Neil Carter
Most varieties of green political thought—ecosocialism, ecoanarchism, ecofeminism, bio-regionalism inter alia—display a fondness for the worker co- operative. Outlines of a ‘greener’ world, whether in polemical tracts or restrained academic tomes, frequently expound the virtues of the co-operative and its central role in protecting the environment. Green party programmes promise to encourage the growth of co-operatives. The majority of green thinkers envisage a future society in which the ideal form of workplace organisation (alongside the self-sufficient commune) would be that of a co-operative: a democratic workplace characterised by small-scale production, equity, community, and non-exploitation of workers, consumers and, crucially, nature.
The case for co-operatives in green political thought is, however, usually asserted rather than made. Green writers have generally failed to engage with the extensive theoretical and empirical literature about co-operatives. Yet even a cursory examination of this literature would show that many of the claims made on behalf of co-operatives are contentious. In particular, the claim that co-operatives will display greater benevolence towards the environment than capitalist firms is not as straightforward as much green writing seems to imply. This chapter draws together the various strands of the green case for co-operatives under two core hypotheses: first, that a co-operative is characterised by small-scale production, democratic and egalitarian organisational structures, greater individual self- development and better working conditions than a capitalist firm; second, a co- operative will be more benevolent towards the environment than a capitalist firm.
Drawing on the theoretical and empirical literature on co-operatives it is shown that there are many problems with these hypotheses and that they will be valid only in certain circumstances. It is argued that greens need to adopt more sophisticated theories of organisational control and ecological consciousness.
First, it is necessary to define precisely what is meant by the term ‘co-operative’.
There are many kinds of ‘co-operatives’: farming, fishing, housing, consumer and worker co-operatives are all familiar forms. Al though most types of co-operatives would undoubtedly flourish in a greener society, this chapter is concerned with the worker (or producer) co-operative. The worker co-operative is, for present purposes, most usefully defined as ‘an organisation which is owned and controlled by those working in it’. Thus a co-operative should be an autonomous organisation
with formal provision for direct employee participation in decision making at all levels of the organisation on a one member, one vote principle. Members own the organisational capital either collectively or through individual shares, and all members will have the right to a share in any profit (or surplus?)—though not necessarily on an equal basis.
THE GREEN CASE FOR THE CO-OPERATIVE
Green political thought is replete with favourable references to co-operatives.
Sometimes co-operatives are simply included in a list of desirable or necessary reforms with little elaboration or explanation. More often they are deemed to merit a paragraph or two extolling some of the virtues of co-operative organisation. The more perceptive thinkers point to various difficulties associated with co-operative working. But few green writers attempt more than a superficial examination of the co-operative. To surmount this problem this section reconstructs, from a disparate range of texts and essays, the explicit green arguments for co-operatives.
First, greens argue that small units of production are inherently superior to large units because concentrated large-scale industrial production and the spatial separation of workplace and home with which it is associated (which multiplies resource consumption by transporting employees to work and the finished product to dispersed consumers) is massively damaging to the environment. Most greens share a vision of decentralised, small-scale communities in which the co- operative workplace is an integral part. The contemporary guru of small-scale production was Schumacher (1974), but the theme has dominated modern green writing since the publication of A Blueprint for Survival (Goldsmith 1972).
Second, the emphasis on small-scale production is closely associated with a preference for participatory, workplace democracy. The 1983 programme of the German greens declares that ‘Large combines are to be broken down into surveyable units which can be run democratically by those working in them’ (Die Grünen 1983: section II.3, p. 11). The cooperative is one of the various forms of
‘democratic worker self-management’ that subsequently would be established, as is made clear in the manifesto of the British Green Party: ‘We support the formation and growth of co-operatives as a way of encouraging a democratic and non- hierarchical approach to work’ (Green Party 1992:70). Schumacher was attracted by co-operation, specifically praising the Scott Bader Commonwealth in which ownership of a successful chemical manufacturing company was transferred to a collectivity, or commonwealth (Schumacher 1974:230–7). For Spretnak and Capra, in the ‘self-managed cooperative enterprise…those involved in production should decide themselves what is produced as well as how and where it will be produced’ (1985:98). Workplace democracy is of intrinsic value to greens because the removal of the hierarchies and divisions that characterise the conventional capitalist workplace is believed to enhance individual self-development and self- expression. In this respect support for workplace democracy is consistent with the arguments employed by, for example, Bahro (1986) and Bookchin (1982) in favour
of the commune as the preferred form of social organisation in a greener society, and, more generally, with the widespread support for participatory democracy among greens (A. Carter 1993; Porritt 1984; Roszak 1979; Sale 1980; Spretnak and Capra 1985; Tokar 1987). For, as Goodin argues, the achievement of widespread democratic participation in society ‘is arguably the central plank in the whole green theory of agency’ (1992:124). But greens also advocate participatory democracy as a means of reducing inequalities in the distribution of power in society. If individuals can have more say in the institutions of civil society it will be ‘harder for the powers that be to resist popular demands’ and more likely to produce, if not morally perfect outcomes, then at least morally better ones (Goodin 1992:128).
Third, consequently, greens argue that co-operatives, by introducing greater equality in the workplace, will contribute to the broader objective of reducing imbalances in the distribution of power, wealth and income throughout society.
Kemp and Wall assert that ‘Greens believe firmly in the principle of economic democracy and support the argument that just as most adults have the right to vote, so we should also have the right to wield commensurate economic influence’
(1990:80). Daly and Cobb (1990) argue that the spread of worker ownership would undermine the power of industrial capital and help remove the disparities between wealthy owners and highly paid workers, and the much larger group of poorly paid workers, underemployed and unemployed people.
Fourth, greens also believe that co-operatives will improve the quality of life within the workplace. Roszak enthuses that in work collectives and producers’
co-operatives:
Whatever their form or origin, the spirit of these enterprises will be the same.
Because they will be worker-owned and managed, they will offer the most advanced forms of authentic job enrichment; the fulfilment of people in their work, rather than the size of earnings or output, will be part of their basic standard of efficiency and success.
(Roszak 1979:238) And in Callenbach’s Ecotopia:
The fact that the members of an enterprise actually own it jointly (each with one vote) puts certain inherent limits on what these enterprises do…the enterprises tend to be just as concerned with conditions of work as they are with profits, and in many instances members seem willing to accept lower profit and wage levels in exchange for a comfortable pace of work or a way of organizing work which offers better relations among the people doing it.
(Callenbach 1978:93) This quality of life argument can be interpreted as extending the concept of environment to include greening the workplace.
Porritt is just one writer who develops this argument in another way to suggest that the individual co-operative will therefore be more concerned about the local community:
A co-operative is much more likely to be sensitive to the needs of the community in which its members live. The profit motive is linked to a broader collective concern: concern on the one hand that the working members are adequately cared for, and on the other that the co-operative is playing a constructive part in the wider community.
(Porritt 1984:139–40) It is not much of a jump from this to assert that co-operatives will therefore be more benign towards the local environment. Thus Porritt argues that the creation of community savings banks to promote co-operatives would mean that:
The initiative for regenerating the economy would be coming from local people with local knowledge, and the whole community would become involved in the creation of real, long-term wealth, rather than the spurious
‘wealth’ of advertisement-induced mass consumption.
(Porritt 1984:141) However, green writers offer few detailed arguments in support of this important claim.
The green case for co-operatives can be broken down into two parts. First, that co-operatives should produce the following features to a greater degree than current capitalist ownership: small-scale production, participatory democracy, greater equality at work and in society, and a better quality of life at work—all of which are core dimensions of a green political programme. Second, these features will also ensure that co-operatives display a more benign concern for the environment than capitalist organisations. Whilst the arguments assembled under the first plank are similar to those forwarded by many other proponents of co- operatives, the claim that they are better for the environment is a distinctive, though not unique, feature of the ecological thesis.1
In evaluating the green case for co-operatives, it is useful to make three further distinctions. First, do co-operatives eliminate all environmental problems or do they simply generate fewer problems than capitalist firms? Second, are all co- operatives or most co-operatives better for the environment than capitalist firms?
Third, what difference does it make for a co-operative to operate in an economy dominated by co-operatives as opposed to a capitalist economy? Greens do not normally make these distinctions; it is argued here that they should.
DO CO-OPERATIVES BRING CHANGE?
This section evaluates the various green claims for co-operatives against both theoretical and empirical arguments. In both respects, green writers seem to be largely unaware of the extensive academic literature on co-operatives. For the co- operative is not a new idea; its roots can be traced back at least as far as the Levellers in the seventeenth century. In the nineteenth century it was widely lauded as an alternative to the dominant capitalist organisational form. More recently, western industrialised economies witnessed a rapid growth in the number of co-operatives during the 1970s and 1980s (Bate and Carter 1986). Academic interest focused in particular on one much-publicised contemporary success story: Mondragon, a thriving federation of co-operatives in the Basque region of Spain. In the following discussion frequent reference is made to Mondragon as a successful and oft-cited model.2
The first claim, that co-operatives will engage in small-scale production, is probably the least persuasive. This is essentially an argument for small-scale production irrespective of the organisational form. But there is nothing unique to the co-operative form that necessitates small-scale production. Of course, many co-operatives are small, but several co-operatives in Mondragon and in Italy and France have well over a thousand members: greens simply assert that they will be small. A more persuasive case can be made by drawing on various economic arguments about co-operatives. In a market economy co-operatives may face a hiring problem: they will grow only if extra staff increase the productivity of existing members, whereas capitalist firms will hire so long as the net marginal return remains positive. But if co-operatives choose to remain small—as many undoubtedly do—then there is no hiring ‘problem’, unless larger-scale production is needed in order to survive in a competitive market. Even this difficulty will be less acute in a changing world where technological advances increasingly result in enterprises having a small workforce whilst undertaking large-scale production—
the ideal of post-industrial thinkers such as Toffler and Gorz (Frankel 1987).
However, co-operatives are also likely to remain relatively smaller than technologically identical capitalist firms because, as Miller (1989) points out, they
‘will be unwilling to invest as heavily as capitalist enterprises, and will therefore be unable to compete in an open market whenever investment is needed to maintain technological advance’ (1989:90). These economic arguments might suggest a rather more moderate green defence of co-operatives in a market economy as employing fewer workers and engaging in smaller scale production than capitalist firms. But it is not clear how this would be better for the environment, particularly if overall production levels in the economy were maintained by other firms—
capitalist or co-operative—taking up the opportunities forsaken by less entrepreneurial co-operatives.
A quite different argument about size states that the democratic mechanisms of a co-operative may not operate so effectively in a large organisation. Indeed, after a strike at the largest Mondragon co-operative, ULGOR, it was decided to limit
the size of co-operatives to a maximum of 500 workers. Similarly it is not difficult to envisage a situation in which larger organisations break up their operations into offices or plants each with no more than, say, 500 workers and run on co-operative lines. At the other extreme, having studied several grassroots collectives that sprang up in the USA during the 1960s and 1970s, Mansbridge (1980) argues that democracy can work effectively only in a relatively small group—although Rothschild and Whitt (1986) can find no precise cut-off point beyond which democratic control yields to oligarchy. But this debate relates to the second claim, that a co-operative will be a participatory democracy and that this will have a beneficial impact on individual self-development.
Although each member has an equal share in ownership a co-operative may not necessarily adopt participatory structures and processes—as seems to be the assumption among green writers. Co-operative members may exercise their democratic right to forsake participatory mechanisms for the ‘dual structure’ of a representative democratic structure and a management system. There may be good reasons to do so. Some degree of delegation is clearly more appropriate for any co- operative larger than, say, twenty members, where collective processes become less practical. Alternatively, some members may be reluctant to assume responsibility for day-to-day decision making. After all, where participatory structures do exist, the intensity of face-to-face collective decision making frequently generates ‘burn out’ in members often resulting in their withdrawal from the co-operative (Rothschild and Whitt 1986).
Although many contemporary co-operatives do adopt pure participatory democratic structures, frequently some form of representative structure prevails as, for example, in the plywood co-operatives in the Pacific Northwest USA (Greenberg 1986), France (Batstone 1983), Italy (Thornley 1983) and in many British co-operatives (Cornforth et al. 1988; Mellor et al. 1988). In a Mondragon co-operative the General Assembly consisting of all the workers meets only once or twice a year. The Assembly elects from its membership a small Governing Council (the Junta) which then appoints a Management Council responsible for the day-to-day management of the co-operative. There is some controversy regarding the extent to which this kind of structure encourages active participation in the workforce. Clearly Mondragon workers possess far greater formal control over most forms of decision making than their counterparts in a capitalist firm.
Nevertheless it has been argued that participation for the bulk of members amounts to:
Little more than plebiscite-style elections once a year to approve or disapprove the current leadership team. It is little wonder, then, that most empirical studies show a marked absence of a participatory culture at Mondragon, few worker-members ever speak at the annual assembly, few are informed, and few have any contacts with management.
(Greenberg 1986:104)
Greenberg is rather ungenerous. In an extensive survey, Bradley and Gelb found that around a third of members perceive themselves as participating either directly or indirectly in making important decisions, compared to just 7 per cent in equivalent capitalist firms (Bradley and Gelb 1983:54). Mondragon is no panacea, but it appears to be far better than in conventional firms. The Mondragon co- operatives have recognised the problem of marginalisation of workers as illustrated by their decision to limit the size of all new co-operatives to a maximum of 500 members and to set up a social council in each co-operative—in effect a network of work-based shop stewards—which can discuss directly with management any issues related to the immediate work environment. For similar reasons many co- operatives encourage the regular rotation of elected offices to draw a wider range of people into positions of responsibility.
It is therefore important to recognise the limitations that indirect forms of democracy impose on participation in a co-operative. There are specific pressures within the existing capitalist system which encourage the adoption of hierarchical structures, not least the simple discrimination that elected representatives or delegates encounter when dealing with financial institutions and other commercial organisations (Bate and Carter 1986). But even in a fully co-operative economy many of the factors that persuade co-operatives to adopt forms of representative democracy will still pertain.
One way for greens to resolve this problem would be simply to define it away by saying that without participatory democratic structures an organisation is not a co-operative. This is an unsatisfactory solution because it effectively sets a very small limit on the membership of a co-operative. It is also undesirable without conclusive proof that participatory democracy is better for individual self- development (and for the environment) than representative democracy.
Consequently, it seems desirable to accept this weaker argument: that while individual self-development may be enhanced more effectively in a participatory democracy, it may still be encouraged in a co-operative with representative democracy to a greater degree than in a capitalist firm.
Whether any form of co-operative democracy succeeds in enhancing individual self-development is by no means as straightforward as greens seem to suggest.3 When greens praise the beneficial effects of workplace democracy on the individual they are explicitly or implicitly influenced by the ‘escalation’ theory developed by Carole Pateman in Participation and Democratic Theory (1970). She argued that people learn to participate by participating. Pateman advocated worker self- management on the grounds that the impact of participating in decisions at work will escalate beyond the factory gate as individuals gain the confidence to participate in other institutions of civic society. In short, co-operatives should nurture democratic citizenship. Similarly, greens hope that workers can develop feelings of personal political efficacy through workplace participation which will encourage them to become active members of the local community.
However, although studies of political efficacy and participation among co- operative members do show evidence of escalating political consciousness arising