Barra de menús

Persuading low-income earners to join the co-op was a significant challenge for TPS. It was unable to offer either cheaper goods or a range of products similar to that available in mainstream supermarkets in the neighbourhood. In their conversations with the documentary film-makers and the co-opÕs founders, low-income residents had expressed these reasons for not joining TPS. One of the founders, in a conversation with me, felt that most of the low-income earners were not able to look beyond price and convenience when it came to grocery shopping. Another co-op, Stroudco, faced similar hurdles in reaching out to low-income residents of a local housing estate. Despite making marketing concessions such as free membership and free delivery, Stroudco was not able to attract significant membership from the low-income groups it was targeting. To find out more about what factors stopped such people participating, researchers from the University of Cardiff (Stroudco 2012) organised a focus group where residents shared their food buying preferences and shopping behaviour. In the focus group discussions, lack of choice in the category of convenience foods, and high price came up as primary barriers to participation in Stroudco. Similarly, in the case of the True Food Co-operative in Reading, one of the founders stated: ÔThere are certainly a lot of products we sell that a lot of people just balk at because they just cannot afford to include that in their weekly spend or dietÕ.

Although these three co-ops were able to offer a selection of products at a competitive or lower cost compared to mainstream supermarkets, they found it difficult to be consistently cheaper across a broad product range. For example, TPS and Stroudco were able to offer some fresh produce cheaper than larger supermarkets, and True Food was additionally able to offer a better deal on unpackaged wholefoods. However, this was

not enough to attract low-income customers, whose intake of fresh produce and whole foods was typically below the national average (Food Standards Agency 2007). Moreover, with only a single local branch, independent co-ops did not have the scale to negotiate low prices directly with suppliers as large supermarkets do. Although TPS identified a significant opportunity to reduce prices and food wastage through sourcing produce that was rejected by larger supermarkets due to cosmetic blemishes, again the relatively small scale of its operations posed logistical and administrative challenges in making use of this opportunity as a consistent practice. In addition, at least for TPS and True Food, high fixed costs of retail space and paying employees required a sufficient margin to be included in the retail price to cover those costs.

Stroudco did not have to pay for retail space, but it did employ a manager. Moreover, its suppliers were producing on a small scale and could not offer their products more cheaply than the suppliers of large supermarkets, who could achieve greater economies of scale. Also, one of the producer members explained to another team of researchers (Franklin, Newton, McEntee 2011: 781):

I know I am not going to be able to sell my organic eggs or Dexter beef to the [Parliament Estate] because it is more expensive ... small producers with high welfare means more expensive. You need some more of those Stroud greenies.

Franklin et al. (2011) found that other producer members at Stroudco shared similar views. What they considered to be a fair price for their produce was significantly more than low-income residents of the Parliament Estate would be willing to pay. Therefore, producer members wanted the co-operative to target marketing efforts towards middle and higher income groups in Stroud who could afford these type of products and support the producersÕ businesses. When I asked some members of Stroudco by phone why they had stopped ordering from the co-op, most of the reasons pertained to convenience and access, but price was also mentioned as a constraint by a few. Even members who did not lack appreciation of sustainable and high quality products perceived the prices to be a hurdle to persisting with shopping at Stroudco:

[1] I do intend to use Stroudco, but my finances are a bit low at the momentÉThere are very good products, but they are fairly pricey, I suppose. That's the nature of those products, isn't it? I'm not saying that you are charging too much, but these kind of products tend to be pricey.

[2] WeÕve found the produce expensive, which I can understand really, 'cos we're all trying to balance some things. But I guess, when it comes down to it, that kind of often means that we don't need you any more.

The University Co-op, however, neither has the constraints of high operational costs for rent and employees, nor does it limit itself to sourcing only from small-scale local producers. The co-op sources weekly fruit and vegetables boxes from a local distributor. Initially, the founders tried to source directly from local farmers, but found that the farmers required a long term commitment from a large group of people to be able to plant crops specifically for the co-op. Since the co-opÕs founders wished to make the buying option flexible, not wanting to force students to commit upfront for a yearly supply, they decided to go with the distributor option instead. Other reasons behind this decision included the intention to avoid administrative challenges in co-ordinating supply from several small producers as well as additional transportation costs. The foundersÕ key concern was that their chosen distributor must supply predominantly local, seasonal and affordable produce and they found one who met these criteria. As the co-op does not pay for the university-provided operating space and is run entirely by volunteers, it has minimal financial overheads. Therefore, it can pass on to its members savings from buying wholesale produce. According to one of its founders, the co-op provides Ôthe cheapest veg in townÕ. Students are the largest group of members, though some of the university staff as well as residents of the predominantly low-income social housing neighbourhood have also joined the co-op. This co-op has been a successful example of making sustainable produce available at an affordable price for its members.

Members of the Pimlico Co-op are also able to save around 30-33% retail markup on the mostly organic wholefood products they order from their wholesale co-operative supplier. These products are not cheaper compared to non-organic versions in the mainstream supermarkets, but they are better value than buying the organic products through independent health food stores. Additionally, for those organic products that are available in the supermarkets the wholesale price paid by the co-op is cheaper or at least competitive enough to make collective buying viable. The key challenge, however, for a small buying group like Pimlico, was to minimise the co-ordination issues related to collating orders from individuals to make up the minimum bulk ordering quantities required by their wholesale distributor. For instance, if a member just wanted 4 cans of kidney beans, they would have the following options: find other members who wanted to share the rest of 8 offered in the bulk pack of 12; buy all 12 in one go; or forego the item since their chosen quantity could not be easily ordered. This was a lot less convenient than turning up in a shop and taking home exactly the quantity one wanted.

On the contrary, since most items ordered by members were dry and non-perishable and could be stored for months, savings on retail price could be a significant advantage if the members could afford to buy in bulk. Information about the extent of participation of low-income members in this co-op could not be ascertained but the founder suggested that members were satisfied with the price-value bargain afforded them by their association as a buying group.

5.2.2.1 Discussion with reference to other studies

A number of other studies have highlighted that small community-based consumer food co-ops are best able to achieve price advantage in categories of fresh produce and bulk- packaged wholefood items such as sacks of nuts, cereals and pulses (Hines 1976; Ronco 1974; Freathy and Hare 2004). Freathy and Hare (2004) and Ronco (1974) have also pointed out that canned and packaged food items usually carry lower margins and can offer a price advantage only when ordered in very large quantities. Once a co-op adds a retail margin to cover its operational costs, these items do not offer any savings to co-op members.

Research on third-party funded food delivery projects to promote health has demonstrated their ability to make fruit and vegetables more affordable and accessible to economically disadvantaged communities. For instance, at the Welsh community food centres, separate bags of fruit, vegetables and salads were offered for £2 each (Elliott et al. 2006). These bags were supplied by a local farmer or a local wholesaler and, according to the study, represented good value to most customers. Similarly, 11 of the 18 co-ops evaluated in England were started as health initiatives to provide affordable fruit and vegetables (Smith et al. 2012). The organisers at 9 out of 11 of these co-ops felt that it was important to keep prices down and offer a reliable supply of basic staples in this category, and therefore, even though they would have liked to source only local food, they chose instead to purchase from a local wholesaler to meet their cost and choice objectives. However, since all of the health-promoting food delivery projects relied substantially on external funding, it was unclear whether the low cost of fruit and vegetables could be sustained once the funding was withdrawn. It is likely that some of the overhead costs covered by the funding will have to be reflected as an increase in prices of food items if these projects were to be developed into self-reliant member- owned co-operatives.

Furthermore, while the cost of organic food was higher than conventional food and was seen as unaffordable by many in the low-income groups, for those who did prefer organic over conventional options, relatively better prices could still be obtained by buying collectively from wholesalers or growers rather than individually from grocery retailers. In the evaluation study of English co-ops, this was, for instance, shown to be the case at Backwell co-op, which was located in a relatively prosperous neighbourhood, and where sourcing local, organic and ethical food was a primary concern among the co-opÕs members (Smith et al. 2012). Most of BackwellÕs members were already incorporating fruit and vegetables in their diet before joining the co-op but low cost of these food options at the co-op had made it easier to sustain their healthy and environmentally responsible eating practice.

Two other key factors crucial to keeping operational costs down were the use of free venues, such as community centres and schools, and unpaid volunteers. Freathy and Hare (2004) recommend a cautious approach to Ôtrading upÕ from a volunteer-based, free venue and limited produce set up to one requiring hired staff, fixed location, and a wider range of products. In their assessment of Scottish Ôvoluntary food co-operatives (VFCs)Õ, they observe (2004: 1573):

By offering a wider range of merchandise from a permanent location with paid employees, operating costs were increased. The core market that the voluntary co- operative had been established to serve was not able to provide the revenues necessary to sustain this additional expenditure. The voluntary co-operatives were forced to effectively position themselves as a general merchandise retailer. Unfortunately these VFCs lack the scale and resource base (and in many instances the expertise) to deliver superior financial performance in the market in which they now compete. They have little to differentiate themselves from the competition and have found further growth and development difficult.

Moreover, although food co-ops can, given the right conditions, make sustainable food more available and affordable for low-income groups, the evaluation report on Welsh food delivery projects warns against an assumption that easier access alone can change dietary practice of those who are not used to purchasing and consuming fruit and vegetables (Elliott et al. 2006). The main barriers to customer retention in these initiatives were: poor quality of produce; limited choice; lack of awareness of nutritional and environmental benefits of consuming fruit and vegetables; and, inconvenience in collecting produce, particularly in cases where customers were old and infirm. Another study which surveyed 680 residents in low income housing suggested that accessibility

and affordability may not in some cases be as important a barrier as motivation to eat healthily (Dibsdall et al. 2003). In this study most residents (over 90%) felt that their access to fresh, tinned or frozen produce was adequate through one large supermarket in their area. Many found that prices of fruit and vegetables in their area were reasonable but they were not able to budget for more than their habitual intake, which varied across the sample. Additionally, while more than 70% believed they had a healthy diet, only 18% claimed to be eating the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables. The authors argued that since most people already knew somewhat about what constitutes a healthy diet, this discrepancy could not have been entirely due to lack of knowledge. Instead, the researchers suggested that Ôother factors such as motivational, psychosocial or lifestyle factorsÕ (ibid.: 167) may have been more responsible for low intake of fruit and vegetables in their surveyed sample. Government statistics show that lowest income households (lowest 10th percentile) purchase only around 2.9 of the 5 portions recommended and significantly less than higher income households, but even most of the higher income households do not eat the recommended portions (Defra 2014). Hence, while income may be a significant constraint on accessing fruit and vegetable options, simply enabling access at lower price has limited capacity to induce targeted dietary changes.

In terms of making sustainable food affordable, the experience of the co-ops included in this research can be related to evidence from prior research as follows. Fresh produce and bulk-packaged items did provide better value for money in the cases I studied. However, despite identified challenges with offering price advantage in the category of canned and packaged goods, all five co-ops included in this study offer tinned and other cupboard items as many of their members prefer the convenience of purchasing a variety of products from a single point. Moreover, at the Pimlico Co-op where members buy directly from wholesalers in bulk and do not have any additional fixed costs to offset, savings can be made on canned and other packaged shelf-stable items as well. In the case of the University Co-op, low-cost fruit and vegetable options did include locally sourced produce, but through a local wholesaler who aggregated the supply from various local growers and provided more choice. This co-op was most similar to the cases of health promoting food delivery initiatives with respect to choosing its supplier model. Dealing with wholesalers was preferred as there were higher costs and operational difficulties associated with co-ordinating supply from small local growers.

High fixed costs of retail premises and the need to hire paid staff, as in the case of TPS and True Food, were considerable constraints in making environmentally sustainable food choices affordable for low-income groups. Finally, evidence from other studies suggests that food co-ops seeking to encourage sustainable food consumption cannot assume that reducing product prices alone will attract low-income consumers.