The combination of interests, factors and relationships at multiple scales results in a number of tensions and negotiations within the Carbon Co-op itself, from its ideological roots and strategies through to particular roles, responsibilities and processes.
Identity and priorities
Views varied regarding the extent to which Carbon Co-op should engage with broader sustainability and climate change activities as opposed to just concentrating on retrofit, which emerged in discussions in board meetings and the strategy day, especially when discussing the redefinition of the Carbon Co-op’s official mission statement. This linked to negotiations in internal meetings concerning how closely Carbon Co-op should stick to its target of 80% on each house. Some argued that in the spirit of inclusivity a target of 60% would reach more people and prevent the biggest gains from energy efficiency being made by those who already have a lot of wealth. Others felt that if the commitment to climate change was serious, reducing this target would make it impossible to contribute to national and global emissions targets enough to prevent the serious effects of climate change. Further questions were raised about the future trajectory of Carbon Co-op, regarding how quickly it should seek to grow and progress. This debate was heavily influenced by the tension between a desire to have a greater impact on carbon emissions through retrofitting more houses, and caution about growing ‘too quickly’ and losing some of the technical rigorousness and professional reputation:
With the funding we have and the partners we have at the moment we can do about ten a year [retrofits], if we want to do say 30 or 40 a year we will need extra capacity and we will have to grow. But there’s a big debate about whether or not we want to grow and do more, or should we just stick with the ten a year, then assess ourselves and monitor what we are doing first a little bit? Board Member 3/Stockport
Roles and responsibilities
There were also internal debates around roles and responsibilities, especially relating to the risk of burnout of the core members of Carbon Co-op in terms of their capacity to continue to manage the organisation largely on a voluntary basis. The relationships and projects at GM level had widened Carbon Co-op’s scope and scale from the grassroots to the city- regional, and placed heavy expectations on an organisation staffed by part-timers and
176
volunteers, creating something of a mismatch between capacity and scale, which was discussed at board meetings and at the AGM in March 2013. As a result key priority in recruiting members became to encourage existing and new members to take a more active role in promoting, in administration, and in dealing with governance issues such as writing or modifying policies, mission statements and rules, to share the load.
At the installation stage of the Go Early project, technical difficulties and conflicts over the roles and responsibilities of different members of the project team also produced serious divisions in the team. Approaches to the level of involvement on site and who was
responsible for project management, advising the contractor and assisting the householder were not clear and were contested on site, leading to confusion and disruption for the householders. The installation phase also created significant problems for the relationship between Carbon Co-op and the main contractor, whose struggles on site resulted in them litigating Carbon Co-op for a significant sum of money and holding them responsible for loss of revenue.
Overt or covert experimentation
Another interesting tension emerging in both public and internal meetings was a negotiation around the experimental nature of Carbon Co-op’s work, particularly at the installation stage. Some board members were very explicit about the nature of the works as being experimental, testing how to deal with certain details and negotiate certain parts of the process such as applying for the ECO funding. However, other board members and participants felt that being so explicit about the experimental elements and uncertainties in the process could put householders off, or compromise the Co-op’s reputation for
robustness, arguing that they did not want people to “feel like guinea pigs”.
Territory
There was also negotiation around constructing the territories for Carbon Co-op’s work: in the Community Champions project, even though an initial desire had been to move beyond the areas of Stockport that had plenty of interest, this process relied on existing projects and outreach as described above, and realistic expectations about what could be achieved in these areas:
177
“There are ten boroughs in Stockport and eight are not really engaged in any way. Originally they [Stockport Council] wanted ten workshops and ten assessments, one in each of the ten boroughs. But that was not possible - you have to generate interest first. To go into totally new areas is arrogant and a waste of energy. It’s not about persuading people – telling them they really should do this, it’s about them already wanting to do it and connecting them up.” Board member 3/Stockport
Thus, partly due to the ethical position that the Co-op took, much of the interest was still based primarily upon an existing desire to do the work rather than an element of persuasion from Carbon Co-op.