common factors that existed among successful cooperatives. Their research, based on cooperatives in India, focused mostly on farming cooperatives — not handicraft cooperatives. For the purpose of the study, Harper and Roy defined a successful cooperative as one that had been profitable or not lost money in the last three years and had a growing membership, also for the last three years. Because of their study, Harper and Roy determined “a group or cooperative enterprise is more likely to succeed if the following conditions are satisfied: one person is acknowledged as the leader - the objectives go beyond income and include social and community goals - all the group members are of similar background and experience - the group avoids any political links - the group was started by its members, without assistance - the group focused on a single activity when it started - the group survives on its own without special protection or privileges - the group started, and continues, with clear strict rules and procedures - the members have different skills and abilities - the group has since its establishment extended into different activities” (2000, p. 21-22). Harper and Roy (2000) predominately based their judgment of cooperative success on economic factors. Their conditions for success do not provide a complete picture of 51 SUE Du: har: Littre handt HOW] haVe CIISCUE 1998; for hat b} a Si. sustainable development because there is very little attention drawn to social-cultural sustainability, and there is complete neglect of environmental sustainability. In their study of handicraft cooperatives in developing countries, Littrell and Durham (2000) identify six factors that they believe are essential to the sustainability of handicraft cooperatives. These factors are: 1) Locally available raw materials and dependence on very few imported materials. 2) Use of indigenous technologies and simple tools. 3) Existence of creative and organized leaders to facilitate and organize the cooperative for collective action. 4) Donations of things such as capital, equipment, and transportation. 5) Producer skills (literacy and numeracy, business skills such as bookkeeping and accounting, product development leadership) 6) An available sale outlet, with concentration on local and national markets. Littrell and Durham’s study asserts that grassroots development is possible through handicraft cooperatives, and support should continue for these types of ventures. However, if cooperatives are to be sustainable, members must be aware of the factors that have proven essential to sustainability and integrate the factors into their cooperatives. Factors that lead to sustainability specifically in handicraft cooperatives have been discussed in other literature as well (Attwood & Baviskar, 1988; Littrell & Dickson, 1998; Littrell, 1990; Mayoux, 1992). According to Littrell and Dickson (1998), in order for handicraft cooperatives to be competitive and successful, the members must be driven by a strong need to increase the quality of living for their families, and products must be 52 both marketable and high quality. Attwood and Baviskar (1988) have determined that many of the more successful cooperatives in developing countries started because of a local initiative, developing without external expertise, and Littrell (1990) states that successful handicraft cooperatives Show an understanding of their markets and the types of consumer who buy their products. Mayoux’s (1992) study of Nicaraguan cooperatives identified several factors that would contribute to more sustainable cooperatives. Mayoux saw financial independence as being of primary importance — the more a cooperative is dependent on government capital and other outside funding, the less possibility for the cooperative to be sustainable. Like Littrell and Durham (2000), Mayoux also determined a timely and reliable supply of high quality raw materials and locating dependable markets as other important factors contributing to cooperative sustainability. Mayoux also agrees with Littrell and Durham that providing cooperative members with the necessary training and skills is also crucial for cooperative survival. A final important factor for Mayoux is the necessity of more effectively fitting cooperative responsibilities in with the members’ family responsibilities. Although the studies discussed in this chapter do not specifically refer to indicators of sustainable development, this section has reviewed the factors used by researchers to judge cooperative success and sustainability. The researchers predominately mentioned economic and social-cultural factors with relatively little, to no, consideration given to environmental factors. Table 3 provides a summary of all the factors contributing to cooperatives’ sustainability that were discussed in this review of literature. 53 Tir‘. Ab: for r Abi ecor ECO: Raw Reli; Abili Stror Abili: Skills Slatus «Abilit. CORStril Table 3. Summary of Characteristics Contributing to Cooperative Sustainability Characteristics Research Study Ability to be competitive Products are marketable Knowledge of and access to markets Timely payment for products Ability to provide steady income for members Ability to increase women’s economic capacity Economic independence Raw materials are locally available Reliable access to quality raw materials Ability to meet basic needs of members Strong and creative leadership Ability to provide members with skills and training Ability to increase members’ social status Ability to work at changing social constraints Ability to change power inequalities 54 Cohen (1998); Iglauer (2000) Littrell & Dickson (1998) Cohen (1998); Eber & Rosenbaum (1993); Littrell (1990); Littrell & Durham (2000); Mayoux (1992) Cohen (1998); Eber & Rosenbaum (1993) Iglauer (2000); Jayaweera (1995); Mayoux (1992) Ibeanu & Nzei (1998) Attwood & Baviskar (1988); Harper & Roy (2000); Iglauer (2000); J ayaweera (1995); Mayoux (1992) Littrell & Durham (2000) Mayoux (1992) I glaucr (2000); Jayaweera (1995) Cohen (1998); Harper & Roy (2000); Littrell & Durham (2000) Jayaweera (1995); Littrell & Durham (2000); Mayoux (1992) Eber & Rosenbaum (1993); Iglauer (2000); Mayoux (1992) Eber & Rosenbaum(l993); Ibeanu & Nzei (1998); Iglauer (2000) Ibeanu & Nzei (1998) Embracement of cooperative ideals Balance between cooperative ideals and good business management Effective decision making process Political independence Members have differing skills and abilities Indigenous tools are used Members are driven to improve quality of living Harper & Roy (2000); Mayoux (1992) J ackall & Crain (1984) J ackall & Crain (1984) Attwood & Baviskar (1988); Harper & Roy (2000) Harper & Roy (2000) Littrell & Durham (2000) Littrell & Dickson(1998) 55 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS This thesis uses a case study approach to investigate the research questions and develop indicators of handicraft cooperative sustainability. A case study is a research method that attempts to describe, understand, and/or explain a particular case in detail (Hamel, 1993; Yin, 1994). While case studies are typically qualitative in nature, they can be quantitatively focused or use a combination of both qualitative and quantitative techniques (Yin, 1994). The research in this particular case study is qualitatively based. The purpose of this chapter is to outline the research methods utilized for this case study. The next section of the chapter outlines the data collection process, followed by an explanation of data analysis. The chapter concludes by addressing the issues of generalization, validity, and reliability. Data Collection This section outlines the process of data collection used in this case study. The first part summarizes the process of cooperative selection. The section continues with explanations of the established guidelines for data collection and the data collection techniques used throughout the research study. Selection of the Cooperative Stake (1995) guided the establishment of criteria for the selection of the study’s handicraft cooperative. Criteria considered in selecting a handicraft cooperative for the case study were: 56 5. The percentage of total household income that members receive from the cooperative. In order to effectively assess some of the characteristics related to economic and social-cultural sustainability, the desire was to work with a cooperative that provided necessary income for its members. The type of products produced by the cooperative. Ideally the cooperative would be producing handicrafts that were culturally rooted. Length of time the cooperative has been in existence. With a younger cooperative, it might be difficult to establish patterns of sustainability. Therefore, the aim was to work with a more established cooperative. Location of the cooperative and the related transportation expenses. Handicraft cooperatives in Canada’s provinces and throughout the United States were taken under consideration for this study. Due to expense and transportation difficulties, cooperatives in Northern Canada and Mexico were not considered. Willingness of the cooperative to be involved in the study. With these guidelines in mind, the process of locating a handicraft cooperative for this research study began with the researcher searching the Internet and inquiring with various personal contacts for handicraft cooperatives in the United States and Canada. These efforts resulted in a substantial list of North American handicraft cooperatives. It is important to mention that this study uses the term cooperative to refer to any group that operates under the ideals of open and voluntary membership, is democratically controlled, and has a fair distribution of profits. Therefore, in her search, the researcher included groups that were following cooperative principles but were not necessarily officially registered as cooperatives with their respective governments. 57 After doing preliminary research on each identified handicraft cooperative, the researcher identified thirteen cooperatives, eight in the USA. and five in Canada, which appeared to meet the established criteria for cooperative selection. In March of 2002, a letter (see Appendix A) was sent to the thirteen handicraft cooperatives. The intent of the letter was to introduce the researcher and the purpose of the research project to the handicraft cooperative. Three of the thirteen letters were undeliverable and returned to the researcher. Included in the letter was a postcard (See Appendix B), which the letter requested the cooperative complete and return to the researcher. The postcard provided additional, essential information, related to the selection criteria, about the cooperative and informed the researcher if the cooperative was interested in further contact about the research project. Four completed postcards, all from Canada, were returned. All four indicated that the groups were willing to have the researcher contact them further about the research. The researcher decided not to contact two of the groups; one group fiom Ontario because it was a mainstream business that did not meet the selection criteria and one group from British Columbia that returned the postcard at a late date after the selection process was well underway. The remaining two groups were a rug making cooperative in Nova Scotia and a craft cooperative in Vancouver, British Columbia that sold a variety of handmade items. Attempts to contact the Nova Scotia cooperative were unsuccessful. The researcher never succeeded in reaching the cooperative manager over the telephone or through e-mails. However, the cooperative from Vancouver, Circle Craft,1 was very responsive to the research project. The researcher had several phone and e-mail ' Permission has been obtained to refer to the cooperative by name in any publications; however, names of individual members will remain anonymous through the use of acronyms. 58 conversations with the general manager of the cooperative; and after presenting (through a letter — see Appendix C) a proposal for the research project to the cooperative Board of Directors, the Vancouver cooperative permitted the researcher to use its cooperative as a basis for this research study. In addition to being willing to be involved in the research study (Criterion Five), Circle Craft also fully met three of the remaining four selection criteria and partially met the remaining criterion. The cooperative provided necessary income to the members (Criterion One), established in the 19705 the cooperative has existed for a considerable length of time (Criterion Three), and transportation and other related expenses were affordable (Criterion Four). The only criterion that the cooperative did not fully meet was the type of handicrafts that it produces (Criterion Two). While the Circle Craft produces a wide variety of different handicraft items, the cooperative does not exclusively focus on culturally rooted products. However, some of the handicrafts within the cooperative do have a cultural influence and, therefore, Circle Craft sufficiently met the established criteria. In September 2002 the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan State University approved the research procedures for protection of human subjects and the methods used to obtain informed consent of the research participants (See Appendix D). A one year renewal for the project was granted in September 2003. 59 Research Techniques One of the primary goals of any qualitative research is to “capture the complexity of the reality we study” (Strauss, 1987, p. 10). Research has a history of constructing a reality that is very different from the actual reality of the people being studied (Chambers, 1997). Because reality is a local conceptualization, a concern in any research should be to collect data that accurately depicts reality for the study’s informants. Therefore, in order to avoid making assumptions about Circle Craft’s reality, this research study took a participatory approach to data collection and conceptualized the research as a process of open inquiry. While the researcher pre-established research questions to guide the data collection process, the researcher primarily depended on cooperative members to divulge the course of research to follow. Through interviewing the participants, particular themes and ideas emerged that the researcher had not even considered prior to the start of data collection. The research participants revealed the themes that were important to their circumstances, allowing the researcher to further explore these themes and construct an authentic reality. In Wolcott’s words, the research was “designed in the doing” (1995, p. 160). In addition, because participation is a key factor in sustainable development and this research study’s focus is sustainable development, the design of the study conceptualized and treated the cooperative members as research participants, as opposed to research subjects. Data Collection Techniques Hamel (1993) states that because different research techniques produce a variety of knowledge and evidence, the validation of case studies depends on a “wealth of 60 SC C); ap SCl OCt inc d€'\ an: the 1 inte- C011: dete arm Wit} abOl imp empirical materials” (p. 45). In this particular study the research techniques involved both semi-structured interviews and, to a lesser degree, document review. Interviews. This research study primarily used semi-structured interviews to explore the research questions. Because this research study takes an open inquiry approach, it was impossible, and made little sense, to completely preplan interview schedules. Until the researcher anived in Vancouver and began to understand what was occurring, it was not possible to know the issues that were important and necessary to include in an interview. Instead, prior to the start of data collection, the researcher developed an interview guide (see Appendix E) that was then brought to the interviews and used to lead the interviews. However, as previously mentioned, the questions served as a guideline only and throughout the data collection, the researcher remained open to following different leads and topics (Bernard, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994). During an interview, it was noted when new concepts came forth and in subsequent interviews the researcher made sure to discuss the concepts with the research participants. As the interviews progressed, the participants continually mentioned the same themes and by the conclusion of the interview process, no new themes emerged. The conceptual framework for this research study (refer to Chapter One) determined the nature and content of the interview guide. Questions were designed around the concepts of ecological sustainability and the human ecological perspective, with the intention of both assessing the participants’ perceptions, knowledge, and beliefs about economic, environmental, and sociocultural sustainability and understanding the important interactions that occur between the cooperative and its environments. 61 The profiles of all the cooperative’s members were available on Circle Craft’s web site, and these profiles along with some demographic information provided by Circle ' Craft’s general manager, guided the selection of the research participants. Originally, the researcher identified approximately 30 members as potential research participants, with the anticipation that some of them would either not want or be able to participate. The goal was to interview an even mix of men and women, with a wide range in nationalities, ethnic backgrounds, age, length of time as members of the cooperative, and type of product produced. A letter (see Appendix F), introducing the researcher and the research project, and inviting the selected cooperative members to be part of the project, was mailed in September 2002 to the 30 perspective participants. The researcher then, in early October 2002, followed up each letter with a telephone call and set up interviews with 18 of the 30 potential participants. Twelve of the participants were craftspeople, four were on the Board of Directors (three of whom were also craftspeople), and one participant was Circle Crafi’s general manager. The eighteenth participant was Circle Craft’s store manager, but he became ill while the researcher was in Vancouver and was unavailable for an interview. Therefore, the researcher completed 17 interviews. The remaining craftspeople that were sent letters but not interviewed were either too busy with their production, not interested in participating in the study, or the researcher was unable to contact them over the telephone. The researcher spent almost three weeks during October 2002 in Vancouver collecting data and individually interviewing the selected research participants. The semi- structured interviews, conducted at the participants’ convenience, occurred in a variety of locations including participants’ homes or production studios, Circle’s Craft’s office, and 62 local coffee shops. Each interview varied in length between forty-five minutes to two hours, with the average interview being approximately one hour. A11 17 participants agreed to have their interviews tape recorded, permitting the researcher to take minimal notes during the interviews. After each interview, field notes and memos were written; and at the conclusion of the data collection process, each interview was fully transcribed. Document review. The second form of data collection used in this research study was a review of relevant cooperative documents. Circle Crafi’s general manager provided the researcher with minutes from both board meetings and annual general meetings and copies of the cooperative’s newsletter. The researcher was not able to obtain meeting minutes prior to March of 1996 or newsletters prior to October 1991 because all earlier documents were stored in a remote warehouse. Due to the sheer volume of documents, there was insufficient time to complete a thorough review of the documents while in Vancouver; and it was also impossible to make copies of every document. Therefore, while still in Vancouver, the researcher completed an initial review of the documents, scanning for important data, and photocopying the necessary pages. A complete review of the copied documents occurred during data analysis upon return to the university campus. Data Analysis The analysis of qualitative data is not a simple task. Despite the fact that methods in qualitative data analysis have seen tremendous progress and change in the past few decades, there are still no explicit rules or directions for analysis of the data (Miles & 63 Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994). As Miles and Hubennan (1994) state, researchers are faced with a “lack of explicit methods to draw on” Q). 2). In this research study, the approach taken by the researcher to analyze data was to start by reading over all of the transcribed interviews. Through the reading of the interviews, major themes and ideas emerged. The researcher then developed a preliminary coding guide that incorporated the concepts of ecological sustainability and human ecology from the study’s conceptual framework (refer to Chapter One) and themes revealed in the interviews.2 In order to judge the completeness and accuracy of the coding guide, the researcher applied it to an entire interview, resulting in some modifications and additions. When a satisfactory coding guide was complete, dual coding of select portions of the transcriptions began.3 A second revision of the coding guide occurred because of suggestions made by the second coder during the dual coding process, resulting in the final code guide (see Appendix G). After achieving a sufficient reliability ratio between the two coders, the primary researcher continued, on her own, to code all of the remaining interviews, including recoding the first interview. The researcher completed this step through the assistance of a qualitative data analysis software program, Nvivo 2.0 (QSR International, 2002). At the completion of coding, the researcher read over all data assigned to each code and composed written summaries of the data relating to each code. The summaries permitted the researcher to see the major themes and concepts related to each code and answer the research questions. 2 Appendix G provides a detailed explanation of which codes are from the literature and which are from the study’s emerging themes. 3 Additional information on the step of dual coding is in the section of this chapter on validity and reliability. 64 Answering the first and second research questions occurred by reading over the summaries of each code and selecting quotes that related to the questions. From the summaries and quotes the researcher drew conclusions about how the cooperative members perceived sustainable development and what their goals were in relation to sustainable development. The literature on indicator development discussed in Chapter Two informed development of the indicators (the study’s final research question); and a domain-based framework, centered on the three dimensions of sustainability, guided the process. Assessment of the c00perative’s perceptions of and goals for sustainability permitted a more complete understanding of how Circle Craft conceptualized sustainability and what the indicators needed to measure. Therefore, answers to the first two research questions directly informed the selection of indicators. In addition, understanding of the cooperative’s ecosystem, including intra-cooperative and cooperative — environment interactions, revealed some relevant indicators. The researcher also used established indicators by organizations like the United Nations (2001) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (2000) to inform indicator selection for this study. After compiling a list of potential indicators for each of the characteristics of ecological sustainability, the researcher attempted to present the indicators to Circle Craft for input and feedback. The cooperative, despite several attempts, did not respond to this request. The lack of input from the cooperative in regard to the indicators is the primary limitation of this study. The literature on indicator development states that this input is important to the process of determining the relevancy of the indicators. Therefore, before 65 it is possible to implement the indicators, input is needed from Circle Craft to assess the feasibility of the indicators. The analysis process 'also included a careful review of the cooperative documents brought back from Vancouver by the researcher. The researcher first began analyzing the coded interviews, allowing for the major themes relevant to the research participants to emerge. The researcher then returned to the documents, carefully reading them and using data from the minutes and newsletters to support or challenge conclusions drawn from the interviews. Validity and Reliability The final section of this chapter examines issues concerning the validity and reliability of the case study. The section first provides details on how the validity of the study was ensured and then reviews several techniques used to increase the study’s reliability. Validity In qualitative research, validity of research conclusions is a major concern (Bernard, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994). A qualitative researcher must always be mindful of whether or not the conclusions she is making are accurate to the reality of the situation. Miles and Huberrnan (1994), suggest a wide range of techniques that a researcher should employ in order to increase the validity of a study, and a munber of these were utilized in this case study. A major technique employed for increasing validity was triangulation. According to the literature (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994), triangulation occurs 66 when data from different sources converge to the same conclusion. This research study shows evidence of triangulation, and therefore validity, because many of the research participants spoke of the same issues in their interviews and these same issues were also evident in the reviewed meeting minutes and newsletters. Achievement of triangulation in this study also contributed to decreasing any effects of researcher bias. Since the researcher relied on the coding process to lead to conclusions about the study’s research questions, the validity of the coding guide is essential. The first level and some second level codes are assumed valid because they were derived from the literature on sustainable development and human ecology theory. In addition, validity of the second _ and third level of codes that derived from themes emergent in the interviews is ensured because two different coders were able to apply the codes to the interviews and found the codes relevant and representative of the data. Also contributing to the validity of the codes is the fact that revision of the coding guide occurred after the coder identified some themes in the interviews that the original coding guide did not represent. One of the most common criticisms about case study research is the lack of ability to draw generalizations from research conclusions (Hamel, 1993; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). The microscopic study of one case and findings from the study cannot explain a problem in more general terms. However, the intention of a case study is not to make broad generalizations. Instead, the purpose of a case study is to thoroughly understand that particular case and through that understanding contribute to the body of knowledge, and propose, strengthen or expand theoretical propositions (Hamel, 1993; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). Therefore, while this research study examines one handicraft cooperative in detail and it is not possible to generalize the conclusions to a wider population of North 67 American cooperatives, the study does provide an important contribution to the literature and theories on the role cooperatives play in sustainable development. Reliability During the process of coding interviews, there is potential for researcher biases to negatively affect the assignment of codes and jeopardize the study’s reliability. In order to ensure reliable interpretation and application of the codes throughout the coding process, two people, the researcher and a hired coder, independently coded the same select portions of the interviews. The hired coder held a doctorial degree and had scholarly background in human ecology theory. The goal of the dually coded passages was to obtain a reliability coefficient of 0.80 or higher for five percent of all transcribed pages. Through random selection, four of the seventeen interviews were chosen and then within each of the selected four interviews, five pages were randomly selected to be dually coded. This selection resulted in a total of twenty pages, or five percent of all transcribed pages that were dually coded. Prior to the researcher and the coder independently coding the selected portions, the researcher trained the coder in the coding process and familiarized the coder with the coding guide and interpretations of the codes. Next, the researcher and the coder worked together to code an entire interview, separate from the portions selected to be dually coded on an individual basis. This allowed the coder to practice the coding process, further familiarize herself with the codes, and ask any questions. Prior to the coder coding the selected twenty pages, she practiced the coding system with a portion of a separate interview. Because of this step, the coder identified several themes that were not part of the code guide; and these themes were added as new codes into the final coding guide 68 (See Appendix G). Both the researcher and the coder then worked independently to code the twenty pages of interviews, after which the researcher calculated the degree of agreement between the two coders. The unit of analysis used to assess the degree of agreement between the two coders was a line of transcribed text. This unit of analysis is justifiable over using a sentence or a paragraph because many of the coded sections were contained within part of a single line. In other words, a single code was not always assigned to an entire sentence or paragraph; therefore it was logical to assess agreement on a per line basis. The researcher assessed coding agreement if, within a line, both the researcher and the coder had assigned the same code. Agreement was also assumed if both had left a line unassigned to any codes. If, within a line, the researcher had assigned a code and the other coder did not (or vise versa) or if both the researcher and the coder assigned codes but the codes did not agree then, in both cases, the researcher assessed it to be non- agreement. The researcher calculated the degree of reliability between the two coders by using Cohen’s (1960) Kappa statistic, a statistic developed specifically to assess inter- coder agreement and reliability. The Kappa statistic is: K = P0 — Pc 1 - Pc where P0 = number (#) of agreements # of total judgments 69 and Pc is the likelihood of agreement by chance and is calculated by n PC = Z (Ai)(Bi) i=1 where n is the total number of coding categories, A; is the proportion of total judgments coded by Coder A for each coding category, and B,- is the proportion of total judgments coded by Coder B for each coding category. Using Cohen’s formula, the calculated Kappa statistic for this research study, based on the dual-coded portions of the interviews, was 0.79. The goal was to achieve reliability of 0.8 and with K = 0.79, the coding reliability was assessed as sufficient to ensure a reliable application of the codes. In addition to the process of dual coding, the researcher also ensured the reliability of this research study by maintaining a quality trail of evidence, along with detailed and explicit records of methods and procedures. The records demonstrate how data were “collected, processed, condensed, and displayed for the conclusion drawing” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 279). The records are detailed enough to permit other people to follow both how the case study was conducted and how conclusions were made. 70 CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents the findings of the research study and answers the research questions. The chapter makes use of illustrative quotes from interviews, meeting minutes, and cooperative newsletters in order to substantiate the claims made. The first section of the chapter provides background about the cooperative. Circle Crafi’s general manager was the first person interviewed while in Vancouver, and the introduction to the cooperative is primarily a summary of this interview, with some additional information taken from the cooperative’s website, board meeting minutes and cooperative newsletters. The second section introduces the research participants, and the subsequent three sections outline the findings for the study’s three research questions. Description of Circle Craft Circle Craft, established in 1972, is a handicraft cooperative located in the City of Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada. There are about 200 members, from throughout British Columbia, who produce a wide variety of handmade craft products including pottery, textiles, jewelry, wood and leather items, and glasswork. The mission statement of Circle Craft, adopted in 1994, is to “promote the development, recognition and success of members and their work” (Circle Craft Cooperative, 2001). The cooperative operates a joint store and gallery on Granville Island, one of Vancouver’s primary centers for the arts and one of the most popular tourist districts in Vancouver. The Canadian federal government owns Granville Island, and it provides all 71 tenants on the island subsidized rent as an incentive to stay on the island. Circle Craft also rrms one of Canada’s largest Christmas craft shows for a week every November. Although staff from Circle Craft operate the Christmas market, it is a separate entity from the cooperative store and gallery. A subsidiary company, called Pacific Canadian Craft Shows (PCCS) Limited, exists to operate the Christmas market. Financial statements from PCCS are separate from Circle Craft’s statements. Therefore, because management of the Christmas market is separate from the Circle Craft store and gallery and because it is not operated on cooperative principles, the research in this project focuses solely on the store and gallery and does not attempt to determine indicators for the sustainability of the Christmas market. Circle Craft uses a jurying process to accept new craftspeople in the cooperative. Potential craftspeople submit samples of their products to the cooperative for jurying. Along with being handmade by residents of British Columbia, any products sold through Circle Craft must also be very high in design and technical quality and have a unique and interesting aspect to them. As the general manager stated, the cooperative looks for handicrafts that have a “wow” quality. On average, Circle Craft receives close to a hundred applicants every year, and reports made in newsletters and meeting minutes reveal that the cooperative invites approximately 10% of all applicants to become members. After acceptance into Circle Craft, 3 member must buy a $25 (Canadian) share in the cooperative and pay an annual membership fee, also $25 (Canadian). Within the Circle Craft store, each member has an area to display and sell his or her products. The size of space assigned to a member varies depending on the type of product. With every sale, the cooperative retains a commission of 40% to cover the 72 expenses of operating the cooperative, and 60% goes to the craftsperson. For the Christmas market, the craftspeople pay a fee to rent a booth from Circle Craft, and Circle Craft takes no further commission from sales. One does not have to be a member of Circle Craft to sell at the annual Christmas market; and, in fact, the majority of the people selling at the market are not Circle Craft members. However, membership in Circle Craft guarantees the craftsperson a booth at the market at a discounted rate. In the minutes from the October 2, 2002 board meeting it was estimated that approximately 10% of the cooperative’s members actually sell at the Christmas market. There is considerable variance in the degree to which the members of Circle Craft depend on sales from Circle Craft to meet income requirements. Some members are full- time craftspeople, although the precise number is not known by the general manager. Because Circle Craft represents so many different people, no member can solely sell through the cooperative and earn a sufficient income. Therefore, most of the full-time craftspeople sell in a variety of locations in addition to Circle Craft. Some members have their own studios from which they sell, some sell wholesale to mainstream businesses, and many have commissioned work in other galleries and small shops in Vancouver, the rest of Canada, and even in the United States. Other members produce their handicrafts on more of a part-time basis. They are either employed elsewhere and do craft production in the evenings and weekends or they are semi-retired and are supplying Circle Craft with products at a reduced capacity. A nine member Board of Directors, elected by Circle Craft’s membership through a mail-in ballot, governs the cooperative. The primary functions of the board are to ensure the cooperative is operating according to its stated mission, set both short and long 73 range goals, establish cooperative policies that will fulfill those goals, and oversee the cooperative’s budget and financial statements. A quote from the minutes of the June 6, 2001 board meeting succinctly summarizes the role of the Board of Directors: “It is the Board’s mandate to see that the cooperative is managed well.” The Board of Directors is not involved with the administrative, day-to-day aspects of operating the cooperative. Each board member serves for a term of two years, with half of the board rotating off each year. Any member of Circle Craft is eligible to run for the Board of Directors, and the cooperative also desires to have a few noncraft people serving on the board at all times. Recruitment of the noncraft people is through a combination of word-of-mouth and placement of recruitment posters in Vancouver banks, credit unions, and other business and financial organizations. In addition, Circle Craft employs several paid employees, including a general manager, a store manager, an assistant to the general manager, an inventory clerk, and several full- and part-time sales staff. The Board of Directors meets with the general manager on a monthly basis, and once a year there is a general meeting with the entire cooperative membership. Within Circle Craft there are four standing committees. Board members are the Chairpersons, and anyone in the general membership can serve as committee members. The Selections Committee, using the criteria established by the cooperative, is responsible for jurying all new applications and accepting new members into the c00perative. The gallery in Circle Craft’s store changes monthly, and the related tasks are the responsibility of the Gallery Committee. As part of the services Circle Craft provides to its membership, the cooperative has a grant program that members can use to further their skills in an area related to their craft. It is the task of the Scholarship Committee to 74 review all the applications for the grants and decide how to award the money. Finally, the Membership Committee exists to deal with membership issues and concerns and, each year, to look for members who may be interested in serving on the Board of Directors. Circle Craft currently uses a system called the Carver Model of Board Governance (Carver & Carver, 1997). This model clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of both the cooperative’s Board of Directors and the staff, especially the general manager. It is the job of the board to set policy and govern and the general manager’s responsibility to implement the goals. With the Carver model, the board stays out of the way of the day-to-day operational decisions and trusts the general manager and other employees of the cooperative to do the job for which they were hired. Introduction to Research Participants The participants in this study are characteristic of the varying types of people who are members of Circle Craft. Altogether, ten women and seven men were interviewed and the participants represented each of the major product types within the cooperative, including glass, wood, leather, textiles, candles, ceramics, and jewelry. Of the 17 research participants, 14 were craftspeople. Three of those craftspeople were, at the time of data collection, serving on the Board of Directors. The general manager of the cooperative, a non—craft member, and one non-craft board member also participated in the study. Some members of Circle Craft have belonged to the cooperative for several . decades while other members joined more recently. Therefore, the participants in the study varied in length of time as members of Circle Craft as well, with some of the participants being original members and others having joined the cooperative in the last 75 few years. Consequently, the age ranges of the participants also varied, with the more established members typically being over the age of 60 and the younger members being under 40. The research participants also participated in the cooperative to different degrees. Several of the participants did not consider themselves active within the cooperative. They would occasionally read the newsletter but never attended meetings or served on committees. Other participants participated to a greater degree by regularly reading the newsletter, perhaps writing an article or letter occasionally for the newsletter, and sporadically attending meetings. The remaining participants considered themselves actively involved in the cooperative. They were either currently serving on the Board of Directors or had served in previous years. They also served on committees within the cooperative and made a point to consistently attend cooperative meetings. These members also read and contributed to the newsletter. Finally, because many of the members of Circle Craft live throughout British Columbia, the decision was made to include in the study two participants who did not live in the Greater Vancouver area. One participant lived on Salt Spring Island, a two hour ferry ride from Vancouver, and one lived in Mission, approximately 60 miles to the east of Vancouver. Table 4 provides a summary of the demographics of each research participant. 76 Table 4. Demographics of Research Participants b Member Product Sex National Years in Degree of Codea Type Origin Co-op° Participationd CCGM Non-Craft Canada 30 + active CCBM 1 Glass M Canada 1 0 President CCBM2 Non-Craft F Canada 4 board member CCBM3 Ceramics F Unknown 7 board member CCBM4 Textiles F Unknown 8 board member CCMl Jewelry F Canada 8 inactive CCM2 Glass M U.S.A. 20+ active CCM3 Candles F Germany 30 + retired CCM4 Glass F Canada 1 3 inactive CCMS Wood M USA. 20 active CCM6 Glass M England 20 active CCM7 Leather M Ireland 30 active CCM8 Ceramics F Ireland 10 active CCM9 Non-Craft F Canada 20 + active CCM l 0 Ceramics F Canada 1 0 inactive CCMll Textiles F Canada 20 + active CCM12 Wood M Canada 20 + active aCC = Circle Craft; M = Member; GM = General Manager; BM = Board Member b M = Male, F = Female c Represents the members’ own estimations of their number of years in the cooperative. d Active = attending meetings and/or volunteering on committees, reading and/or contributing to newsletter; Inactive = does not attend meetings or serve on committees, may read the newsletters 77 Research Question One: Perceptions of Ecological Sustainability The next three sections of the chapter present the results and the major findings of the research study, for each of the study’s three main research questions. The sections make use of extensive quotations from the research participants and reviewed documents to substantiate the conclusions. The first question that this study set out to answer was, in relation to their cooperative, what the members of Circle Craft perceive as being the essential characteristics of ecological sustainability. In general, the members of Circle Craft do not think in terms of ecological sustainability or sustainable development. These are terms of which only a select few members have a thorough awareness. However, while the members do not articulate their perceptions in terms of ecological sustainability, they do have many opinions as to what the characteristics are that have permitted the cooperative to sustain itself for the last thirty years and what are essential to sustaining it for future craftspeople. Whereas none of the interviewed members stated anything concrete, for example, “I believe adequate profit is an essential characteristic of economic sustainability,” they, in less concrete ways, communicated their perceptions about ecological sustainability. For example, when CCBM4 was asked what she thought the cooperative needed to do to remain viable, she replied, “They need to be able to financially make it for one.” It was the task of the researcher to analyze what the members said and connect those comments to the literature and language of sustainability. 78 Perceptions of En vironmental Sustainability For the most part, the cooperative members do not perceive environmental sustainability to be essential for the overall, ecological sustainability of Circle Craft. As interviews with CCBMl and CCM2 revealed, environmental issues are not a current priority for the cooperative. Researcher: Are environmental concerns something that the co-op ever talks about? CCBMI: Well actually that is a good question. I don’t think so but they probably should. Researcher: Do you think that environmental concerns are a major issue for the co-op? CCM2: Not of the co-op. Interviews did show that the majority of the members are aware of environmental issues and are environmentally conscientious in their production. For example, CCMS uses all local, waste wood for his products, CCM8 creates ceramic masks of endangered animals in hope of spreading awareness, and CCM7 takes his scrap leather pieces and packages them as pads for the backs of framed pictures. Specific comments made in interviews in regard to members’ awareness of their personal environmental impact include: CCM5: I burn gas with my chainsaw — which I burn a lot of. Boy, do I put out a lot of junk into the air. . .I put a lot of bad stuff into the air so I have to figure that out. CCMl: I don’t have a lot of waste products. I try to recycle everything that I can.. . .I think that each individual craftsperson is, to some degree, aware of what they do. Additionally, the general sense from the participants was that Circle Craft’s membership, for the most part, consists of environmentally conscious craftspeople. 79 CCM7: CCM9: Researcher: CCM9: I think that most of the pe0ple are very well aware of environment issues....Most craftspeople are fairly well aware of the environmental impact they have. I would say that most craftsmen are personally very interested. They are that kind of person. They are dealing with substances that are a part of the environment. . .they would be the first advocates for taking care of the environment. So you feel that they are taking care of it on their own? Yeah. From interviewing the research participants, it seems that, although the members are generally concerned about environmental issues such as controlling pollution and conserving resources, the members of the cooperative separate their individual production from the sustainability of the cooperative. The members do not connect the environmental sustainability of their production with the ecological sustainability of Circle Craft. As CCM] stated, “I think it will remain sustainable as it is.” Comments made by other participants also support this sentiment: Researcher: CCM3: Researcher: CCM3: Have you ever heard the co-op discuss environmental issues? No, never. Do you think that if Circle Craft wants to be sustainable in future years, that that’s something that maybe they need to have members pay more attention to — is enviromnental issues? The question actually never came up. You are the very first person to mention that. And as another participant commented: Researcher: CCM2: Researcher: CCM2: Researcher: CCM2: Do you think that environmental concerns are an issue for the co- op? Not of the co-op. Is it more on an individual basis? Yeah. Do you think that maybe in order to sustain itself that might be something that has to be looked into in the future? Not with the present government — it is all slash and burn. 80 In summary, the craftspeople that participated in this study are generally environmentally conscious people and are concerned with the impact their crafts have on the environment. However, the participants see caring for the environment as an individual responsibility and not a role for the cooperative, as evidenced in many comments that the participants made that were similar to CCBM4’s, “I think it really comes down to the individual person.” Overall, the research participants do not think that the sustainability of Circle Craft and environmental issues are related. Perceptions of E conom ic Sustainability The majority of the interviewed members of Circle Craft perceive ecological sustainability primarily in relationship to economics and the financial health of the cooperative, as evidenced by many statements made in the interviews like CCM12’s, “Sales are what we need to sustain ourselves,” and comments such as this one made in the April 1994 newsletter, “As you can see from the financial statements, Circle Craft is doing very well as an organization” (p. 2). Other comments on sustainability and economics from interviews include: Researcher: What do you think are the key characteristics that need to be present in order for Circle Craft to be viable and sustainable for a long period of time? CCBM2: Financial health — that would be number one. and CCBM4’s: Researcher: Can you think of some of the qualities that need to be present in any organization in order for it to sustain over time? CCBM4: Well they need to be efficient. They need to be able to financially make it for one. . .certainly from the business point-of-view finances are important. Circle Craft is a marketing cooperative, with a primary goal of providing capital for craftspeople; therefore, it is natural that the members see economics as key to Circle 81 Craft’s overall sustainability. If Circle Craft is economically unsustainable, it will be unable to fulfill their stated mission of supporting British Columbian craftspeople. The research participants’ perceptions of the essential characteristics of economic sustainability were similar to the characteristics of economic sustainability identified in sustainable development literature. However, some of the participants’ perceptions of ecological sustainability were much more relevant to their specific cooperative, resulting in a few unique observations. For the research participants, adequate profit, adequate growth, access to dependable and durable economic resources, equitable distribution of capital, and financial responsibility are all essential to economic sustainability. Adequate Profit The Circle Craft members who participated in this study believe a key characteristic of ecological sustainability is adequate profit. Without sufficient profit the cooperative is unable to continue to fulfill its mission of showcasing the work of British Columbia’s craftspeople. CCM5: The store has been more or less able to sustain itself over the years — or made enough money to keep going all the time. If they didn’t it would have gone under and that would probably be the end of the co-op. None of the members interviewed stated that they believe the cooperative needed to maximize profit to remain sustainable, and they did not perceive the cooperative’s purpose as being to make the cooperative or the members rich. As CCM9 put it, “You make a profit because you have to make a profit in order to run your business, but not as the essential thing,” and CCMll stated, “I am happy with my profit margin.” Instead, most of the members interviewed stated that profit must be adequate so that the store remains self-reliant, pays all bills and staff and any debt; continues to offer certain 82 programs and services to the membership; and has adequate savings to cover the cooperative during an economic downturn. CCM2: It is also important for each of its functions to pay for themselves. [In reference to the store and the Christmas market] In another interview: Researcher: I am coming from a perspective of sustainable development. Is that a phrase that you have heard of? CCM5: Ah — sustainable development... well. . .do you mean in terms of the co-op now planning for the future. Researcher: Yes — being sustainable in the present and also being sustainable in future years. CCM5: Well by sustainable I guess you mean viable — it stays alive. . .Because it is an economic co-op. . .[it] has to pay the bills every month so viable means its selling the members work and supporting itself on the 40% margin. Interviews with members also showed that in addition to profit being adequate for the cooperative, the sustainability of Circle Craft depends on the cooperative having adequate profit to contribute to meeting the members’ income requirements. As CCM8 put it, “None of it is going to survive if craftspeople can’t make a living,” and CCM9 said, “Our cooperative should be there to help the members make a living.” Adequate Growth All of the research participants perceive adequate growth as an important component of ecological sustainability. One way that they think of growth is in terms of economic growth, “So that business of economy...trying to gain a little more profit, so that you can do the necessary thing which will help the store increase in its operation” (CCM9). In addition, minutes from both the September 29, 1997 and October 3, 2001 board meetings state that members had called board members to express their concern over stagnating sales, evidence that other members also believe increasing sales 83 contributes to the sustainability of the cooperative. In fact, a review of minutes from meetings between 1996 and 2002, demonstrated that board meetings frequently centered around the topic of economic growth and how best to increase annual sales. Although increasing annual sales was one of the ways the research participants conceived of adequate growth, they also believed that growth also consisted of other elements, namely membership expansion and store expansion. It is important for the cooperative to continually attract new members so that the membership remains fresh and viable. Do you think that there are some things that the cooperative needs to change in order to stay competitive and successfull? CCBMl: Just bringing more artists into the co-op. Researcher: Comments from another interview: What do you see as two or three major challenges that the co-op is Researcher: going to need to overcome in the next five to ten years in order to remain viable? CCBM2: ...bringing in new members. Many of Circle Craft’s members also believe that the cooperative’s overall growth is directly connected to store expansion. The results fiom a membership survey presented at the 1995 annual general meeting showed that 71% of the membership felt new store outlets were important for the cooperative (Circle Craft Cooperative, April 1995). The research participants also spoke of the relationship between adequate growth and store expansion. The Circle Craft store is a defined space; and if membership continues to grow, then eventually the store will run out of space. In fact, as CCBM2 stated in her interview the store is already facing major space concerns, “We also have ' Although sustainability and success are two different concepts, in his interview, CCBMl spoke of Circle Craft’s success rather then their sustainability. Therefore, the researcher made the decision to use the term success in place of sustainability. 84 this challenge of the store isn’t getting any bigger.” Eventually, adequate growth for the cooperative can only be possible if there is growth in the store space. CCM] 1: We can’t keep adding two or three more [members] every couple of months or there will not be room for everyone to make a living or to sell as much as they would like just because there is not enough space. Another participant spoke more generally about expansion: Researcher: What do you think are maybe two or three things that you see as major challenges that Circle Craft might have to overcome in the next ten years to survive? CCM6: It probably needs to expand. . ..There has been a feeling in the organization to expand. Comments from the annual general meeting in May 2000 provide more support to the assertions that the membership connects economic growth with store expansion. Minutes from this meeting state that several members mentioned the need for a new or expanded store and leadership at the meeting was quoted as saying, “We have also been looking at expanding our sales through other avenues” (Circle Craft Cooperative, May 2000, p. 1). Access to Dependable and Durable Economic Resources In their interviews, CCBM2 and CCM4 stated that consumers are Circle Craft’s only source of capital. Circle Craft does not rely on the Canadian or provincial governments for grants or any type of funding. Researcher: Is Circle Craft able to apply for grants at all? CCBM2: Well, we probably could Researcher: Has there just not really been a need for that? CCBM2: No, there hasn’t, there really hasn’t. CCM4: Circle Craft is in a good position that way because they’re not dependent on any outside funding. They generate it all themselves and I think they’re very secure. 85 The cooperative generates capital through the 40% commission taken from all of the store’s sales and through an “administrative fee”, transferred to the cooperative from the profits of the annual Christmas market. Therefore, in order for Circle Craft to display economic sustainability, it is important for the cooperative to maintain dependable economic resources by continually bringing into the store tourists and other local consumers and making sales. CCBM2: We are so heavily dependent on tourist dollars. As long as the tourists keep coming and keep spending we do well. If they don’t, we don’t [do well]. Every research participant, questioned about what they perceived as essential to the cooperative’s ecological sustainability, spoke of store location. As CCBM3 said, “The other very, very important thing is location, location, location.” Location can be considered an economic resource because if Circle Craft was poorly located it would be less likely to draw in consumers, and thus greatly reduce the cooperative’s capital. Circle Craft is, as argued by CCM8, located in one of the best spots in all of Vancouver, “A lot of its success has to do with that incredible location. That is the best location in Vancouver.” Granville Island is a busy tourist area; and Circle Craft, being directly across from the Granville Market (the primary attraction on the island), has a prime location. This location is something that greatly contributes to the cooperative’s ecological sustainability. CCM3: The store is doing very well. One reason is because the location is so unique. They could certainly not get a better location. . .which could compete with Granville Island. . .where all the tourists come by. CCM4 and CCMlO also acknowledge the value of the store location. 86 CCM4: I think as long as they keep the lease on Granville Island — Granville Island just seems to get busier every year. . .I don’t see any problems for them. CCMlO: It is a dynamite location and their success is also dependent on the dynamic because it is right across from the market. Granville Island is a great location but being across from the market is phenomenal. Another economic resource for Circle Craft, identified by the participants, is the capital that they are able to save through the government subsidized rent that they receive. In fact, CCGM asserted that the subsidy is a major factor in Circle Craft’s ecological sustainability, “We are subsidized rather nicely which is. . .why the 40% [commission] works. Without the subsidy we couldn’t operate.” Other participants, such as CCBM2 and CCM10, also identified that maintaining the rent subsidy was key to the cooperative’s economic sustainability. CCBM2: We get a break on the rent at Granville Island which is super and it really makes a difference. That’s why the thing has lasted as long as it has. CCM 1 0: They have a pretty good situation in terms of the rent that they have to pay. . .so that has a lot to do with the success. Equitable Distribution of Capital Circle Craft’s membership believes that essential to the cooperative’s ecological sustainability is a fair and equitable distribution of the cooperative’s capital. One of the primary principles of the cooperative movement is that all members are equals (Cadieva, 1999; Gertler, 2001; ILO, 1988), and Circle Craft follows this principle. For example, within the cooperative all members can run for the Board of Directors and everyone has an equal vote in elections and any referenda. The value of equity is also evident in the cooperative ’8 practice of equitably distributing capital and having all members in the 87 cooperative receive the same commission rate. Minutes from board meetings early in 2001 discuss one member’s suggestion to implement a different commission system. The suggestion was to keep the commission rate at 40% for all products that were priced under $1000 but to change the commission to 35% for any items sold for over $1000. The Board of Directors ultimately decided against the suggestion for two primary reasons. First, they were concerned some craftspeople may purposefully inflate prices in order to qualify for the lower commission rate; and second, there was a lot of concern about having two different commission rates creating a class system and stratification within the cooperative. Through the interviews, none of the research participants asserted that they would prefer a different pay distribution. In the interview with CCM8, she stated that if the cooperative’s sales increased to a point where it was making excessive profit (more than it needed to sustain the cooperative) then she believed the percentage of sales that the cooperative retained should be dropped to a lower percentage. When the researcher probed further and asked if the commission should drop for only the craftspeople that had made the largest contributions towards sales, CCM8 replied: CCM8: No, it should be dropped for everyone because that would be the only way that it was fair. If you gave a certain amount to one person or another it wouldn’t be fair. In addition to perceiving sustainability in terms of keeping equitable distribution among the members, the research participants also believe equitable distribution of capital must exist between the craftspeople and the cooperative. As evidenced by CCMlO’s comment, “I do think that expenses are high. . ..They are keeping the doors open and that costs money,” the members understand the cooperative is expensive to 88 operate. However, they believe one of the main purposes of the cooperative is to provide capital for the craftspeople and as CCM4 stated, “I figure that if I’m taking all the risk, that I should get an extra percentage.” Therefore, the members perceive an equitable capital distribution as one in which the cooperative retains the bare minimum needed to cover their expenses and members receive as much as possible. Researcher: CCMl: The way the pay structure is now, with the cooperative retaining 40% of the profit, do you think that. . .it’s a good ratio? I don’t think it should be any more because it used to be 35% going back to [the cooperative] and then they moved it to 40%. You have to keep your price point the same — like where you are selling retail and where you are selling [at Circle Craft] and if you started going like 50/50 then you are not getting enough. . ..If [Circle Craft] wants to start to [take more then 40%] then there is going to be a problem. People will not be able to make enough to sustain. Similar responses by other participants to the same question were: CCMlO: CCMll: CCM3: I think that you don’t do better than that unless you are selling it privately. I think that is realistic. I think that 50/50 is too much and most galleries are 50/50. I think it is probably fair enough. I think it is the limit. It is just right. Ifthey would take more, it would be a bit out of balance and it would be pretty hard. It would take away a lot. A comment made in the October 1996 newsletter by the cooperative president demonstrates that cooperative leadership also believes it is the mandate of the cooperative to give as much back to the craftspeople as possible, “We exist primarily to support the craftsperson. However, the financial health of the store is an integral part of our ability to service the craftsperson; and thus a balance suitable to both the craftsperson and Circle Craft must be struck” (Circle Craft Cooperative, October 1996, p. 8). 89 Financial Responsibility Circle Craft has a policy of operating in a financially responsible manner; and as stated in the April 1995 newsletter, Circle Craft strives to, “always [act] in a financially responsible way” (Circle Craft Cooperative, April 1995, p. 2). According to the research participants, the practice of financial responsibility is important to the cooperative’s economic sustainability. As previously discussed, because the participants believe a main function of the cooperative is to provide as much capital to the membership as possible, it is logical that they perceive the ecological sustainability of the cooperative as partially dependent on financial responsibility. If the cooperative suddenly started using capital for inefficient purposes, not only would the members receive a smaller portion of the capital but basic operating expenses could not be met; and Circle Craft would be economically unsustainable. The fact that the participants do not want the commission ratio to change supports the assertion that the participants believe the cooperative needs to efficiently manage its capital so that the ratio remains the same. The participants also expressed the importance of financial responsibility through statements about opening another store. When asked how she felt about Circle Craft opening a second store, CCMl stated, “I am not sure that is a good idea. . ..I don’t think it would be able to support itself well enough.” Other comments from interviews include: Researcher: If the co-op started to make a profit on their 40% commission, what do you think should happen with that profit? CCM12: Just sit on it until someone gets a decent idea... certainly in this case not start another store. Researcher: You don’t think that starting another store is a good idea? CCM12: Too much, too much, too much, too much. . ..I am a little cautious that way. 90 Another participant said: CCM3: Economically it [opening a second store] would lead to problems. This store is doing very well right now so why not leave it like that? CCM9 succinctly summed up the importance of financial responsibility for ecological sustainability, “Shall we open up another store? You think about it. Can we go on making sure this will help the recognition and development of people’s work? It would be very dicey because we have a very favorite position on Granville Island.” The participants’ belief in the importance of financial responsibility is also evident in the interview with CCM4. This member was concerned that the cooperative’s commission rate was permitting inefficient use of its capital. CCM4 felt that the cooperative wanted to have too much in the way of savings and that the cooperative could in fact be self-sufficient at a ratio of 65/35 instead of the current 60/40. CCM4: The goal [of the cooperative] is to promote craftspeople and they had quite a bit of money in saving. . .terrn deposits and that kind of thing...they have all this money socked away but they wanted to increase that. They wanted more money saved away and I just thought that wasn’t a good enough reason to take an extra 10% or five percent from the craftspeople. . ..When I didn’t have any savings at the time, but my cooperative felt it needed to take more money from me so it could increase its savings. To summarize, the study’s research participants largely associate the cooperative’s ecological sustainability with economics. They perceive adequate profit, adequate growth, dependable and durable economic resources, equitable distribution of capital, and financial responsibility as all being essential to the cooperative’s economic, and therefore ecological, sustainability. 91 Perceptions of Social-C ultural Sustainability As discussed in Chapter One, sustainable development literature states that ecological sustainability is comprised of three interconnected dimensions: environmental, economic, and social-cultural sustainability. This section completes the findings for the first research question with an examination of the participants’ perceptions of social- cultural sustainability. Comparable to sustainable development literature, the participants of this research study, within the dimension of social-cultural sustainability, perceive the characteristics of participation, human dignity, equity, empowerment, and cultural integrity as necessary for ecological sustainability. A characteristic identified in the literature as essential to social-cultural sustainability is meeting of basic needs. Whereas the intent of the Circle Craft is not to provide the members with the resources to meet all of their basic needs, craftspeople join Circle Craft because of the perceived benefits the cooperative has to offer. Therefore, the participants in this study do perceive the cooperative’s sustainability reliant on the degree to which the cooperative is providing members with certain benefits. Additionally, some of the participants identified a couple of other characteristics important to social-cultural sustainability. These characteristics include effective management of the cooperative and balanced human resources within the cooperative. Participation The general feeling among the Board of Directors that participated in the study was that a greater level of participation by the general membership would be helpful. Researcher: Do you feel that there is a good amount of participation by the members in the co-op or does the Board struggle to get people [involved]? CCBMl: The Board really struggles with it. 92 Another board member expressed: Researcher: What kinds of participation from the members would be helpful for the Board? CCBM2: Like any kind of participation? This is something that we’ve addressed as a board. F orrner board members also mentioned their desire for increased member participation. CCM2: When I have been on the Board, one of the things that I wanted to do was to get people to participate more. Although the Board would like to increase participation in decision making and completing tasks, none of the board members participating in this study insisted that high participation was essential for ecological sustainability. CCGM: When you look at the fact that what we really are is a marketing cooperative it [the low participation] seems to be okay.” However, several of the other research participants did comment that the degree of participation by the cooperative members was a hindrance to cooperative ecological sustainability. Researcher: The level of participation in the cooperative from members, do you think that is an issue that might challenge the sustainability? CCM6: Yes. . .there should be some sort of way. . .I don’t know how you would do this but educate individuals, especially coming into the co—op, of — trying to point out the realities of survival in business. CCM7: The only way that it can work is if the people who are members co-operate. If you don’t co-operate it doesn’t work. Other participants, like CCM8 and CCMS, were less convinced that the ecological sustainability of the cooperative depends on high participation levels. Researcher: Do you see [low participation] as being a problem for helping the cooperative to survive? CCM8: I would hope that there would always be a small group that steps up because if too many people are involved it actually gets harder. 93 CCM5: Everybody is kind of letting [the Board] do it and there is a core of people. . .keeping the organization running. Through the Board of Directors, the cooperative’s four standing committees, the annual general meeting, and contributions to the newsletter, Circle Craft provides many opportunities for members to participate in the functioning of the cooperative. As CCM4, “It’s not like I feel like I am not invited to participate or that it’s a closed group or anything. I just don’t have the energy to.” However, there remains a lack of consensus among the research participants as to the relationship between participation levels and the cooperative’s ecological sustainability. Human Dignity Several of the research participants spoke of how strong relationships and good interactions within the cooperative are essential to sustaining the cooperative. CCM8: I think it really, really, really helps to have a. . .corporate culture of respect. . .The culture of respect has to be stated and worked for in the Board. Another participant said: CCM3: It is important that everyone works in harmony. That is very important. According to the present and former board members who participated in this study, the key to maintaining human dignity and respect within Circle Craft has been the implementation of the Carver Model of Board Governance (Carver & Carver, 1997). As evidenced in a comment by CCM8, prior to using the Carver model there was a serious lack of respect within the cooperative, resulting in serious relationship issues and conflict, “There were two leaders fighting, and it was a nightmare. . ..It just ripped the whole thing apart.” A board member research participant stated that implementing the Carver model 94 increased the level of dignity and respect that is important for Circle Craft’s ecological sustainability. CCGM: If anything is holding us together or has held us together for the last few years it is this Carver method. I think that having that kind of a structure where everyone knows their roles and responsibilities has been very good. . ..This [Carver] system really helps sustainability because before we had a Board that was really divided....The Board should be one and that really helps a ton. Equity One of the principles of the cooperative movement that sets it apart from mainstream businesses is that all members of a cooperative are equal. Everyone has a vote in elections and referenda, and ideally, all members are treated equally. Among the participants in this study there was a general feeling that the concept of equality is important to Circle Craft’s sustainability, “This is a cooperative. It’s a democratic group. . .not one member is more equal than any other” (CCBM2). The participants’ belief in the importance of equality is evident in a variety of different comments, including what was said about remaining fair during the selection process, Researcher: Do you try to have a balance of say ceramics and jewelry? CCGM: No, we don’t jury like that. We just strictly. . .we look at the product and the merits of the piece itself and that’s it. . .don’t worry about it competing against your own products. how cooperative meetings are conducted, CCBM2: When I am chairing meetings, I’m very conscious of making sure that everybody has been heard. . ..I take that responsibility quite seriously. where products are placed in the store, CCM10: I think they could change the work around more, in terms of where it goes. I think they tend to have the same people’s work in the best positions. . .so I don’t think it is actually equitable in this way. 95 and other cooperative policies. CCM4: There were some members that. . .they want to rejury people, and I wasn’t keen on that. . ..I think as long as the quality of the new work is really high and eventually those old craftspeople will fade away, and there didn’t seem to be a need to book them out, when they were the ones that founded the whole thing. Empowerment Although empowerment was not a characteristic of ecological sustainability that the majority of the research participants mentioned, several participants did believe empowerment was important to the cooperative’s sustainability. One such participant was CCBM3 who realized how critical leadership is for the cooperative and spoke of how CCGM and many of the cooperative’s more active members are nearing retirement. Therefore, according to CCBM3, the sustainability of the cooperative means there is a, “need for Circle Craft to mentor younger members to take over leadership positions.” CCBM3 understands the importance of empowering the younger cooperative members so cooperative leadership will remain strong and sustainable. The Board’s recognition of the importance of mentoring is evident in the minutes from the January 9, 2002 board meeting which states that a goal for the cooperative should be mentoring and serving as an educator for craftspeople (Circle Craft Cooperative, January 2002). Another member, CCM6, saw the importance of empowerment not only for the benefit of the cooperative but in more general terms of other craftspeople. For CCM6, if expansion is not economically sustainable for Circle Craft and if potential craftspeople are being turned away because space in the store is limited then, “Instead of making people feel mad. . .because everyone feels that they have a good product. . .and it is not nice to be rejected. . .we should nurture. It would be much better to get a group of people 96 that we couldn’t absorb at the present time and get them going themselves.” According to CCM6, instead of accepting new craftspeople into the cooperative Circle Craft could empower these people to set-up other craft cooperatives. Cultural Integrity One of the characteristics of social-cultural sustainability identified by sustainable development literature as important to social-cultural sustainability is cultural integrity, and the research participants also indicated that the cultural integrity of Circle Craft is important to its overall sustainability. Circle Craft is unique in the business world not only because it is a cooperative but also because it sells handmade, British Columbian crafts. The research participants believe that the fact that all the products sold in the store are handmade by artisans is central to the cooperative’s culture and identity and maintaining the standards of handmade crafts essential to the cooperative’s ecological sustainability. Several of the participants spoke very strongly about maintaining the unique culture of Circle Craft; CCM5: I want the coop to remain artisans’ marketing. That’s the only thing that sets us off from all the other people that are trying to sell stuff out there. It really is our identity. It is our true identity. If it stops being that, that would be the end of it — it wouldn’t be any different from Eatons of The Bay or any other store. and similar comments from the November 1992 newsletter: It was felt we need to promote a much stronger sense that Circle Craft is a unique retail concept — an artistic cooperation - rather than a typical retail operation (Circle Craft Cooperative, November 1992, p. 4). Sufficient Benefits For the most part, the participants in this study believe Circle Craft exists to provide the members with certain benefits. If the members perceive a lack of benefits, 97 they will not remain members of the cooperative; and without members, Circle Craft would not be ecologically sustainable. As CCM5 stated, “as soon as it doesn’t meet our expectations we will do something else.” As previously stated, Circle Craft’s mission statement is to, “promote the development, recognition and success of members and their work” (Circle Craft Cooperative, 2001). As participants like CCBMl, CCBM2, CCMl, and CCM5 commented repeatedly, craftspeople join the cooperative to gain exposure and to sell their products. CCBMl: I joined the co-op to sell my work. CCBM2: In a lot of ways Circle Craft is simply a vehicle for members to sell. CCM]: I think people use Circle Craft. . .as kind of an exposure. CCM5: That is why everyone joins, so they can put their stuff in the store. The membership survey completed by the cooperative in 1995 also shows that the primary reason people joined Circle Craft was to gain access to the store. Therefore, if Circle Craft is to remain viable, it must continue to excel at providing the membership with the benefits of sales and exposure. As soon as the cooperative fails to provide these benefits, members will decide to sell elsewhere and Circle Craft will be unsustainable. The interview with CCGM revealed a second benefit that the cooperative currently provides - providing educational opportunities through a grant program that allows the members to take courses and workshops to further their skills. Practically all of the research participants spoke of the value of the program and believe it is important to Circle Craft. 98 CCM8: Well, we have that scholarship. . .we make available money for people to upgrade themselves and I think that is a very good idea. However, it remains unclear if the members believe the scholarship program is essential to the sustainability of the cooperative. Effective Management The majority of the participants in the study perceive management of the c00perative as an important factor in ecological sustainability. “Organization has to be good” (CCBM4). A few of the important management issues mentioned by the participants include the decision making process, conflict management, and a willingness to change and ability to adapt. In terms of decision making, several of the participants stated that they felt it was important for a small number of people to be making most of the decisions. Although the participants wanted the opportunity to offer opinions and suggestions, they believe the final decisions should not be made by the entire cooperative but, instead, by the elected board. CCM3: Everyone has a different opinion and you never come to a decision. . .if every member has a say you never come to a conclusion at the end. . .if they decide to have major changes with anything at Circle Craft, they send you a letter and ask for your opinion and we have an input. . .and you are able to give your opinion which is also nice. Another participant made similar comments: CCM4: It’s hard to run a really big organization like that with tons of members as a true cooperative. . ..If you have ten people then you can run it as a true c00perative where everyone sort of participates or whatever. Once you get beyond those kinds of numbers where people are not even living in the same city, it is hard to have tons and tons of input and to make every decision jointly. 99 The research participants frequently spoke of how conflict has to be effectively managed within the cooperative if it is to remain ecologically unsustainable. CCM9: You have to be aware of the people working in it, so that they work with understanding each other. And you resolve conflicts within your staff, you know, as gently and as firmly as you can. Several of the participants, as well as board meeting minutes and newsletters from the early 19903 chronicled a period of intense conflict within the cooperative. At the time there were two executive directors and a divided Board of Directors. CCBM2 describes the period: CCBM2: Not having a governing board created the opportunity for a lot of people to vent personal feelings — about how things were run — and it created a lot of opportunity for badly run meetings, bad feelings, shouting matches. I’ve heard horror stories about how it used to be.” Once again, research participants attribute resolution of the conflict of the early 19903 and a fairly conflict free period since, to implementation of the Carver model. “This [Carver] system really helps sustainability” (CCGM). Some of the research participants also identified willingness to change as important to the cooperative’s ecological sustainability, “I think there needs to be a continual striving for change” (CCBM2). Similarly, other participants spoke of an ability to adapt as essential, “Any organization if it is to survive has to be adaptable,” (CCM6). Other related comments made by CCM2 and CCM9 include: CCM2: Part of making it sustainable is the capacity to change. CCM9: It is important not to get stuck on success. Don’t think we are there because we are never there. Thus, a component of effective management is the capacity for adaptation to change. 100 Balanced Human Resources Another important characteristic of sustainability, as identified by the research participants is who makes up the cooperative’s members and the leadership. According to the participants there is a need for the right mix of knowledge, abilities, experience, and energy within the cooperative among the staff, the Board of Directors, and the membership. Many of the research participants spoke of how important the store staff is to the overall sustainability of the cooperative. Enthusiasm, product knowledge, friendliness, and helpfulness were just a few of the characteristics participants identified as important for staff. CCBM3: We have a great group of people, sales people. . .the people who work in the store are all enthusiastic, educated. . .I have watched them work when people come in, and they’re very helpful. They just take that extra time and our sales show it. Another participant said: CCM3: The staff, I think they have to be fiiendly. . .they have to be nice to the customers so the customer likes to come back. I feel that is very important. Just as important, according to the participants, to Circle Craft’s ecological sustainability is the make-up of the Board of Directors. Several of the participants spoke of the importance of having people on the board with strong financial skills and business knowledge. As CCGM said, “Of all the problems, probably one of the strongest is that craftspeople don’t have a clue about business,” so it is important for Circle Craft to continue to recruit noncraft board members. CCM2: We like to have some non-craftspeople on the Board. It is nice to have a lawyer, it is nice to have an accountant, it is nice to have 101 someone from the business community. . .some people who can give us different perspectives. Some participants spoke of the value in keeping a good balance between craftspeople and business people and ensuring that some members are full-time craftspeople, “To have board members who are actually working artists, I think is a definite plus” (CCBM3). Another participant spoke of the necessity of keeping the board young and another spoke of the need to continually regenerate the board with new members. All of the research participants identified the cooperative’s executive director, CCGM, as a major reason the store has survived for thirty years. As CCM5 said, “Without CCGM I think it would be hard to keep the business working, going at the same state.” The participants see the position of executive director as key to ecological sustainability, “Management is really important, who they have running the place” (CCMlO). “He has to be a very strong, charismatic, central authority” (CCM5). Finally, the participants also recognized the central role that the members play in sustaining the cooperative. Researcher: What characteristics need to be present in order for Circle Craft to sustain? CCBM4: They have to have good members. Because the Circle Craft is member driven, participants spoke of the need for members who are dedicated, knowledgeable, talented, and willing to try new designs and take risks. Researcher: What characteristics do you think are needed in an organization like Circle Craft to sustain and be viable over a long period of time? CCM8: Commitment of people. . .really hard working, dedicated people, who are very good people. CCBM2 also spoke of the importance of rejuvenation of the membership. 102 Researcher: What do you think are the key characteristics that need to be present in order for Circle Craft to be viable and sustainable for a long period of time? CCBM2: The ability to rejuvenate — in this case the membership. . ..There has to be continual flux. To summarize, the research participants recognized the importance of a number of characteristics of social-cultural sustainability to the cooperative’s ecological sustainability. The characteristics that the participants identified as important and essential to the cooperative’s ecological sustainability include participation, human dignity, equity, empowerment, cultural integrity, sufficient benefits, effective management, and balanced human resources. In conclusion to the first research question, although this study assigns distinct characteristics to each of the dimensions, it is important to note that interaction between the dimensions is inevitable. Due to the interrelated nature of sustainable development it is not always possible to place tightly defined boundaries around the dimensions and their characteristics. For example, although this study assigned the characteristic of effective management to the dimension of social-cultural sustainability, there are elements of the characteristic, such as strong financial management, that are important for the cooperative’s economic sustainability. Therefore, while recognizing that interactions between the dimensions are inevitable, each characteristic was assigned to the dimension that it represented to the greatest degree. 103 Research Question Two: Goals for Ecological Sustainability What goals, if any, does Circle Craft have with respect to ecological sustainability is this study’s second research question. Through interviewing the research participants and reviewing cooperative documents, it is clear that the cooperative has definite goals for ecological sustainability. This section of the chapter outlines those goals. Some of the cooperative’s goals for ecological sustainability were explicitly stated by the research participants in conversations about cooperative goals or are recorded as explicit goals in cooperative documents. Other sustainability goals, articulated through more general comments by the research participants or in reviewed documents, are more implicit in nature. This section begins with an overview of all of Circle Craft’s explicitly stated goals and then, in relation to the three dimensions of ecological sustainability, more closely analyzes both explicitly and implicitly stated goals. Explicitly Stated Cooperative Goals The primary goal of Circle Craft, as formally stated in its mission statement, is to promote the work of British Columbian craftspeople. A majority of the research participants were both aware of and able to articulate this mission. However, further cooperative goals, both short and long term, were more difficult to determine. For the most part, besides the mission statement, nonboard member participants could not state other goals of the cooperative; and questions to the board members about Circle Craft’s goals received vague and non-concrete responses. Researcher: Does the Board set goals for the co-op to meet in the next year or in the next couple of years? CCBMl: I don’t think there are goals set up. What they are trying to do is function as a co-op and trying to survive. 104 Researcher: CCBM3: Researcher: CCBM4: Does the Board have. . .long-tenn goals in mind for the cooperative? I’m sure they do, and I’ve got them written down somewhere. Off the top of my head. . .I’d have to look at our vision statement. I mean there’s tons of, I mean our vision statement now is definitely marketing. What would you say are the goals that the Board is working towards right now? Branding. I think that is something that we have discussed recently. So that association with Circle Craft as a name and excellence and quality is an understood or a given. Only CCBM2 provided clearly expressed cooperative goals, Researcher: CCBM2: Does the Board have short term and long term goals that you are working towards? We are working on articulating those. . .we have a yearly retreat and this past one we did a lot of Visioning and trying to articulate exactly what our goals are, long term goals especially, and it involves branding Circle Craft, creating more awareness in our domestic market. . ..In the past our short term goals have kind of always been the same, which is to increase sales, make the store look nice, keep the members happy. . .keep down the complaints. In cooperative documents it was also difficult to identify explicitly stated goals. The May 1994 newsletter records that in addition to the cooperative’s mission statement, the Board of Directors also agreed on six lower level mission statements, “which more closely define the specific details, philosophies, and operations of our Co-op,” and for the purpose of this study are interpreted as goals. The statements are: 1. To provide services in an open and friendly atmosphere equally to all members. 2. To provide sales services at the minimum cost to members that are consistent with generally accepted, prudent business practices. 3. To finance non-sales services through dues, fees, and profits. 4. To be an equal opportunity employer. 105 5. To be an environmentally sensitive organization. 6. To treat the public in a service oriented, friendly way (Circle Craft Cooperative, May 1994, p. 1) Despite the publishing of these goals in a newsletter, the statements are not included on Circle Craft’s website, were not referred to by any of the research participants, and are not specifically referenced in any other reviewed documents. Minutes from the November 2, 1998 board meeting is the only other reviewed document that contains explicitly stated goals. This board meeting confirmed that the primary goal of the cooperative is to enable members to sell their craft; and at the meeting the Board decided to adopt three further goals: to maintain sales and membership growth consistent with available resources, to educate members in craft and in running their business, and to broaden sales opportunities for their members (Circle Craft Cooperative, November 1998). This section provided an overview of all of the explicitly stated goals for Circle Craft, whether or not they related to ecological sustainability. The following sections explore the explicit goals that relate to environmental, economic, and social-cultural sustainability, as well as the implicit goals identified through the research study. Environmental Sustainability Goals As an organization, Circle Craft has a few loosely-defined goals concerning environmental sustainability. The newsletter from May 1994 states that the cooperative will attempt “to be an environmentally sensitive organization” (Circle Craft Cooperative, p. 1), and in her interview, CCM8 acknowledged that the cooperative store tries to conserve resources where possible. 106 Researcher: Does the store recycle? CCM8: Yes, as much as possible. And they try to run as efficiently [as possible]. Because it is a rented space, I don’t think we have any control over that. ...There is a general policy to run the co-op as environmentally friendly as possible — to recycle, to not waste. However, most of the research participants were unaware of the cooperative’s goal to be environmentally sensitive; Researcher: Does the cooperative have any goals or priorities related to environmental issues? CCM2: I don’t think so — not at all. and reviews of cooperative newsletters from October 1991 to October 2002 and board meeting minutes from March 1996 to October 2002, did not reveal any further formal environmental policies, goals, or discussions. A few of the research participants, such as CCM6 and CCM5, did think the cooperative, as a whole, should take a more aggressive stance in setting environmental goals and in encouraging environmental sustainability within the membership. CCM6: I think the co-op as a group should be very conscious of the environment. . .I am not sure what our Constitution is, but I think it should be written in somewhere. CCM5: I would like to see [the Board of Directors] stimulate thinking about our environmental role. However, for the most part there was a lack of interest in establishing formal environmental sustainability goals for the cooperative or in using the cooperative as a vehicle for environmental education among cooperative members. Researcher: Is that a role the co-op board should play - in making people more aware of what the impact their production is having? CCM8: I don’t know if I think it is a very large priority. Because that’s not the point. Researcher: Of the co-Op? CCM8: Yeah. 107 Researcher: 80. . .that’s not the purpose of the co-op — is to increase their awareness? CCM8: No, no. As CCBMl put it, “I think it is more about selling, about getting artists out there,” and, therefore, for the most part environmental goals, for the cooperative, are not a priority or deemed necessary. As discussed in regards to the first research question, at the individual level, many of the research participants are environmentally conscious; and many of the interviewed members attempt to be environmentally responsible in their production. Comments by members such as CCM5, CCM7, and CCM8 imply that, while Circle Craft has limited environmental goals, some of the members have individual goals for the environmental sustainability of their production. CCM5 spoke at length about environmental issues in his interview and one of the concerns that he had was that he buys many manufactured components to add to his wooden handicrafts. For example, he will buy the magnifying portion of a magnifying glass and then add a wooden handle that he has turned. CCMS’s concern is: CCM5: Almost all of [the manufactured parts] come from Taiwan. . .there are row upon row of factories cranking out this kind of stuff. . .with the waste water from the brass foundry running right into the ditch and probably somebody is ladling it out some place downstream and putting it on their garden and cooking dinner with it. . ..So I am trying to phase out of [the manufactured parts]. . .and invest more of my energy into using the local waste material and making something really worthwhile. Similar comments by CCM7 and CCM8 were: CCM7: Everything that we use is recycled. . ..I do my stuff in minimalist packaging. 108 CCM8: I try and be a local artist because what is the point of being an environmentalist if you are going to have your stuff flown all over the place. From the above and other similar comments, it is clear that at least a portion of the membership aims to lower the enviromnental impact of their production. While the cooperative does have an explicit goal in regards to environmental sustainability, this study shows that it is a goal with low priority within the cooperative. More important and obvious within the membership are the implicit environmental goals that members have individually set for the production of their handicrafts. Economic Sustainability Goals Although maximizing profit is a goal in typical mainstream businesses, Circle Craft does not have this as a major objective. Minutes from the May 3, 1999 board meeting support this claim. At the time, Circle Craft had hired a company to complete a report on the feasibility of opening a second store in another. location. As quoted in the minutes, “The Board agreed that the [feasibility] reports were profit driven, which is not Circle Craft’s primary goal. Circle Craft is more than just a retail store” (Circle Craft Cooperative, May 3, 1999, p. 2). A comment in the January 1999 newsletter succinctly summarized the cooperative’s purpose, “We can certainly aim for profitability but the Co-op was never meant to make money at the expense of the membership” (Circle Craft Cooperative, January 1999, p. 2). Instead, Circle Craft is member-owned and, therefore, one of Circle Craft’s primary goals and its fundamental reason for existence is to provide profit and markets for as many craftspeople as possible, through the selling of handicrafts. 109 Stemming from Circle Craft’s overarching goal of providing craftspeople with a market from which to sell, the goals of not only maintaining but increasing both sales and improving marketing for the cooperative are explicit goals that relate to economic sustainability. Through the interviews, research participants expressed support for the goals of increasing sales and marketing. Another explicit goal of the cooperative is to provide services at minimal costs to members, and the participants implicitly stated a similar goal — to maintain the current commission ratio. A final economic sustainability goal, more implicitly stated in both cooperative documents and by the research participants, is to operate the cooperative self-sufficiently, without reliance on profits from the annual Christmas market. In creasing Sales There is both explicit and implicit support for the first goal of increasing sales. As discussed in the section on the cooperative’s explicit goals, minutes from the November 2, 1998 board meeting record that the cooperative has a goal to broaden sales opportunities for the membership and as CCBM2 said, “Our short-term goals have kind of always been the same, which is to increase sales.” In order to attain the goal of increasing sales, the research participants spoke of two related but more implicit goals: having the right balance of products in the store and finding a solution to the cooperative’s lack of physical space. Balancing products in the store. Because the cooperative relies on the sale of handicraft products to stay in operation, it is logical that the type of products in the store has the potential to make or break the entire cooperative. For the same reason, it is also natural that the membership has strong opinions about the types of products the store 110 should aim to sell. Circle Craft members participating in this study identified three major factors important to consider in regard to balancing the products. First, the research participants generally believed that the store needs, “to have a huge range of products, from low—end to high-end” (CCBM3). In addition to the high-end, artistic products that the store carries, there is also a need to carry products that are affordable by average consumers. CCM12: If you have hi gh-end all over the store then the people with five dollars will quit coming into the store. . ..You have to have some items that are reachable financially at all times. As CCM8 said: CCM8: It is always a balance. The more beautiful stuff is just hard to sell because not many people have $600.. .balancing of the really beautiful stuff to look at with the stuff people can afford. In his interview, CCGM said that the majority of Circle Craft’s sales are items that are priced at or below $50. Therefore, although the cooperative wants to promote the best in British Columbian craft, with the goal of increasing sales, it is essential that the cooperative keeps less expensive items in the store. The second product-related factor connected to the goal of increasing sales is maintaining the high quality of handicrafts sold by the cooperative. Consumers connect Circle Craft with high quality craft and if the products in the store do not meet quality expectations then not only will sales not increase, in all likelihood they will decrease. CCBM2: High quality crafts are extremely important to the co-op. CCM7: Another thing that I think is really important is really top quality standards. . .people go into Circle Craft and expect a certain standard and they don’t let up on the standards. CCBM2 also spoke of striving to improve quality: 111 CCBM2: Our continual improvement in terms of quality in what we’re offering is very important. Some of the research participants addressed the need not only to maintain the quality of the new products, but also to ensure the current members’ products are meeting quality standards. Researcher: What kind of things is Circle Craft doing towards branding? CCBM4: I think monitoring the work of the co-op members on sort of an ongoing, casual basis to make sure the standards are kept up with what they originally submitted. One member wrote similar comments in a newsletter: As a member of the co-op I feel that Circle Craft should be representing what is excellent in today’s British Columbian craft. . .there is some work represented that is frankly dated and of questionable workmanship. How can a person wanting to join the co-op understand the rejection when work like this is in the shop?...I believe it is time for Circle Craft to consider introducing some kind of a review process for work that is in the shop (Circle Craft Cooperative, January 1995, p. 3- 4). From the above discussions and quotations, it is clear that maintaining quality handicrafts in the store is important to at least some of the cooperative membership. Finally, the third product-related factor that research participants feel is necessary in order to achieve the goal of increasing sales is ensuring that Circle Craft’s handicrafts remain unique and interesting. Members such as CCBM2 and CCM3 see Circle Craft’s achievements and the kinds of products the cooperative sells as closely related: CCBM2: I think we’re successful because we have a really interesting product. . .people want new and exciting and different things. . ..The concern is, as I said, keeping those things interesting. Keeping the product in the store interesting. CCM3: Not every store canies just handmade, all made by craftspeople in British Columbia. . .I think that is mainly their strength, to sell very special, unique gift items. 112 In summary, maintaining unique, high quality products with a range of price points are all product-related factors important to achieving the goal of increasing cooperative sales. Finding a solution to physical space limitations. The second goal stemming from the goal of increasing sales is dealing with the cooperative’s physical space concerns. Research participants, like CCBM3 and CCGM, recognize that if Circle Craft is to increase sales, they need a solution for the current space limitations facing the store. CCBM3: I think we are at a real turning point where we’re having problems with space. We do not have enough space, which I think is really crucial to selling, in order to have really good sales. CCGM: We are running out of space. We are physically done in there. Without cutting back on various individual displays we haven’t got a lot of room. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the membership is currently divided on the solution to the space limitations. In the late 19903, newsletters and meeting minutes show that a large portion of Circle Craft’s membership wanted a second store. A membership survey completed by 68 of the members in the summer of 1998 determined that 76% thought opening another store was a good idea. This, however, was before the Board completed a feasibility study and concluded that, with current sales, a second store would be unsustainable. Currently, whereas some of the members still express interest in opening a second location, the majority of the members participating in this study are against this type of expansion (see earlier excerpts) and prefer the cooperative exploring other options. It is an issue that the cooperative continues to struggle with and that no one has an answer to yet, “That is a problem that we have to handle — how do we expand?” (CCM9). In 2001 the cooperative launched the Circle Craft website. According to CCGM, the goal is to use 113 the website as a virtual store and the hope is that as more products sell through the website, space constraints in the store will lessen. However, the cooperative understands that the website will not completely solve their space limitations and that they must continue to explore other possibilities. Marketing Marketing of Circle Craft is the second explicitly stated goal that relates to economic sustainability. According to CCGM, the cooperative currently does very little in the way of marketing, and because of Circle Craft’s favorable location on Granville Island, the cooperative has survived. However, as the section on Circle Craft’s explicit goals revealed, the Board has recently set goals to increase marketing for the cooperative. CCBM2: Perhaps focusing a little more on marketing whereas we really haven’t done a lot of that in the past. A few of the research participants also spoke of the need to increase marketing for the cooperative. CCM10: Now they do certain marketing, I am not saying they don’t do stuff. . .I am just saying that it needs to be more active. When CCM7 was asked what he felt a major challenge that the cooperative needed to overcome in order to survive the next thirty years he replied, “Marketing. If they don’t grow they will disappear so marketing is one of the biggest things.” A comment from a newsletter by a Circle Craft member indicates that other members within the cooperative feel similarly concerning the need for marketing: It has been over two years since I first suggested. . .that we be much more active and organized in bringing clients into the shop, and that we use some of Circle Craft’s bank account to seek professional expertise in formulating a marketing plan (Circle Craft Cooperative, January 1995, p. 3). 114 It can be concluded, through analysis of both explicitly and implicitly stated goals, that Circle Craft believes improving the cooperative’s marketing is important to overall economic sustainability. Maintenance of Current Commission Ratio As previously reported, in May 1994 the Circle Craft’s Board of Directors set a goal to provide services to the members at minimal cost. Research participants identified a similar goal: to keep the cooperative’s commission at the current level or lower. For a number of years, the cooperative retained 35% of all sales, giving 65% back to the members. However, this distribution, while favorable for the members, did not leave the cooperative with enough capital to be sustainable and cover operating expenses. CCGM: At 35% you just couldn’t make it. Even if you had a really good year you would just break even. According to meeting minutes, at the 1999 annual general meeting the membership narrowly passed a motion to raise the cooperative’s commission to 40%. The cooperative implemented the change in commission structure in June 1999. The change in the commission rate from 35% to 40% met considerable opposition from the general membership, as evidenced in letters published in newsletters during the early part of 1999. Sample comments from the membership include: o I believe maintaining a lower rate of commission is essential. It is why craft cooperatives are formed and distinguishes them from conventional retail outlets (Circle Craft Cooperative, January 1999, p. 1). 0 What I am against is increasing the consignment fees as the main response to an operational shortfall. . .Raising the commission rates should be last on a list of remedial action, not first (Circle Craft Cooperative, January 1999,p.3) 115 Several years after the commission change, the members who participated in this research study, for the most part, have accepted the new commission ratio as being a business reality. CCM10: I do think that expenses are high. It isn’t that they are just working for you. They are keeping the doors open and that costs money so I think 60/40 is fine. CCM4 was the only participant who stated she was still unhappy with the change. CCM4: They changed the [commission] rate. . .it is 60/40 which is basically the same as just about any other consignment place that I deal with. . ..It’s no better than any other consignment outlet. . ..I just felt like they felt they needed to keep more of the sales money in the cooperative instead of giving it directly to the craftspeople. Despite differing opinions about the current commission ratio, there is definite agreement among the research participants that they do not want the cooperative’s commission raised further. CCM]: I don’t think it should be any more...if [Circle Craft] wants to take more then 40%...people will not be able to make enough to sustain. Comments from another interview supports this: Researcher: Do you think the 60/40 ratio is a fair, good ratio? CCM3: I think it is the limit. . ..It is just right. Therefore, the conclusion is that the cooperative’s explicit goal of providing services to members at a minimal cost is similar to the research participants’ implicit goal of keeping the pay structure at the current 60/40 ratio. Self-Sufficiency of the Store The final economic sustainability goal, self-sufficiency of the store, is more implicit then the previous three goals. Whereas a newsletter states, “Circle Craft has a policy that the store should be self sufficient and that it should be able to run without help 116 from the Christmas Market” (Circle Craft Cooperative, March 1999, p. 4), the research participants or the reviewed documents never formally state self-sufficiency as a goal for the cooperative. Comments made by several research participants demonstrate that there is support within the membership for this goal. CCM2: It is important for the co-op to keep going but it is also important for each of its functions to sort of pay for themselves. Another participant stated: CCM7: The shop should sustain itself or it shouldn’t be there. Comments from other cooperative members also show support for the goal of self- sufficiency for the store: I believe that the store should cover its costs. . ..No matter what quandary exists around our long-term goals, we are mostly in agreement that the current store not lose money (Circle Craft Cooperative, January 1999, p. 3). To take from one part of the business to make another look good is not in the best interest of any business (Circle Craft Cooperative, March 1999, p. 3). On an annual basis, the cooperative does not typically attain the goal of self- sufficiency. In fact, the report from the 2000 annual general meeting states that 1999 was the only year that profits from the Christmas market were not required to sustain the store. However, self-sufficiency of the store remains an implicit goal within the cooperative that many of the research participants support. The cooperative’s explicit goals that relate to economic sustainability include increasing sales, increasing marketing, and providing services to members at minimal costs. The research participants and cooperative documents support the goals of 117 increasing sales and marketing but also show there are additional implicit goals, namely maintaining the current commission ratio and having the store operate self-sufficiently. Social-Cultural Sustainability Goals Several of the cooperative’s explicitly stated goals directly relate to issues of social-cultural sustainability. Two of the cooperative’s lower-level mission statements, to provide services equally to all members and to be an equal opportunity employer are related to equity, one of the identified characteristics of social-cultural sustainability. A third lower-level mission statement, to treat the public in a service-oriented and friendly way is also part of social-cultural sustainability. The implicit goals that the research participants have for the social-cultural sustainability of Circle Craft are also directly related to their perceptions of what constitutes social-cultural sustainability. Whereas goals are not evident for all the identified characteristics of social-cultural sustainability, the research participants did identify goals for the characteristics of participation, sufficient benefits, the balancing of human resources, and the cooperative’s cultural integrity. In creasing Participation As discussed in the context of the cooperative’s perceptions of social-cultural sustainability, none of the research participants believed that high participation by the member in the cooperative was essential for Circle Craft’s ecological sustainability. However, several participants spoke of the benefits of increased participation. As a result of these benefits, while there are no explicit goals for participation, a few of the research participants, like CCBM2, implicitly stated that they have a goal of increasing member participation and eliminating the reliance on a core group of members. 118 CCBM2: I would like to see a lot more participation. In addition to increasing participation within the cooperative’s current opportunities, several board members and some participants from the general membership also spoke of working on creating new opportunities for participation. CCM]: They could offer workshops in different disciplines. CCM10: They could have some things happening where people get together. CCBM2: What I would love to see is members giving workshops to each other, say a marketing workshop. The participants also recognize that due to the fact that many of the cooperative’s members live in remote areas of British Columbia, it is difficult for these members to participate and feel part of the cooperative community. Therefore, several of the participants mentioned that they would like the cooperative to focus on finding ways to allow members who live outside of the Vancouver area to participate in the firnctioning of the cooperative. CCM2: A lot of the co-op members are in quite isolated part of BC. so while it’s not that difficult to get the people who are in Vancouver to do something but to extend that same level of participation to the people of the Gulf Island or the Interiors and other parts is quite difficult and I think that is one of the on-going challenges and I think the Board has to keep poking away at those things. Maintaining Benefits The cooperative does not have a goal of producing large enough sales for any craftspeople to fully support themselves on profits from Circle Craft. Instead, the mission statement of the cooperative, an explicit goal, supports the claim that Circle Craft’s primary purpose is providing exposure for a large number of craftspeople. This goal of 119 continuing to provide members with the benefits of markets and exposure also has support among research participants like CCM5, CCM5: I want the co-op to remain artisans’ marketing. And CCM9, CCM9: The co-operative is there to help [the craftspeople] develop their work and help them to be recognized. . .and help them to sell their work. A second benefit that the co-operative wants to provide for the membership is education and training opportunities. This is explicitly stated in the November 2, 1998 board minutes where it reads that the cooperative has a goal of educating members in their crafts and in running their businesses. In addition, a significant portion of the research participants also spoke of wanting the cooperative to continue to provide the benefits of education and training. CCM7: The scholarship program is very good. A few of the research participants also wanted to increase the educational opportunities that the cooperative offers: CCM6: I think that if we have surplus funds. . .these should be used to educate members into the realities of running a larger business, which is the co-op and also. . .making your business sustainable and utilizing the co-op for this. Another participant said: Researcher: Do you feel there are any services that the co-op could provide for members that would be helpful that they are not providing? CCM10: I’m not sure what educational things they are doing. I don’t recall any workshops. . ..I think lectures can be really great. I think that accompanying the exhibits they could have that person come in and do a talk. 120 Maintaining Excellence in Human Resources The research participants identified that who makes up the co-operative membership is important for the co-operative’s social-cultural sustainability. For the cooperative to thrive, the membership must consist of talented craftspeople producing hi gh-quality handicrafts. As a direct result, the participants stated that the process of selecting new members for the cooperative must remain very scrupulous and they want to maintain the high standards set for the selection process. CCBM2: Excellence is a value and that’s what we strive to achieve. . .not the least of which is how we select new members. It is not just, “Here, fill out this form.” There is a very, very rigorous jurying process because the issue of excellence and high quality crafts is extremely important to the coop, and we have a reputation to maintain. As CCM7 and CCM9 stated, CCM7: In order for Circle Craft to be successful they have to be selective. CCM9: It is very important how you select. Maintaining Cultural Integrity A current debate within the cooperative, is how much of a product can be made from mass-produced manufactured parts before the product is no longer considered handmade. When this debate is dissected it essentially is about maintaining the cultural integrity of the co-operative. As CCM7 acknowledged, “[Circle Craft] will have to set down some guidelines as to what is permissible.” The goal of setting guidelines was put before the membership in the Fall 2002 newsletter: Over the years, the nature of the craft business has been changing. The lines between handmade/one-of-a—kind items and manufactured items are blurring. I’d like to review this issue amongst the Board of Directors of Circle Craft, the membership, and other interested people. Is it possible to have clear guidelines that everyone can live with? 121 Several of the participants, such as CCBM4 and CCM2, admitted that establishing such guidelines is a difficult and complicated process: CCBM4: It is really difficult to pin down [guidelines] because everyone’s product is different and personal opinions enter as far as where do you draw the line. CCM2: Glass is one of the main things where people will have employees and so okay, you have an employee but you are still involved, are you still a craftsman. . .do you belong in the co-op? And then of course if it is taken a step beyond that — okay well so you designed it and then farmed it out to somebody in China, does that belong? And with fabric artists. . .how much of it do you have to do? Do you have to raise the sheep...where ever you draw that line there is going to be someone that is upset. However, for the most part, the research participants believed establishing guidelines were important to ensuring Circle Craft continues to fill their unique niche and an issue which the cooperative must tackle. The interviews with the research participants also revealed a second goal that the cooperative has in relation to cultural integrity. The Pacific West Coast of Canada has a vibrant Native Canadian culture which includes a rich tradition in the arts and handicrafts. According to an interview with CCM8 (a member of the Selections Committee), the cooperative has a policy to not accept any Native Canadian handicrafts. The cooperative is concerned that cultural symbols may be misused or taken out of context, and so out of respect for the culture of the Pacific Coast Natives, the cooperative does not carry any Native inspired products in the store. To conclude, the cooperative has both explicit and implicit goals for social- cultural sustainability. Explicitly the cooperative has social-cultural sustainability goals relating to issues of equality and customer service. In terms of implicit goals, the research participants have goals for increasing member participation, maintaining benefits the 122 cooperative provides to members, keeping a rigorous selection process, and ensuring the cooperative’s cultural integrity. Research Question Three: Indicators of Ecological Sustainability The last research question that this research study set out to answer was to determine what indicators would appropriately assess Circle Craft’s ecological sustainability. Therefore, this last section of the chapter outlines the indicators, revealed through the research process, that are relevant to assessing Circle Craft’s sustainability. The section begins with an examination of the Circle Craft ecosystem and then continues by outlining and explaining the indicators for each dimension of sustainability. Analysis of Circle C raft Ecosystem In order to design indicators of sustainability that are relevant for Circle Craft and their perception of ecological sustainability, it is essential to have a thorough understanding of the functioning of Circle Craft’s ecosystem. As explained in Chapter One, an ecosystem consists of the interactions that occur within the human unit of analysis (Circle Crafi) and interactions between the human unit of analysis and three types of environments: human built (HBE), social-cultural (SCE), and the natural- physical-biological (NPBE). Without insight into the existing interactions both within the cooperative and between the cooperative and its environments, it is impossible to design indicators appropriate to Circle Craft. Therefore, before describing the indicators of Circle Craft’s ecological sustainability, further analysis of the cooperative’s ecosystem is necessary. Both the section introducing Circle Craft and the results for the first two research questions thoroughly outline the interactions within the cooperative. For 123 example, the descriptions of the functioning of the c00perative’s Board of Directors, the standing committees, and how the cooperative utilizes the Carver Model of Board Governance explains the cooperative’s decision making process. However, at first glance, the interactions between the cooperative and the HBE, SCE, and NPBE may be more difficult to decipher so these cooperative — environment interactions are detailed. Cooperative and NPBE Interactions As reviewed in the first and second research questions, on an individual basis, many cooperative members are concerned about the impact their production has on the NPBE. These members also understand that their personal interactions with the NPBE, such as the amount of resources their production consumes or the types of waste products they produce, are important to ecological sustainability in general. However, the results also demonstrate that, for the most part, the membership does not believe the ecological sustainability of their own production related to the ecological sustainability of the cooperative. Despite the fact that the members are interacting with the NPBE through, for example, the raw materials they use for production or the toxic chemicals that are disposed of, there is a lack of understanding that these interactions are also part of Circle Craft’s ecosystem. Circle Craft also directly interacts with the NPBE in a variety of ways, for example, through lighting, heating, and cooling of the Circle Craft store it consumes natural resources. The cooperative also produces waste materials such as paper and broken products as part of operating the cooperative offices and store. However, among the research participants there is a lack of recognition that these cooperative — NPBE interactions affect the ecological sustainability of the cooperative. 124 The only significant cooperative - NPBE interaction that the research participants identified as essential to the cooperative sustainability was the geographical space that Circle Craft occupies. As evidenced by previous comments from research participants, Granville Island is arguably the best location in all of Vancouver for a gift shop such as Circle Craft; and the cooperative recognizes the importance of their current store location to their economic success. Circle Craft also understands that if the cooperative decides to open a second store, geographic location will play a large role in determining economic sustainability. Cooperative and HBE Interactions Circle Craft interacts with the HBE in a variety of ways. However, two primary interactions stand out as important to this study and indicator development. The first of these interactions is between the cooperative’s management of the space within the store. The store is a finite space and as members continually join the cooperative, space becomes more of an issue. It is necessary for the cooperative to make important decisions about placement of products in the store, how much product any one member can display, and the rotation of products through different display areas within the store. In recent years, as the store nears capacity, the cooperative is also having to make decisions about how to expand the physical space — if it is possible to build on to the current store or if is plausible to open a second store in a different location. The second cooperative - HBE interaction that is important to this study is the decisions the cooperative makes about the types of products Circle Craft accepts for sale in the store. Financial stability of the cooperative is largely dependent on capital from product sales. Therefore, it is important that Circle Craft carefully decide the types of 125 products it sells. During the selection process, the committee decides if a potential product is innovative and of high enough quality for Circle Craft’s standards. Another important decision that the cooperative, at the time of data collection, was making was what constitutes a handmade product — how much of the product can have manufactured parts before it is no longer considered handmade. Cooperative and SCE Interactions Interactions between Circle Craft and the SCE are evident in a few primary ways. First, recruitment of new craftspeople for membership and non-craftspeople for the Board of Directors is an important cooperative — SCE interaction. The cooperative depends on rejuvenation of the membership to maintain quality, innovative products in the store; and it is also highly beneficial to have non-craftspeople serving on the Board of Directors. Therefore, it is important for the cooperative to maintain interactions within the community. The second major c00perative — SCE interaction that is evident in Circle Craft’s ecosystem is through the cooperative’s marketing. Any type of marketing done by the cooperative is a direct interaction with the SCE. Along the same lines, the cooperative must also interact with the SCE to understand what types of products to sell. Circle Craft attempts to stay attuned to consumer trends so that they will produce and carry desirable, appropriately priced products. A final cooperative — SCE interaction that is evident for Circle Craft is the assistance they receive from the federal government. The fact that the Canadian government owns Granville Island and that all businesses on the island receive 126 significantly subsidized rent is very important to the sustainability of Circle Craft. Without this interaction, many of the members question if the cooperative could survive. Indicators of Ecological Sustainability This section outlines the indicators of ecological sustainability that this research study has identified as relevant to Circle Craft. The intent of the indicators is to assess the degree to which the cooperative is attaining the characteristics that the research members identified (detailed in the results for the first research question) as essential to ecological sustainability. Formation of the indicators occurred by understanding these perceived characteristics of ecological sustainability and by examining the goals for ecological sustainability that the research participants identified. In addition, an understanding of the functioning of Circle Craft’s ecosystem also informed the formation process for the indicators. This section outlines potential indicators for each of the three dimensions of ecological sustainability and includes a description of the indicator, how the indicator relates to the cooperative’s perceived characteristics of sustainability, and, if relevant, the cooperative — environment interactions associated with the indicator. Before proceeding with a discussion of the indicators, there are two important issues to discuss. The first issue is that the indicators listed for each dimension of sustainability are not finalized. There are, presently, a large number of indicators, especially for the dimension of social-cultural sustainability. As indicated in the literature reviewed in Chapter Two, the number of indicators must be practical and, currently, there are an unpractical number of indicators. A second reason, also supported by the literature, why the indicator list is not finalized is that it is necessary to implement and test indicators for feasibility prior to developing the final set. Until Circle Craft tests the 127 indicators and there is understanding of which indicators most validly measure sustainability, it is not possible to narrow the number of indicators. Additionally, it is necessary for Circle Craft to implement the indicators to assess their practicality and feasibility. Therefore, the list of indicators developed for this study needs testing and evaluation prior to compiling a final set.2 The second main issue is that the indicators themselves do not show direction. Through the description of the indicators the necessary direction, if the cooperative is to move towards sustainability, is stated. However, as evidenced by the literature (Hart, 1999; Meadows, 1998; SDI Group, 1998; United Nations, 1996), actual indicators generally do not state a direction. If indicators are to remain flexible and applicable to future circumstances, they cannot be direction laden. For example, one of the indicators of economic sustainability for Circle Craft is the annual dollar amount transferred from the Christmas market to the store. A goal for the cooperative is to sustain the store without transfers from the Christmas market; therefore, the logical direction of the indicator is a decrease in dollar amount transferred. However, if the indicator had a direction attached, once the cooperative achieves the goal of sustaining the store without transfers from the Christmas market, the indicator would be irrelevant. On the other hand, if the indicator remains direction free it will continue to be capable of assessing the cooperative’s economic sustainability, even after attaining the goal. Indicators of En vironmental Sustainability As previously discussed, the research participants do not connect environmental sustainability with the cooperative’s overall ecological sustainability. Although many of 2 The list of indicators designed in this study were sent to Circle Craft for review and critique, however, the cooperative did not respond to this request by the time of final printing. 128 the members of Circle Craft are conscientious about environmental issues, they do not think the sustainability of the cooperative is dependent on environmental issues. This suggests that the research participants have a different definition of sustainability then the definition in sustainable development literature; and as a result, the research participants do not perceive any characteristics of environmental sustainability essential to Circle Craft’s ecological sustainability. Therefore, at this point in the research process, it is not possible to design indicators relevant to Circle Craft and capable of assessing the cooperative’s environmental sustainability. The aim of this research project is to design indicators of sustainability that reflect the current reality of the cooperative and since the research participants do not perceive environmental sustainability as relevant to their cooperative, developing indicators defeats the purpose of the thesis. However, the proposition is that, because Circle Craft does not include the dimension of environmental sustainability, it has a limited perception of ecological sustainability. As stated in the literature on sustainable development, a system is never sustainable while neglecting even one of the dimensions. Therefore, this study encourages Circle Craft to broaden their perception of sustainability to include issues related to environmental sustainability. A couple of steps the cooperative could take in this direction include having discourse within the cooperative about environmental sustainability, establishing formal environmental policies for the cooperative, and completing a cooperative environmental impact assessment. Despite not perceiving environmental sustainability as an essential component of ecological sustainability, as identified by the results of the second research question, the research participants did indicate a few goals it had in relation to the environment — being 129 environmentally sensitive and encouraging environmental awareness with members. If Circle Craft wanted to assess their progress toward these goals it could use indicators such as a percentage of the yearly budget that the cooperative spent on environmental awareness or the frequency that environment-related communications appeared in newsletters and other cooperative correspondence. To summarize, it is currently not possible to compile a list of indicators that can assess Circle Craft’s environmental sustainability because the research participants did not identify any characteristics of environmental sustainability that they felt essential to the cooperative’s overall sustainability. However, this perception of sustainability is incomplete, and this study suggests the cooperative begin discussing a broadening of their perception of ecological sustainability and implementing policies to support such action. Indicators of Economic Sustainability The characteristics of economic sustainability identified by the research participants are adequate profit, adequate growth, access to dependable and durable economic resources, equitable distribution of capital, and financial responsibility. In designing the indicators of economic sustainability it became clear that the characteristics of economic sustainability are all very interdependent and many of the indicators assess progress towards several of the characteristics (see Figure 4). This is probably because it is somewhat difficult to distinguish between economic sustainability characteristics like adequate profit, adequate growth, and access to economic resources. 130 .the—52533 38288 mo 8082?: EB mocmtouoahfiu eminence 2: mo $883 .V was»: 283:...— Bane—895.30 _1 3:23st 53 wczoxaE 3E3“. _ CCM.— mHOmmd OH «DOC baeeoaax ESSEE TconEoE =u ..8 {cow 9 Esau .6 :2: 32 SEER 0:2 cofiflEEoU ~ @223ch 52a coin—~98 RES... 3:96 co 8:555 03955 .ll b _ $2605 >6: 8 vocwfimm 2:9 Eon owEo>< _ E853: EsflonEoE coco E owcmzo BEEN .xc 30.38.; 2:5: -com 038:0 can 033530 8 mmooo< _ 35% 8E Eothv 3 2on E 32695 co o\c r 2on 9 coo—BE REEEU Eat enhance: EzoEm 8:3 3:52 5380 fiasco—E .l. — 3.8 255 3:53 can 33m 2on 3:58 E 0955 o\o _ 322288 See mecca :25me :23 uocmzam EonEoE co Ax. £95 couscouet £3253 0_Eo:00m 131 The identified potential indicators of economic sustainability are: l. The percentage of members satisfied with personal profits from the cooperative. Circle Craft exists to serve its members and provide them with income; therefore it is important to assess the number of people who feel they are earning an adequate profit from the cooperative. This indicator will assess movement towards the characteristics of adequate profit, adequate growth, and equitable distribution of capital and is associated with interactions occurring within the cooperative. As the cooperative moves closer to sustainability, the indicator either will be maintained or will increase. The percentage of change in annual store sales and annual online sales. Demonstration of the characteristics of adequate growth is also associated with the change in annual store sales. As long as the cooperative is growing, annual store sales will continually increase. Annual dollar amount transferred from Christmas market to the cooperative gm. Many of the research participants identified one of the cooperative’s economic goals as being self-sufficiency of the store. Currently, the only way the store is not self—sufficient is through the financial support it receives from Christmas market profits, an internal interaction. Members identified that in order to achieve the goal of self-sufficiency, the dollar amount transferred from the market profits to the store should decrease until the transfer is no longer necessary. Once the transfer was eliminated, the cooperative would demonstrate both of the characteristics of adequate profit and adequate growth. 132 4. Percentage of products in store at different price points. Research participants believe that essential to achieving adequate profit, adequate growth, and maintaining access to dependable and durable economic resources, it is necessary to keep products in the store that are both on the high and low ends of the price scale. In order to implement this indicator, the cooperative needs to set standards for how much of the product in the store should be at varying price points and then the indicator would demonstrate maintenance of the standards. This indicator is associated with a cooperative — HBE interaction. 5. Percentage of annual change in cooperative membership numbers. The research participants acknowledge that cooperative growth involves more then just economic growth. One of the other factors that the participants identified as important to adequate growth is increasing the membership base. Therefore, an indicator of adequate growth is how much the membership changes annually; and, currently, the research participants feel this number should increase. This indicator is associated with a cooperative — SCE interaction. 6. Average point value assigned to new products. Decisions about the types of products that are in the cooperative store (a cooperative — HBE interaction) are very important to cooperative sustainability. Through the jurying process, all products receive a “grade” on a scale of one to five for workmanship, innovation, and personal style. If the average point value assigned to new products accepted into the store decreases over time, then the cooperative will draw less consumers into the store, and profits and growth will decrease. 133 Therefore, in order to maintain access to dependable and durable economic resources and achieve adequate profit and grth the average point value of new products should stay the same or increase. A formal expansion plan is established. Because the cooperative store is running out of space, the research participants feel that if the cooperative is going to have adequate growth, it needs to find a way to expand. However, the participants also believe this expansion must show financial responsibility in its execution. Therefore, designing a formal expansion plan that determines an economically sustainable solution to space limitation will demonstrate both adequate growth and financial responsibility of the cooperative. This indicator also shows cooperative — HBE interactions (through physical solutions) and cooperative — SCE interactions (through the financial solutions). Commission ratio remains less than or equal to 40% for all members. As evidenced previously, the research participants do not want the c00perative commission ratio to go any higher then the current 40%. If the cooperative is demonstrating an equitable distribution of capital and financial responsibility, the cooperative will continue to operate with a commission rate less than or equal to 40%. This indicator is associated with interactions internal to the cooperative. Debt to assets ratio. A change in the cooperative’s debt to assets ratio is a reflection of both internal interactions and cooperative — SCE interactions and a potential indicator of the cooperative financial responsibility. If the 134 cooperative is managing its finances in a responsible manner, the expectation is that the debts to assets ratio will be maintained or will decrease. 10. Formal marketing plan established. Marketing, an interaction between the cooperative and the SCE, is important to the cooperative having adequate growth, adequate profit, access to dependable and durable economic resources, and demonstrating financial responsibility. Economic growth, profit and dependable economic resources are all reliant on consumers buying Circle Craft’s products. Therefore, it is important to plan and spend money responsibly on marketing to the consumers. The above ten indicators of economic sustainability are designed to reflect Circle Craft’s unique circumstances and perceptions of sustainability. The next step is to implement the indicators and to assess the indicators that are most valid for measuring the cooperative’s ecological sustainability. Indicators of Social-Cultural Sustainability Unlike the indicators of economic sustainability, the social-cultural sustainability indicators are much more exclusive to each characteristic. With the dimension of economic sustainability, most of the indicators assessed several different characteristics. However, there is no sharing of indicators within the social-cultural sustainability dimension (see Figure 5). The characteristics of social-cultural sustainability, such as participation and sufficient benefits, are not as closely interconnected as the characteristics of economic sustainability and this explains the exclusivity of the indicators. 135 .bEnuEfimzm Bea—3-38m .«0 $0822: new 8338835 quuBoq 2: mo Sufism .m. 3:th 9.38%.: 85:89:25 $8228; 95%.: 5:5ch «:32 co «Em . 03:65; 33623 8:3 chcoc he moczoEzw mo Echmznfimm . murmur: 3:530 352398 3085 seems—gotSm . ESE—E QEEBEoE coco E uwcmcu 3:55 o\.. . E0826 .8 Egon 05 :o oEoommcfioéoc 8 038%ch co cued . ices new 535:. Eco—aw £8625 co venom Mecca 532338 .8 53>? 05 25:5 85 3538:. use. 36:8 . EoEowacflz «Ecotm E2053 Pa accuses .3.“ :2: QEEBEoE do .x. . 2:8on 35:83? co anm ”omens co o\o . mESmoa 3:22.58 no 25% “owe—5.3 o\o . macocom £2053 l £5253 Easofism “55830qu Efiwoa choEoF: do EoEcmznsmm 3on E E2505. 6.62. Song 86:? co =o_§:oEo_.E_ Eoimcoo . 22820 c8 view 95 E 20> 8 mconEoE =m m3o=m :2: 5:0.“— . EonEuE =m La 03853 0:2 :ofiEEEoU . mooEEEoo new Enos Co £336 82% can 381 . 305:8 ecu EEEQEOo do .onEsc .355. . mEoocon. Ea EEEQO 029» 8 955980;. .8» 86:8 do oucucaEmE . mquEEoQ co wEtum Bacon . 38325 E: 0:3 EonEoE Enos 3820 .8 a . 20: -382 38% so use eonEoE Enos 5c was? a . masons 355m 325m 2: mEEuze a . 136 The research participants stated that participation is important to the social- cultural sustainability of the cooperative, and the cooperative has a current goal of increasing participation. The potential indicators for assessing participation are: 1. IN) The number of members attending the annual general meeting. The annual general meeting is one of the primary ways for members to participate in the cooperative and contribute to the decision making process. Research participants, especially those on the Board of Directors, stated they want to see an increase in the number of people attending these meetings. The number of members voting for board members and specflesolutions. Due to the size of Circle Craft’s membership and the fact that many of the members live in remote areas of British Columbia, it is not plausible to have every member participate in every necessary decision. Instead, Circle Craft’s elected Board of Directors makes most of the policy and governance decisions within the cooperative. Therefore, it is important that a high number of members are involved in the process of electing the board members and in voting on special resolutions that are put to the membership. This is another indicator where the research participants feel an increase is important. The number of board members who run unopposed. Board members elected through acclarnation, on a consistent basis, is a possible indication of low participation within the cooperative. If increased participation is occurring then the number of people who run for the board unopposed will decrease. The number of people servinun committees. Committee work is one of the ways non-board members can actively participate in the cooperative. A low number of 137 members serving on committees may suggest low participation within the cooperative. If the cooperative has increased participation then this indicator will also increase. A second characteristic of social-cultural sustainability, identified by the research participants, is human dignity. The potential indicators of human dignity are: 1. Policies for membership to voice Opinions and concerns. Within the organization, if people are to feel like they are treated with dignity and respect, it is important to have a formal way for the members to voice their ideas and complaints. In Circle Craft, the chairperson of the Membership Committee directly deals with all members’ ideas and complaints. An indicator of the cooperative’s commitment to human dignity is maintenance of this process — continuing to provide a forum for respectfully recognizing and dealing with membership issues. Annugl number of complaints and conflicts. If the cooperative pays attention to membership needs, complaints and conflicts within the cooperative should decrease or stabilize at a low number. According to the research participants, another characteristic of social-cultural sustainability is equity within the cooperative. The potential indicators of equity are: 1. Racial and gender diversity of Board of Directors and committees. If the cooperative is committed to maintaining equity within the cooperative, one way to assess this is by tracking the racial and gender diversity of both board and committee members. A decrease in the diversity of the Board of Directors and committees may indicate a lack of equity within the cooperative. 138 2. Commission ratio equitable for all members. The research participants felt very strongly that all members within the cooperative should have the same commission ratio. hnplementing policy that gave certain members in the cooperative a different commission ratio was a sign of inequity according to the research participants. Therefore, the members want the current policy of all members having the same commission ratio maintained. 3. Maintenance of policy that allows all members to vote in and stand for elections. Currently any member in the cooperative can vote in and stand for elections. This is a basic principle of all c00peratives, and maintenance of this policy may indicate the cooperative is committed to equity. 4. Consistent implementation of policies about product placement in the store. Members of Circle Craft feel that there are certain areas in the store that are more conducive to high sales. While the cooperative states it has a policy of rotating products through different areas of the store, several of the research participants felt there lacked consistent implementation of the policy. There were several complaints of products remaining in the same location for several months or more at a time. Consistent implementation of cooperative policies regarding product placement may reveal a further commitment towards the characteristic of equity. Empowerment is another characteristic of social-cultural sustainability perceived as important by the research participants. A potential indicator of empowerment is: l. _Es_tafilishment of mentoring program. The primary way in which the research participants conceptualized empowerment was in the context of mentoring the younger members of the cooperative to take over leadership positions. Therefore, 139 a potential way to assess the degree to which the cooperative is committed to empowerment is by monitoring whether or not the cooperative establishes a formal mentoring program. If the cooperative is social—culturally sustainable, the research participants believed members would receive a sufficient number of benefits from the cooperative members. A few potential indicators for assessing this characteristic include: 1. The percentage of members that feel their benefits are sufficient. Because the term “sufficient” is a subjective term, in order to assess accurately this characteristic it seems important to measure the percentage of members who feel they are receiving sufficient benefits through their membership. As the cooperative moves closer to sustainability, this indicator will increase. Percentage of budget spent on scholarship programs. One of the significant benefits of cooperative members, as identified by the research participants, is the scholarship fund that is available to members. Due to the importance of the scholarship firnd, if the cooperative is sustainable, the percentage of the budget set aside for scholarships will either be maintained at the current level or increase. Percentage of budget spent on educatiomrggamg. In addition to the scholarship program that is available to the members, research participants asserted that another benefit of membership that they would like the cooperative to take a firrther role in is sponsoring other educational programs such as workshops and seminars. An indicator of sustainability is the percentage of the cooperative’s annual budget dedicated towards educational programs. Presently, 140 because very little is occurring in this area, an expected direction for this indicator would be an increase. The research participants also indicated that effective management of the cooperative is essential for social-cultural sustainability. A potential indicator of effective management is: 1. Maintenance of policies and procedures that outline the division of labour and power among Board of Directors, general manager and staff. Through discussions with previous and current board members, it is evident that in order for effective management to occur, it is very important that the cooperative’s staff and the Board of Directors maintain strong relationships. In the past, when there was a lack of guidelines for division of labour, power struggles occurred and management of the cooperative suffered. The cooperative is currently using the Carver Model of Board Governance to outline division of labour and power so whether it maintains this policy or implements a new one, it is important to have some policies and procedures in place. Another important characteristic of social-cultural sustainability is a balance in the cooperative’s human resources, including the craftspeople, the board members, and the cooperative staff. Indicators to assess this characteristic include: 1. The percentage of annrpal change in membership numbers. Important to the cooperative’s social-cultural sustainability is membership growth. Therefore, an important indicator for assessing social-cultural sustainability is the percentage of annual change in membership numbers. This indicator is also associated with cooperative — SCE interactions. 141 2. The ratio of craftspeople to non-craftspeOple on the board. Several of the research participants stated that it is important to have non-craftspeople serving on the Board of Directors, especially people with business skills. However, too many non-craftspeople can be disadvantageous. Therefore, the cooperative attempts to always have a majority of craftspeople serving on the board and a potential indicator is maintenance of this ratio. Because of the involvement of non- craftspeople, this indicator is associated with cooperative -— SCE interactions. Establishment of a staff evaluation process. The staff Working in the cooperative store is the primary interaction customers have with Circle Craft. Therefore, many of the research participants spoke of the importance of having hi gh-quality staff. An indicator to assess staff quality is establishment and implementation of a staff evaluation process. Finally, the last identified characteristic of social-cultural sustainability is cultural integrity. Indicators for assessing this characteristic are: 1. Establishment ofguidelines for defining what constitutes a handmade product. The cooperative has a unique identity of solely selling products that are handmade by British Columbian craftspeople. Important to maintaining this identity and ensuring the Circle Craft’s cultural integrity is establishing guidelines that state what exactly it means for a product to be handmade. Guidelines will ensure that the store only sells products that meet Circle Craft’s standards. This indicator is associated with c00perative — HBE interactions. Sale of Native Canadian handicraft; The cooperative currently has a policy that it i will not sell Native Canadian products in the store. Circle Craft does not wish to 142 offend any culture by misusing or misrepresenting sacred symbols. Therefore, if the cooperative stays true to this policy and maintains their cultural integrity, the store will continue to sell no Native Canadian handicrafts. This indicator represents both a cooperative — SCE interaction and a cooperative — HBE interaction. In conclusion, while it is not possible at this time to design potential indicators to assess the environmental sustainability of Circle Craft, the research has revealed one or more indicators for each of the characteristics of economic sustainability and social- cultural sustainability. It is necessary for Circle Crafi to assess and implement the indicators to determine which are most valid for measuring the perceived characteristics. 143 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This chapter concludes the thesis by first comparing and contrasting the results of this study with findings from both sustainable development and cooperative literature. The second part of the chapter outlines recommendations for future research. Comparison of the Cooperative’s Characteristics of Sustainability to the Literature Literature examining both sustainable development and cooperatives informed this research study and guided the study’s conceptual framework. This section of the chapter compares and contrasts the characteristics of sustainability identified by both sustainable development and cooperative literature with Circle Craft’s perceived characteristics of sustainability. The section begins by comparing Circle Craft’s characteristics with sustainable development literature and is followed by a comparison of Circle Craft’s characteristics with cooperative literature. Comparison with Sustainable Development Literature Chapter Two of this thesis provides an overview of what sustainable development literature identifies as important characteristics of ecological sustainability (refer back to the summary in Table 1). While this research study determined that the majority of these characteristics are also relevant for Circle Craft, a few significant differences exist as well. Generally speaking, in sustainable development literature conceptions and discussions of sustainable development are at much broader levels then the organizational level. For example, when scholars and policy makers determine the characteristics of 144 environmental sustainability, they are generally applying those characteristics to a city, a nation, or even the world. Because the characteristics of sustainability identified by this study’s research participants are for the much narrower scope of Circle Craft, a small organization, it is understandable that some differences exist. The biggest difference between sustainable development literature and Circle Craft’s perceptions of ecological sustainability is in the cooperative’s perceptions of environmental sustainability. As summarized in Table 5, development literature identifies several characteristics of environmental sustainability that are important to ecological sustainability. Sustainable development literature broadly conceptualizes some of the characteristics of environmental sustainability. For example maintenance of biodiversity is a perception of sustainability that encompasses much more than what is relevant at the organizational level. Therefore, the anticipation at the start of this research study was that the cooperative would have narrower conceptions of environmental sustainability that were more applicable to the level of an organization. However, the findings of this study show that the research participants in fact do not think any characteristics of environmental sustainability are essential for Circle Craft’s ecological sustainability. Therefore, in this regard, a major disparity exists between literature and Circle Craft’s perceptions of ecological sustainability. Concerning economic sustainability, two differences exist between how literature and Circle Craft perceive the dimension. Literature states that access to dependable and durable capital is an essential characteristic of economic sustainability. For the research participants it was more relevant to frame the characteristic in terms of access to dependable and durable economic resources. The research participants made note of 145 several economic resources that contribute to Circle Craft’s sustainability that encompass more than just durable and dependable capital. For example, the research participants attribute much of the financial success of the cooperative to the store location. This can be considered an economic resource because the geographic location of the store is what ensures high volume of sales. According to the research participants, a second important economic resource is the government subsidized rent that the cooperative receives for the cooperative store. For the cooperative, sustainability is certainly dependent on durable and dependable capital but maintaining access to other economic resources is just as vital. Within the dimension of economic sustainability, the second difference between literature and Circle Craft’s perceptions surrounds what the literature labels capital efficiency and what the research participants perceive as financial responsibility. Capital efficiency generally refers to making the most profit for the least amount of investment possible, and this concept is not relevant to this study’s research participants. However, the research participants did identify several aspects of financial management, such as concerns about the affordability of opening a second store and meeting financial obligations without increasing the commission ratio. Therefore, as opposed to capital efficiency, financial responsibility is a characteristic of economic sustainability that is more applicable to Circle Craft’s reality. Finally, within the dimension of social-cultural sustainability, several differences also exist between literature and Circle Craft’s perceptions. Once again, the differences are a result of this research study focusing on the narrower scope of the organizational level. In the development literature, a major characteristic of social-cultural sustainability is providing adequate resources so that people can meet their basic needs. However, 146 Ci in Circle Craft does not exist to meet the basic needs of its members. The cooperative is not intended to be any craftperson’s sole source of income as its purpose is to assist as many British Columbian craftspeople as possible. However, Circle Craft does exist to provide members with sufficient benefits such as providing a sales outlet and educational opportunities, therefore, sufficient benefits is a more relevant characteristic for the cooperative than meeting basic needs. A second characteristic within the dimension of social-cultural sustainability from the development literature that is not relevant at the cooperative level is ensuring peace and human security. This is a very broad concept that does not apply to the mission or functioning of Circle Craft. Finally, there are two characteristics of social-cultural sustainability pertinent to Circle Craft that are absent from sustainable development literature: effective management and balanced human resources. When conceptualizing sustainable development at a level as broad as a nation, literature does not cite issues of management and human resources as important characteristics of social-cultural sustainability. However, in this research study, it is evident then the research participants felt strongly that both management of the cooperative and the cooperative’s human resources are essential to Circle Craft’s social-cultural sustainability. It is clear that similarities do exist between literature’s and Circle Craft’s perceived characteristics of each dimension of sustainable development. However, several differences result as well. These differences provide significant evidence that it is difficult to establish characteristics of sustainability that are universally applicable. 147 Table 5. Comparison of Characteristics of Ecological Sustainability Dimension Literature Characteristics Circle Craft Characteristics Environmental - maintenance of biodiversity Sustainability - conservation of resources - decrease in toxins and pollutants - reduction in consumption - living within Earth’s carrying capacity Economic - adequate growth - adequate growth Sustainability - adequate profit - adequate profit - access to dependable and - access to dependable and durable capital durable economic resources - equitable distribution of - equitable distribution of capital capital - capital efficiency - financial responsibility Social-Cultural - participation - participation Sustainability - human dignity - human dignity - equity - equity - empowerment - empowerment - cultural integrity - cultural integrity - access to resources to - sufficient benefits maintain adequate living - peace and human security - effective management - meeting of basic needs - balanced human resources Comparison with Cooperative Literature The literature on cooperative sustainability (refer back to Table 3) also suggests a wide variety of characteristics important specifically to cooperative sustainability. Many of the characteristics from the literature also proved relevant for Circle Craft. For example, one of the characteristics contributing to cooperative sustainability from the literature is the ability to be competitive (Cohen, 1998; Iglauer, 2000). The research participants from this study perceived economic profit, economic growth, and access to 148 dependable and durable economic resources as characteristics of economic sustainability essential for Circle Craft; and the ability to be competitive is arguably an element within all three of these characteristics. There are other similarities between cooperative literature and the research participants’ perceptions of what is important for cooperative sustainability. Table 6 provides a summary of these similarities. Table 6. Comparison of Characteristics Contributing to Cooperative Sustainability Literature Characteristics Circle Craft Characteristics Ability to be competitive - Adequate Profit - Adequate Growth - Access to Dependable and Durable Economic Resources Products are marketable - Adequate Profit - Adequate Growth - Access to Dependable and Durable Economic Resources Knowledge of and access to markets - Adequate Profit - Adequate Growth - Access to Dependable and Durable Economic Resources Ability to provide steady income - Adequate Profit for members - Access to Dependable and Durable Economic Resources Economic Independence - Adequate Profit - Adequate Growth - Access to Dependable and Durable Economic Resources Balance between cooperative ideals - Financial Responsibility and good business management Strong and creative leadership - Effective Management 149 Ability to provide members with - Sufficient Benefits skills and training Embracement of cooperative ideals - Equity - Sufficient Benefits Effective decision making process - Effective Management Members have differing skills and - Balanced Human Resources abilities Note. Generally, the characteristics important to cooperative sustainability, as identified in the literature, are more specific then the characteristics that Circle Craft members perceive as important to the sustainability of their cooperative. Therefore, characteristics listed in the right column include, but are not limited to, the characteristics in the left column. While there are many similarities between the literature and the findings of this research study, many of the characteristics identified by the literature are not relevant to Circle Craft’s circumstances. The differences poignantly illustrate the diversity that exists in the development role of cooperatives in developing and developed countries. For example, often in the developing world members depend on the cooperative as their sole source of income and, therefore, sustainability of the cooperative is dependent on the degree to which the cooperative meets members’ basic needs (J ayaweera, 1995). In the case of Circle Craft, members are not reliant on the cooperative to meet basic needs and, therefore, this is not perceived as a characteristic of Circle Craft’s sustainability. Other characteristics from the literature that the research participants did not mention as relevant to Circle Craft include: - timely payment for products - ability to increase women’s economic capacity - reliable and local access to raw materials - ability to increase members’ social status - ability to work at changing social constraints 150 - ability to change power inequalities - political independence - use of indigenous tools - having members who are driven to improve quality of living Most of these differences appear related to the different degrees of development between cooperatives in developing countries and cooperatives in developed countries. In summary, both similarities and differences exist between the characteristics of ecological sustainability as identified by the sustainable development and cooperative literatures and identified by this research study. These differences highlight both the need to conceptualize sustainability on a case-by-case basis and the need to understand what sustainability means for a small organization within a developed country. Recommendations for Future Research This research study contributes to the literature of sustainable development as it studies the issue of measuring sustainability from an organizational level in a developed country. However, further research in this area is still necessary, allowing for the combination of the findings from this research and future studies and the drawing of generalizations about assessing ecological sustainability at the cooperative level. There are two logical directions for firture research to take. First, implementing the indicators designed in this study to assess their validity in measuring ecological sustainability and, second, conducting similar studies with other handicraft cooperatives in developed countries. 151 The first direction for future research is to implement the indicators from this research study with Circle Craft and assess the cooperative’s degree of ecological sustainability. Through implementation of the indicators, it would be possible to assess which indicators are the most valid for measuring the sustainability of Circle Craft and, therefore, narrow the list of potential indicators. Implementation would also permit Circle Craft to determine the sustainability of the cooperative which in turn may inform future policy decisions. A second recommendation for further research is to conduct similar case studies with other cooperatives. Because this research study was the first case study to develop indicators for handicraft cooperatives in developed countries, it is not possible to generalize the findings of the study to a wider population of cooperatives. The characteristics that research participants from this study determined essential to the ecological sustainability of Circle Craft might not be relevant to another handicraft cooperative in a developed country. Therefore, it is important to conduct similar case studies with other handicraft cooperatives in other developed countries. By carrying out similar research with other cooperatives it is possible to assess similarities and differences for how other handicraft cooperatives perceive sustainable development. It will also be possible to determine if the indicators designed in this research study are applicable to a wider population or if it is necessary to design indicators on a case-by- case basis. Only by conducting similar research with other cooperatives, is it possible to draw broad generalizations about sustainable development and handicraft cooperatives in developed countries. 152 The belief is that both of the above suggestions for future research are necessary and important contributions to the literature on sustainable development. If society is going to continue promoting cooperatives as an effective technique for the promotion of sustainable development, it is imperative that we have a better understanding of how cooperatives in developed countries perceive ecological sustainability and the most effective way to assess the sustainability of cooperatives. 153 APPENDICES 154 APPENDIX A Letter of Introduction to Cooperatives 155 HUMAN ECOLOGY Department at Hanan finvmnment and Design Michigan State University 204 Humm Ecology Building East Lansing. Michigan 48824-1030 (517) 355-7712 FAX‘ (517) 432-1058 MICHIGAN STATE u N r R V E S I T Y [Cooperative Address] March 2002 To Whom It May Concern: Hello. I am a graduate student at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan where I am studying Human Ecology and International Development. I have a background in Apparel and Textiles and I am very interested in cross-cultural textiles and various other handicrafts. In recent years, handicraft cooperatives have been recognized for the contribution that these organizations can potentially make to sustainable community and international development. In many developing countries, handicraft cooperatives have brought significant positive changes to members’ lives. Cooperative members in these countries typically have very few other employment options and their involvement in the cooperative provides much needed income for their household. The effect that handicraft cooperatives have had in the developing world leads one to question if there is the same potential for similar cooperatives in the developed countries of North America. I am currently in the process of locating a handicraft cooperative that I can work with and study the role that cooperatives are playing in community development in North America. Although I am using the term “cooperative”, the group that I work with does not have to be a legally defined handicraft cooperative that is registered with the government. My conceptualization of a cooperative is any group that operates under the ideals of open and voluntary membership, is democratically controlled, and has a fair distribution of profits. Through a variety of different searches and networks, I have located your address. In order to determine if the characteristics of your cooperative will fit my research interests and objectives, I am interested in obtaining more information about the structure and activities of your particular cooperative. The goal is to find a group that I will be able to work with closely and in the process, better understand the potential role that c00peratives can play in contributing to sustainable community development. My intention 156 is to personally visit the cooperative and through informal conversations, interviews and observations of your group leaders and members, gain insight into the functioning of the cooperative. The end result from this research will be my master’s thesis. Enclosed is a self-addressed, stamped postcard. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a couple minutes to fill it out and drop it in the mailbox. The purpose of the postcard is for me to gain a little more insight into the structure of your cooperative and for you to indicate your interest in learning more about my research. Ultimately I am aiming to locate one or two cooperatives that are interested in having me come and spend some time with them. However, initially I am just gathering background information from various different cooperatives. Therefore, by indicating on the postcard that you are interested in more information about the research, you are not committing to the project, you are simply informing me that it would be okay if I contacted you, by phone, and talked with you further about the role your cooperative might play in my research. I foresee this study as providing everyone involved with many benefits. By potentially participating in the study and reading the results of my analysis, your cooperative would receive feedback and information that may assist your organization. The study will also lead to a better understanding of how handicraft cooperatives firnction in North American society. I look forward to receiving the enclosed postcard back from you. Once I receive the reply card, if you have indicated that you are interested in further information, I will then follow up with a phone call. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Kim Hiller Graduate Student M. Suzanne Sontag, Ph.D Academic Advisor 157 APPENDIX B Reply Postcard for Co-operatives 158 . Is your group still Operating as a co-operative? D Yes D No (Please disregard the rest of the questions) . How long has your co-operative been in existence? Cl Under 1 yr C] 1-5 yrs Cl 6-10 yrs Cl 11+ yrs . How many members belong to your co-operative? [3 Under 10 C] 11-30 B 31-50 D 51—100 C] 101+ . Which of the following apply to the majority of your members? (check all that apply) C] Earnings from co-operative provides for at least 50% of household income [:1 Combined household income is less than $9999/year Cl Combined household income is $10,000 - $14,999/year Cl Combined household income is $15,000 - $19,999/year Cl Combined household income is greater than $20,000/year . What kind of products does your co-operative make? (Check all that apply) Cl Apparel & Accessories Cl Textiles Cl Furniture & Household Items D Other . May I contact you further about my research? D Yes D No 159 APPENDIX C Research Proposal Letter to Cooperative 160 HUMAN ECOLOGY Department at Human Environrrraat anrl Dealgrr ' Midrigan sue University 204 Hum Ecologyaulding East 11m. Mldigm 48824-1130 (517) 355-7712 FAX (517) 432-1058 MICHIGAN STATE u N r v r: R s l r Y [Inside Address] June 14‘“, 2002 Dear Board of Directors, Hello. My name is Kim Hiller. I am a Canadian who is currently attending graduate school at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. I am taking a Masters of Arts in Apparel and Textiles and am specializing in International Development. My research interests are in the area of sustainable development and the role cooperatives play on the path to sustainability. My background and current studies in apparel and textiles has led me to be especially interested in craft cooperatives and the way in which they are used in the development process. While there is a lot of research being conducted with craft cooperatives and sustainable development in the developing world, comparatively, very little research has been completed with craft cooperatives in the developed world. This lack of research has led me to research craft cooperatives in North America and more specifically, in Canada. The research project that I am proposing will serve as the basis for my thesis. The plan for the research project is to complete a case study of one craft cooperative in Canada. The goal is to try and determine if the cooperative is sustainable and facilitators or obstacles to sustainability. In order to give you a better idea of the specific questions that I am trying to answer through my research, I am attaching a draft copy of my research questions. ' I learned of Circle Craft cooperative through completing a search on the World Wide Web. Circle Craft made an impression on me because of the length of time that it has been in Operation, the large number of artisan members, and the wide variety of products that the cooperative produces and sells. Early in 2002, I wrote a letter to Circle Craft, with the purpose of introducing the purpose of my research. Included in the letter was a postcard that asked some more specific questions about Circle Craft cooperative. The postcard was completed and returned to me. After receiving the postcard and after several emails and a phone conversation with [general manager], I decided that Circle Craft would work very well for my research. 161 I am writing to you now because, with the approval of Circle Craft’s Board of Directors, 1 am proposing that I use Circle Craft as the focus of my research study and I would like to give you an indication of all that this commitment would involve. In order to collect that data necessary to answer the research questions, I am anticipating that I would need to come up to Vancouver for approximately three weeks. During those three weeks I would complete a variety of different activities. A large portion of my information would be collected through interviews. I would want to interview some of the artisans and as many of the board and staff members as possible. I am hoping to fully engage cooperative members in discussions about what sustainable development means for your cooperative and the evidence that could be used to assess your cooperative’s level of sustainability. I do not anticipate that I would occupy a lot of any one person’s time and would do my best to not inconvenience the cooperative in any way. I am currently in the process of completing my research proposal for my guidance committee here at Michigan State. After the committee has reviewed my proposal, there may be some minor modifications to specific aspects of my data collection or research questions. Changes in my research design could also occur after the research project is reviewed by Michigan State’s internal review board that must approve all research projects involving human subjects. If any of the changes are significant, I will be sure to inform you. If the Board or any cooperative members are concerned about issues of confidentiality, I can assure everyone that I will work to establish confidentiality guidelines with which everyone is comfortable. Additionally, I will be very eager and in fact, wanting, to share the results of my research with Circle Craft. I will also be more than willing to send Circle Craft a copy of my completed thesis. If the Board of Circle Craft decides that it is workable for me to come and conduct my research with the cooperative, I am hoping I could receive a formal letter indicating the cooperative’s support. The letter would be used to show to my guidance committee and the internal review board here at Michigan State. If you have any questions of concerns that you would like to discuss with me, I would be more than happy to do so. I can be reached by phone at 517-702-0173 and by email at hillerki@msu.edu. I look forward to hearing from you and planning this research project with your cooperative. Sincerely, Kim Hiller M. Suzanne Sontag, Ph.D Graduate Student Academic Advisor 162 APPENDIX D Informed Consent Form 163 Subject Consent for the Study of A Case Study Analysis of Handicraft Cooperatives and Ecological Sustainability Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA Permission has been given to me by [general manager] to contact you and invited you to participate in a study to develop indicators of sustainable development for your handicraft cooperative. The purpose of this research study is to learn more about the sustainability of handicraft cooperatives and by working with the members of the cooperative, develop indicators that can be used to measure the sustainability of your cooperative. You were invited to be a participant in this study because of your membership in this handicraft cooperative. If you decide to participate, I will meet with you once for approximately two hours to discuss your thoughts and feelings about sustainable development. I am interested in knowing what sustainable development means to you and your cooperative and how you think the sustainability of your cooperative should be assessed. In addition to the interview, I may need to communicate with you further (via email or the telephone) in order to further clarify issues and topics from the interview. Everything that I learn from you in this study will remain confidential and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your real names will not appear in any documentation; instead, a pseudonym will be used. With your permission, the interview will be audio-recorded [Note: The consent form for the focus groups will read “the focus group will be audio visually-recorded]. The recording of the interview, the interview transcription, and all other written communications with you will be stored in a locked filing cabinet, of which only I will have a key. The recording of the interview will be destroyed when the research is complete. Your decision to take part in this study is voluntary. You are free to choose not to take part in the study, refrain from answering certain questions, or to stop taking part in the study at any time. A decision to not to take part in the study, answer certain questions, or to stop at any time, will remain confidential and will not be communicated to cooperative leadership or other members. If you have any questions about this study and your rights, please contact my research supervisor Dr. M. Suzanne Sontag by phone: (517)353-2939, email: sontag@msu.edu, or by regular mail: 206C Human Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish — Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517)355-2180, Fax: (517)432-4503, email: uchris@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824. 164 I will provide you with a signed copy of this form to keep. Your signature below indicates that you have voluntarily decided to participate in this study, that you have read the above information, and that you give permission for the interview to be recorded. Signature of Participant Date 165 APPENDIX E Interview Guide 166 Introductory Questions 1. Where are you from originally? When and how did you end up living in this area? What is it that you produce? . Could you tell me a little about how you ended up producing ? . What kind of training/education have you had in relation to ? . How long have you been a member of Circle Craft? . How did you get involved in the cooperative? . What degree of involvement would you say you have with the cooperative? What kind of activities have you been involved with? 7. Can you please tell me a little bit about the products that you sell through Circle Craft? 8. What kind of a process do you go through in producing your products? 9. Do you sell only through Circle Craft or do you have other sales outlets as well? 10. How has being a member of Circle Craft helped you? How do you think being a member of Circle Crafi has impacted your work? 11. What percentage of your total sales do you receive from Circle Craft? QMAUJN General Co-op Related Questions 1. What do you think are the priorities of the cooperative? 2. What do you think has allowed Circle Craft to survive for the last 30 years? 3. What do you think it will take for Circle Craft to survive into the future? 4. What are the major challenges that Circle Craft must overcome to remain successful? Transition Questions Have you heard of the phrase sustainable development before? In what context? What does sustainable development mean to you in that context? / . At cooperative meetings or through communications, have you ever heard discussions about sustainable development? What was the context? If an organization like Circle Craft was sustainable and could continue to operate indefinitely, what would be the characteristics of the organization? How would it have to operate? Key Questions What do you think it means to be environmentafly sustainable? If Circle Craft was environmentally sustainable, what would be its characteristics? How would it operate? 167 Prompting Questions: From where would raw materials be acquired? How would natural resources like water and energy be used? How would waste be treated? Would there be a need for environmental policies? What kind? What would characterize the physical building that the cooperative used? What would be the cooperative’s beliefs be about consumption? What would be the priorities of the cooperative? Why do you think these priorities to be important? If your cooperative was “characteristic the interviewee described” how would you know? What kind of evidence would you look for to see if your cooperative was “characteristic”? Do you believe Circle Craft is currently environmentally sustainable? What makes you think that it is (or it not)? Do you believe that your craft production is environmentally sustainable? Why? What do you think it means to be economically sustainable? If Circle Craft was economically sustainable, what would be its characteristics? How would it operate? Prompting Questions How much profit would you need to make? How much profit would members in general need to make? What kind of markets would exist for your products? How would profit be distributed among members? How would cooperative capital be managed? What would be the priorities of the cooperative? Why do you think these priorities to be important? Where in the list of priorities would you rank profit? If your cooperative was “characteristic the interviewee described” how would you know? What kind of evidence would you look for to see if your cooperative was “characteristic”? Do you believe Circle Craft is currently economically sustainable? What makes you think that it is (or it not)? Do you believe that your craft production is economically sustainable? Why? 168 What do you think it means to be socially sustainable? If Circle Craft was socially sustainable, what would be it’s characteristics? How would it operate? Prompting Questions: How would decisions be made? How would the cooperative be managed? What style of leadership would be appropriate (hierarchal, directive, participatory, team-based)? How would conflict be resolved? How would the members’ needs be met? How would customers’ needs be met? What do you think would be the values of the cooperative? Would it be important for members to feel empowered? How would members be empowered? (to be leaders, to own businesses) What degree of participation in the cooperative management should the members expect to be able to have? How would the members be able to participate? How would members be treated by other members? By the Board? What kind of skills would members need? Would continuing education of the members be important? What kind? How would members’ rights be assured? What would be the priorities of the cooperative? Why do you believe these priorities to be important? Would kinds of people would be part of Circle Craft? If your cooperative was “characteristic the interviewee described”'how would you know? What kind of evidence would you look for to see if your cooperative was “characteristic”? Do you believe Circle Craft is currently socially sustainable? What makes you think that it is (or it not)? Do you believe that your craft production is socially sustainable? Why? What do you think it means to be culturally sustainable? If Circle Craft was culturally sustainable, what would be its characteristics? How would it operate? 169 Prompting Questions: What kinds of products would be made? If a product was inspired by a particular cultural tradition, what kind of considerations should go into the design of the product? To what extent do you think it would be acceptable to modify products of a cultural heritage to meet the tastes of the consumer? What would be the priorities of the cooperative? Why do you think these priorities to be important? If your cooperative was “characteristic the interviewee described” how would you know? What kind of evidence would you look for to see if your cooperative was “characteristic”? Do you believe Circle Craft is currently culturally sustainable? What makes you think that it is (or it not)? Do you believe that your craft production is culturally sustainable? Why? Conclusion Is there anything about sustainable development that I haven’t brought up today that you would like to discuss? Okay, a quick summary of what you told me today . Does that sound accurate with what you said? Do you have any questions for me? Questions for Members Who Haven’t Heard of Sustainable Development (at beginning of interview — remaining questions the same) If the interviewee states she/he has never heard about sustainable development before: What would it take to sustain a cooperative like Circle Craft over a long time? What would be the characteristics of Circle Craft if it could function indefinitely? What do you think has allowed Circle Craft to survive for the last 30 years? What do you think it will take for Circle Craft to survive into the future? What are the major challenges that Circle Craft must overcome to remain successful? 170 APPENDIX F Introductory Letter to Potential Research Participants 171 HUMAN ECOLOGY Department oi tiarnan Environmed and Design ‘ Micirigm ado University 204 Humm Ecology Building East taming. Michigm «sumo (517) 355-7712 FAX (517) 432-1058 MICHIGAN STATE 0 N i v E R s r T v [Inside Address] September 20, 2002 Dear [Name of Research Participant], Hello, my name is Kim Hiller. I am a Canadian who is currently attending graduate school at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. I am taking a Masters of Arts in Apparel and Textiles, with a specialization in International Development. My research interests are in the area of sustainable development and the role cooperatives play on the path to sustainability. The research that I am currently pursuing is about how small organizations, like cooperatives, can measure and assess the level of sustainability that their organization portrays. With the support of the board of directors for Circle Craft Cooperative, I am using Circle Craft as the focus of my research. For my research with Circle Craft I am coming to Vancouver for a few weeks in October. During my time in Vancouver I am going to be interviewing some of the members of Circle Craft. I am contacting you because you are a member of Circle Craft, I have read your profile on Circle Craft’s webpage, and I am interested in interviewing you and talking to you about some of your thoughts and feelings about Circle Craft. If you decide to be a part of my study, Ianticipate that the interview will take approximately two hours and the time and location of the interview can be flexible to meet your schedule and situation. If you are concerned about issues of confidentiality, I can assure you that I will protect your confidentiality and not reveal your real name in any research reports or documents. In addition, if you decide to not participate in this study, your membership, rights, and privileges within Circle Craft will not be adversely affected. In order to follow-up with you about this letter and the interview, I will call you in approximately one week. In the mean time, if you have any questions or concerns about this research, please feel free 172 to contact me at the above address or by phone: 517-702-0173 or email: hillerki@msu.edu . I am very excited about this research and working with Circle Craft and its members. I am looking forward to talking with you. Sincerely, Kim Hiller Graduate Student M. Suzanne Sontag, Ph.D. Maj or Professor and Chair of Guidance Committee 173 APPENDIX G Coding Guide 174 This coding guide developed from both the literature on sustainable development and human ecology and the major themes that emerged through the interview process. The coding guide is divided into two sections: sustainable development codes and codes for the human ecological perspective. Italicized codes indicate the codes that derived from the literature. Any codes that are not italicized derived exclusively from themes revealed in the interviews. Sustainable Development Codes [1 ] Environmental Sustainability [1 . 1] Environmental Awareness [1.2] Environmental Education [1.3] Conservation of Resources [1.4] Controlling Pollution [1.5] Health and Safety (personal health and safety) [2] Economic Sustainability [2.1] Economic Growth [2.1.1] Store Expansion [2.1.2] New Member Recruitment [2.2] Economic Profit [2.3] Dependable Capital [2.3.1] Innovative Products [2.3.2] Quality Products [2.3.3] Marketing [2.4] Equitable Capital Distribution [2.5] Capital Efliciency [3] Social-Cultural Sustainability [3.1] Selection Process [3.1.1] Board Selection [3.1.2] Craftsperson Selection [3.2] Participation [3.2.1] Formal Participation (voting, attending meetings, serving on committees) [3.2.1] Informal Participation (interacting with other members — building relationships) [3.3] Equity [3.4] Cultural Integrity [3.5] Meeting of Basic Needs [3.5.1] Education and Training [3.6] Empowerment Human Ecological Perspective Codes [4] Human Unit of Analysis [4. l ] Leadership [4.2] Management 175 [4.2.1] Decision Making [4.2.2] Goal Setting and Visioning [4.2.3] Assignment of Responsibility [4.2.4] Supervision [4.2.5] Conflict Management [4.3] Organizational Structure [4.4] Resources [4.4.1] Economic [4.4.2] Human (energy, knowledge, experience) [4.4.3] Environmental [4.5] Education and Training of Members [4.6] Communication [4.6.1] Knowledge of Management [4.6.2] Transmission of New Information [4.7] Adaptation [4.8] Values [4.9] Priorities [4.10] Mission [4.11] Goals [4.12] Internal Relationships [5] Natural Physical-Biological Environment (NE) [5.1] Raw Materials [5.2] Geographic Location [6] Human Built Environment (HBE) [6. 1] Products [6.1.1] Definition of Handmade [6.1.2] Quality of Products [6.1.3] Uniqueness/Interest of Products [6.2] Co-operative Store [6.2.1] Physical Structure [6.2.2] Store Appearance [6.2.3] Online Store [6.3] Office Space [6.4] Manufactured Materials (man made materials needed for production) [6.5] Waste Materials [7] Social—Cultural Environment (SCE) [7.1] Cultural Values [7.2] National Economy [7.3] International Economy [7.4] Provincial Government [7.5] National Government [7.6] Craft Associations [7.7] Banks [7.8] National Consumers [7.9] International Consumers 176 .5 [8] C o-op -— NE Interactions [8.1] Decisions about raw material inputs [8.2] Decisions about waste management [9] Co-op —'HBE Interactions [9.1] Space Management [10] Co-op — SCE Interactions [10.1] Recruitment of New Members [10.2] Education of the Public [10.3] Economic Assistance by Government [10.4] Marketing to Consumers [10.5] Attention to Consumer Needs [1 1] Possible Indicator 177 BIBLIOGRAPHY 178 BIBLIOGRAPHY Attwood, D. W., & Baviskar, B. S. (Eds). (1988). Who shares? Cooperatives and rural development. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. Axinn, G. H., & Axinn, N. W. (1997). Collaboration in international rural development: A practitioner ’s handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Boulding, K. E. (1985). Human betterment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, M. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, W.R., & S. K. Steinmetz, S.K. (Eds), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp.419-448). New York: Plenum Press. Cadieva, V. (1999). Factors for successful implementation of Western type cooperatives in Macedonia. Unpublished masters thesis, Arizona State University. Carroll, M. C. (2001). Sustainable regional economic development. Journal of Economic Issues, 35(2), 469-476. Carver, J ., & Carver, M. M. (1997). Reinventing your board: A step-by-step guide to implementing policy governance. Indianapolis, IN: J ossey—Bass. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. London: Longman. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts: Putting the first last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Chicago Foundation for Women. (2000). A guide to building sustainable organizations from the inside out. Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1992, November). Executive director’s report. Circle Craft Newsletter, 4. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1994, April). President’s report. Circle Craft Newsletter, 2. Circle Crafi Cooperative. (1994, May). Notes from the Board. Circle Craft Newsletter, 1. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1995, January). The Circle Craft selection process. Circle Craft Newsletter, 3-4. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1995, April). President’s report. Circle Craft Newsletter, 2. 179 Circle Craft Cooperative. (1995, April). Report from the membership committee. Circl Craft Newsletter. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1996, October). Message from the president. Circle Craft Newsletter, 8. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1997, September 29). General manager’s report. Minutes of Board Meeting. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1998, November). Carver model and Circle Craft board policies. Minutes of Board Meeting. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1999, January). Open forum. Circle Craft Newsletter, 1, 2, 3. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1999, March). Open forum. Circle Craft Newsletter, 3. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1999, March). President’s report. Circle Craft Newsletter, 4. Circle Craft Cooperative. (1999, May 3). New business. Minutes of Board Meeting. Circle Craft Cooperative. (2000, May 1). President’s report. Minutes of Annual General Meeting. Circle Craft C00perative. (2001). About us. Retrieved August 16, 2003, from www.circlecraft.net/page124.htm Circle Craft Cooperative. (2001, October 3). Committee reports. Minutes of Board Meeting. Circle Craft Cooperative. (2002, January 9). Brainstorming. Minutes of Board Meeting. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46. Cohen, J. H. (1998). Craft production and the challenge of the global market: An artisans’ cooperative in Oaxaca, Mexico. Human Organization, 57(1), 74-82. Cooperatives Secretariat. (1998). Cooperatives: The alternative solution. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada. Eber, C. & Rosenbaum, B. (1993). “That we may serve beneath your hands and feet”: Women weavers in highland Chiapas, Mexico. In J. Nash (Ed.), Crafts in the world market: The impact of global exchange on Middle American artisans (pp. 155-180). New York: State University of New York Press. 180 Farrell, A., & Hart, M. (1998). What does sustainability really mean? The search for useful indicators. Environment, 40(9), 4-9; 26-31. Gertler, M. (2001). Rural cooperatives and sustainable development. Saskatoon: Centre for the Study of Cooperatives, University of Saskatchewan. Griffore, R. J ., & Phenice, L. A. (2001). The language of human ecology: A general systems perspective. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Grimes, K., & Milgrarn, B. L. (Eds). (2000). Artisans and cooperatives: Developing alternative trade for the global economy. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Hamel, J. (1993). Case study methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hammond. A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D., & Woodward, R. (1995). Environmental indicators: A systematic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Hammond-Ketilson, L., & MacPherson, I. (2001). A report an Aboriginal cooperatives in Canada: Current situation and potential for growth. Retrieved July 24, 2002, from http://coop-studies.usask.ca/aboriginal/abcsummary.html Hardi, P., & Zdan, T. (1997). Assessing sustainable development: Principles in practice. Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Harper, M. & Roy, A. K. (2000). Cooperative success: What makes group enterprise succeed. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Hart, M. (1999). Guide to sustainable community indicators (2nd ed.). North Andover, MA: Hart Environmental Data. Hart, M. (2000). Sustainable measures. Retrieved May 9th, 2002, from http://www.sustainablemeasures.com Holmberg, J. (Ed.). (1992). Making development sustainable: Redefining institutions, policy, and economics. Washington, DC: Island Press. Ibeanu, O., & Nzei, A. A. (1998). Women cooperatives and power redistribution in rural Nigeria: A case study of Nsukka Enugu State. Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research. Iglauer, E. (2000). Inuit journey: The cooperative journey in Canada 's North. Maderia Park, BC: Harbour Publications. 181 International Cooperative Alliance. (1995a). Co-ops and human sustainable development: Global perspective. Retrieved July 24, 2002, from http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/icic/issues/sustain/glob-pers.html International Cooperative Alliance. (1995b). Contribution of cooperative enterprise and the international cooperative movement to implementation of UN Agenda 21. Retrieved July 25, 2002, from http ://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/icic/copac/member/un/reports/ag-2l International Cooperative Alliance. (19950). Co-ops and human sustainable development: The Americas. Retrieved July 24, 2002, from http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/icic/issues/sustain/arnericas.htrnl International Institute for Sustainable Development. (2000). Metrozone Guadalajara, Mexico: Project report. Retrieved July 17, 2002, from http://www.iisd.org/meausre/cecreport.htm International Labour Office. (198 8). Cooperative management and administration (2nd ed.). Geneva: Author. J ackall, R., & Crain, J, (1984). The shape of the small worker cooperative movement. In R. J ackall & H. M. Levin (Eds), Worker cooperatives in America (pp. 88-108). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. J ackall, R., & Levin, H. M. (1984). Work in America and the cooperative movement. In R. J ackall & H. M. Levin (Eds), Worker cooperatives in America (pp. 3-15). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. J ayaweera, P. D. (1995). The roles of cooperatives in poverty alleviation. Sri Lanka: Prabudda Prakasakayo Ltd. J oshi, Y. G., & Verma, D. K. (Eds). (1999). Social environment for sustainable development. New Delhi, India: Rawat Publications. Lee, K., Holland, K. L., & McNeill, D. (Eds). (2000). Global sustainable development in the 21“ century. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. Littrell, M. A. (1990). Symbolic significance of textiles crafts for tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, I 7, 228-245. Littrell, M. A., & Dickson, M. A. (1998). Organizational culture for small textile and apparel businesses in Guatemala. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(2), 68-78. 182 Littrell, M. A., & Durham, D. E. (2000). Performance factors of Peace Corps handcraft enterprises as indicators of income generation and sustainability. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18(4), 260-272. Maclaren, V. W. (1996). Developing indicators of urban sustainability: A focus on the Canadian experience. Toronto: ICURR Press. Madden, J. P., & Chaplowe, S. G. (Eds). (1997). For all generations: Making world agriculture more sustainable. Glendale, CA: World Sustainable Agriculture Association. Martinussen, J. (1997). Society, state, and market: A guide to competing theories of development. New York: Zed Books Ltd. Mayoux, L. (1992). From idealism to realism: Women, feminism, and empowerment in Nicaraguan tailoring cooperatives. Development and Change, 23(2), 91-114. M’Closkey, K. (2000). “Part time for pin money”: The legacy of Navajo women’s craft production. In K. Grimes & B. L. Milgrarn (Eds). Artisans and cooperatives: Developing alternative trade for the global economy (pp. 143-158). Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Meadows, D. (1998). Indicators and information systems for sustainable development, Hartland, VT: The Sustainability Institute. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Moldan, B., Billharz, S., & Matravers, R. (Eds). (1997). Sustainability indicators: A report on the project on indictors of sustainable development. New York : Wiley. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2000). Towards sustainable development: Indicators to measure progress (Rome Conference). Paris: OECD Publications. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2001). Sustainable development: Critical issues. Paris: OECD Publications. Peet, R. (1999). The theories of development. New York: The Guilford Press. QSR International. (2002). NVivo (Version 2.0) [Computer Software]. Melbourne, Australia: QSR International. Raskin, P. D. (2000). Bending the curve: Toward global sustainability. In Development, 43(4), 67-74. 183 Redclift, M. (Ed.). (2000). Sustainability: Life chances and livelihoods. London: Routledge. Roome, N. (1998). Sustainability strategies for industry: T he future of corporate practice. Washington, DC: Island Press. Serageldin, I. (1996). Sustainability and the wealth of nations: First steps in an ongoing journey. Washington, DC: World Bank. Serageldin, I., & Steer, A. (Eds). (1994). Making sustainable development: From concepts to action. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Smith, N., & White, M. (2001). Freedom to craft a future?: The impact of trade liberalization on grassroots craftswomen. Craft News, 12(46), 10. Sontag, M. S., & Bubolz, M. M. (1996). Families on small farms: Case studies in human ecology. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Soriano, L. 13., Claudio, C., & Fansler, L. D. (1995). Sustainable development: A Philippine perspective. Phoenix, AZ: Phoenix Publishing House Inc. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sustainable Development Indicators Group. (1998). Sustainable development in the United States: An experimental set of indicators. Washington, DC: US Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators. Trzyna, T. C. (Ed.). (1995). A sustainable world: Defining and measuring sustainable development. Sacramento, CA: International Center for the Environment and Public Policy. United Nations Environment Programme. (1991). Caring for the earth: A strategy for sustainable living. Gland, Switzerland: Author. United Nations. (1992). Agenda 2]: Programme of action for sustainable development. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information. United Nations. (1996). Indicators of sustainable development: Framework and methodologies. New York: Author. 184 United Nations. (2001). Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies. New York: Author. Wolcott, H. F. (1995). The art of fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future: Brundtland report. New York: Oxford University Press. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications. 185 I"]ill]l]]l]’lll][ll][l[l[ljljll