The GFG is relentless in its criticism of Co-operative Funeralcare for two reasons above all.
First, we believe that Funeralcare does not operate in accordance with the vision Rochdale Pioneers, who would be dismayed, at a time of rising funeral poverty, to see the way Funeralcare treats the poor. Instead of focussing on its core purpose, namely, to enable working people to buy what they would not otherwise be able to afford, Funeralcare’s latest utterance was a trifling press release, billed as “new research”, about the use of mobile phones at funerals.
Second, we fail to understand how a business can apply economies of scale (hub mortuaries, car pools, peripatetic funeral conductors) and come up with a standard funeral price several hundred pounds more than most independents.
Despite this, The Co-operative Group continues to be held in great affection — so the bad news about the Co-operative Bank, whose debts have been downgraded to junk status, was not greeted by Occupy protesters and the sort of howling vilification reserved for other banks in trouble.
I had an email the other day from Edgar Parnell, onetime Chief Executive of the excellent Plunkett Foundation, which was so helpful to us when we were developing our community funerals initiative. Parnell, whose life has been dedicated to the co-operative movement, has long deplored the errant ways of some co-operative societies, and he is clear in his analysis of where so many of them have gone wrong. His analysis of the regrettable state of The Co-operative Group is, in our opinion, persuasive. This is what he said:
Many will have been shocked by Friday’s news that the Co-op Bank chief had resigned following the downgrade of the bank’s debt, this as a sequel to the abortion of the Bank’s plan to takeover 632 branches from Lloyds Bank. Ostensibly, the causes of these events have their origins in the financial downturn, problematic loans and the increases in the sums of capital that will be required to be held to meet new regulations in the banking sector. However, the underlying issues run much deeper than this.
The management of the Co-operative Group appear to believe that they are running a conventional business, with the aim of profit maximization, that just happens to be owned by members rather than by investors. Whereas they need to be clear that the function of all co-operatives and mutuals is to intervene within the marketplace in the best interests of their members. The Group’s management either do not fully understand, or choose not to adhere to, the underlying essentials of the model of enterprise required for any form of co-operative or mutual to be successful.
Chasing growth to the detriment of the real interests of the membership has proved to be the downfall of major consumer co-ops in many countries in Europe*. Executives often seek to pursue a growth strategy because it means a bigger empire, more status and higher pay for them. The correct response to expansion proposals, including merger proposals, should always be to focus upon what is best for the membership and most likely to result in the achievement of the purpose of the enterprise. When co-operatives grow, in terms of the number of members and/or turnover, they are frequently beset by multiple problems. They lose sight of their original purpose, are prone to switch towards serving the interests of senior executives or cliques rather than those of the bulk of their members. As a consequence, they come to be regarded as irrelevant to the lives of their members and in the worst case they are hijacked by self-interested groups.
If co-operatives and mutuals are to carry out their function and achieve their purpose then it is vital that all involved have a clear understanding of:
- · The member-controlled enterprise model
- · The organizational risks inherent within the model
- · Their economic basis
- · The specific requirements of MCEs in terms of their leadership, organization & governance, management & accounting, financing, human relationships, and the public policy framework required
A video (12 minutes) explaining the ‘Member-controlled Enterprise model’ can be viewed at: http://s.coop/1myuo
More information is available at the Member-controlled Enterprise website at: http://s.coop/1bcyi
* Examples: two European consumer co-operatives that failed to understand the nature of the risks involved in following inappropriate growth strategies
Dortmund-Kassel, Germany: Coop Dortmund started in 1902 with 349 members, one shop and two employees; following successive mergers it became Dortmund-Kassel, an enterprise with 500,000 members, 350 supermarkets, 16 department stores and 74 business centres, employing 15,000 staff and with a total turnover of DM 2.5 billion. In 1989 approximately DM 45 million was invested in shop modernisation, 31 new shops with a surface of 25,000 sq. m., and the expansion of 12 shops. In 1998 Coop Dortmund-Kassel collapsed and was eventually liquidated. The reasons for this failure are attributed to the management seeking to follow practices and methods more appropriate in investor-driven organisations, i.e. the exclusion of members from goal-setting and policy decisions; full autonomy of the professional board; measurement of success by growth, market share, volume of turnover, profit and shareholder value; and corporate methods of fundraising to attract investor-members (promising high return on invested capital in the form of share dividends). One result of this strategy was to reduce members simply to passive shareholders and ordinary customers.
Konsum Austria: In 1995 Konsum Austria became bankrupt. It had slipped from being known as the ‘Red Giant’ on the retail scene and having 25% of the Austrian population as members. In 1978 the process of merging all of Austria’s consumer co-operatives into a single national society commenced. Unfortunately, the management was left to run the new super-co-op, which began chasing market share with little regard for its position as a member-controlled enterprise.
They ARE running it like a business. The question is; who asked them to and how could this be changed in the interest of consumers?
My local co-op supermarket competes with Sainsbury’s. They are winning the battle, despite higher prices. The reward for this ‘success’ seems to be the desire to build an even larger store in our village – to ‘offer consumers a larger range of products’ says the planning application and PR puff. In reality this will mean bigger profits for the Co-op.
Curiously, they just opened a new branch of their funeralcare business in our village too – in compettition with the lower price independent already there. It is hard to see how both can operate profitably – we just can’t have enough deaths. With deeper pockets, I can see the independent struggling if they manage to take even 20% of the local business.
The Co-op (gud with fud) is ‘competing’ with the new Tesco down here on the Isle of Portland, where it had had a monopoly for years. Tesco has emptied it – and the good ordinary folk of this bleak and guanao-spattered rock, from whose bosom St Paul’s Cathedral was ripped, are overjoyed by the greater range of choice and the far lower prices. No sign of an undertaker yet.
and rightly so Charles
I have long belived that these small Coop food outlets (many of which were acquired from Somerfield) have pretty well exhorbitant prices, with mediocre quality too
one only has to look at their prices for meat and to sample the offerings (very dismal) to appreciate this – this goliath organisation is once again ‘preying’ on the masses, that it’s a cheap place to shop, plus of course their slogan “that they’re good for you” or exactly what it is that they say
regards
andrew
The Co-op should stop pretending to be something it’s not. It’s capitalist like any other retailer. Flawed though capitalism might be, no other economic theory works.
exactly Richard, exactly
they insist on the attitude “….that we’re all great for the community….” dah de dah de dah, it’s total bull****, they’re an out and our capatalistic organisation, nothing else
regards
andrew
Just three comments following you Andrew and Richard. I am an ex (very ex) banker with substantial knowledge of lending. When I worked internationally as a VP I occasionally took a break from controlling the bank’s lending to sell some of the paper generated, mainly stuff the sales people could not move. A prime target was the Cooperative Bank because they had no idea how to evaluate a loan and were therefore an ‘easy touch’. When I saw the light and left banking I spent some time helping cooperatives and set up a few. I visited the Coop in Manchester and met the Head of the Advance Dept. I asked him how he approached the task of lending to cooperatives. His reply was that prior to working for the Coop Bank he had done a similar job at Barclays. He said his approach was no different and he did not give any preference to cooperatives. This was several decades ago and I know banks always prioritised in their lending if not only to balance exposures.
So no change there and apparently no change in their financial abilities given the dramatic down grading of the Coop’s rating recently.
By the way Richard, I hope you are not extolling the virtues of the capitalist system-it doesn’t look that healthy to me and neither does its future. Before you get too used to the idea that there is no alternative have a look at the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in Spain. They don’t seem to be doing too badly in Spain after 50 years in business. In 2006 (the latest figures I have seen) they contributed 3.8% to the GDP of the Basque autonomous region in Spain and were the third largest Spanish owned retailer in Spain and its largest supermarket. MCC incorporates over 150 companies. Interestingly the Basque government and the tax authorities of the Basque provinces have special measures to help cooperatives! Wake up Cooperative and work with people not against them.
Charles, said:
“……….we fail to understand how a business can apply economies of scale (hub mortuaries, car pools, peripatetic funeral conductors) and come up with a standard funeral price several hundred pounds more than most independents………….”
err…………Charles as you will almost certainly have appreciated, there is imo absolutely no, definitely no, intention at all to pass “these economies of scale” on to anyone, instead the vast profits reaped from this go towards:
(1) the unnecessary media advertising campaign(s) and the one that you’ve highlighted is laughable; (2) a seemingly endless feeding/gorging frenzy of opening (yet) more branches (just to keep up with all and sundry); (3) daft investments in a brand new fleet (simply to keep up with everyone else); (4) the bonus pool; (5) excessive salaries for those at the top; (6) completely unecessary and irrelevant Area Managers; and (7) plenty more which does not immediately occur
all of “their instructing clients want” is a good funeral and I am sure that on the whole they are entirely satisfied with that
but……………………………
what they do not realise is, is that their “cosy chums” (sic) down at Funeralcare (and Southern Co-op (to name one) are very happy in achieving, a policy of significantly over charging them or in other terms “….to simply rip them off…”
All of my above numbered comments have of course been built into the prices that they are paying. Their clients are being taken advantage off at one of their lowest times in their lives
What we are now seeing is a gargantum/juggernaut beast that has one aim only, control of the market (if they can) and with, no doubt, constant egotistical kicks for those at the top
I really pity those that instruct them, they haven’t a clue what they have just signed up to………………….I can just accept the (excessive) Coop food prices but to rip people of (to these extents) following a death is ghastly and totally inappropriate
i’ve nearly finished……………………..but (as I have already said) their clients should not be asked to “contribute” (sic) to all of (1) to (7) (and gawd knows what else) above but they surely are
regards
andrew
and I also said:
“…..3) daft investments in a brand new fleet (simply to keep up with everyone else)…..”
I could also have included unnecessary branch renovations just to keep up with the “everyone else” too
just to illustrate this small tragic comedy (sic), it’s well accepted that I have “anorak status”, there is this:-
http://funeralcarenews.co-operative.coop/branch-news/grantham-funeral-home-unveils-silver-fleet.html#.UZx5mkoZzIo
……………drum roll, please………………….
I’m sure that this will be part “of a hub fleet”
however I follow local trends (to include Grantham). Very quickly and from ‘notified’ Grantham deaths for this month, this is how it stacks up (in terms of funertals):-
(1) Funeralcare – 1
(2) Dignity – 1
(3) Very strong Indy – 22
(and this trend has been going on for months)
conclusion (and not that I needed to reach it) –
investment in a new fleet plus branch restoration costs is simply to attempt to compete with the Indy (and not the tosh that appears in their media broadcast). Funeralcare have lost the war in Grantham, even if they were ever in the game and what do we have?………………..more costs being piled on to their clients Nationwide. The decent thing would have been to withdraw and to close that branch but when you’re playing God at Funeralcare Towers, that’s really never an option
andrew
and here’s another one:-
http://funeralcarenews.co-operative.coop/branch-news/new-funeral-home-for-tilehurst.html#.UZyAO0oZzIp
yes guys and girls, we have to be, simply have to be, in the same street now as Dignity, we’re at No104, they’ve been at No21 for many years
andrew
Charles also said:-
“….we believe that Funeralcare does not operate in accordance with the vision Rochdale Pioneers, who would be dismayed, at a time of rising funeral poverty, to see the way Funeralcare treats the poor…”
yes indeed, let’s run their address through the ‘credit control database/pre-vetting IT set up’ first, shall we??? Let’s turn away “the undersirables”
andrew
This is a fabulous stream of energy, Andrew! I wish we could bottle it and hand it out at street corners! It would be great if Joe Public would pay attention to what’s under their noses.
thanks Kathryn, much appreciated
fwiw, my main gripes with Funeralcare are ‘threefold’:
(a) the constant media campaigns resulting in the enormous amount of spin that they’re putting over, in convincing their target market that they simply have to instruct them:
(b) their reliance on their long term customers and that it must be right to instruct them, after all they will receive an increased dividend etc etc, when of course the truth is, is that the dividend in real terms is worth nil and that the cost of F’care funerals way way exceeds that of the local Indy; and
(c) their prices per se
if, and only if, The Coperative Funeralcare had never embroilled themselves in all of this media speak, that they maintained a low profile and that their prices were more damn realistic and cheaper, then I would scarcely bother to blog on here regarding their policies and prices
as a side issue, it’s interesting the line that DIGNITY take, hardly any media profile at all in comparison, they just seem to get on with it and without the need for a media release on the use of mobile phones at funerals. That really says it all. When one develops such an internal pr/media beast, they’re always looking for work (to satisfy their own individual importance) and so, they have to be fed with constant stuff. Dear Funeralcare, if you sacked all of your media mob, how much could you take off of the cost of a funeral…? No hope, of course
regards
andrew
How can I beat all of the above remarks, To be honest I cant but when I hear another local Pub is soon too close and make way for Tesco, Its a sad day for drinkers and yes I do drink, mainly real ale, sometimes a brandy, and now and then guiness……………or 2.
But what does put a smile on my face is knowing a Coop is next door to the proposed new Tesco,
Every Little Helps.
thx Greg
I too do “real ale” and not in a small way
I actively seek out those pubs that support micro breweries Nationwide and they’re on the increase too
best
andrew
actually Charles
and as we all know…………….
“it’s gone terribly RIGHT for those at the top of Funeralcare”
the public face being George T, Collingwood D, Kershaw Sam and gawd knows how many other ladder climbers
they’ve done very very well financially out of this, yes I’m sure that they certainly have
andrew
Besides being very grateful to the Co-op for showing me how things are done (ie. how they do things) when I worked as ‘the man in the back’ in one of their branches, I was astonished at just how little their operatives are paid; it was then that I then managed to find it less shocking at how they (mostly) regarded their jobs.
What shame this all brings down on the once deeply important Co-operative movement.
How they regard their jobs, James, may be hinted at by one of their mortuary workers who told me; “I wouldn’t trust these cunts with a fucking dog’s funeral.”
I think full quote is unecessary.
It says more to me about the mortuary worker than their employer. I certainly wouldn’t trust that worker with a deceased person and regardless of management that is the actual person doing the ‘caring’ as they handle the deceased.
What was your response to the mortuary worker Jonathan?
Since I worked on building sites for thirty years, James, and encountered and used such language casually and routinely with my colleagues, and learned to respect it as the valid and honourable form of communication it is in its native context, I’m taken aback by some of the unconscious prejudice, against people I hold in high regard, that my quote has revealed.
I suspect that quoting my own response to this good man, sadly, would give rise to similar disdain on this blog. Suffice to say, understanding his employer at first hand as I do, I supported him in his opinion.
I can certainly see no reason not to trust him with the dead body of any of my relatives.
Afternoon Jonathan,
I am not saying that it is not a valid form of communication and I am sure it can appropriate in the right context, my point was that I thought it unnecessary to quote it in full on this blog.
I did not mean that the use of the language by that individual was my concern rather that it if that co-operative was really that bad and they were playing such an important role, rather than moaning about it to a third party, what were they doing about it? Maybe they were actively challenging what was such a concern to them.
You have stated that you hold the individual in high regard, in which case then my comments were misjudged and I withdraw them.
Regards
James
unfortunately, James, it’s simply the way that it is
regards
andrew
Jonathan,
Many ladies can view this and children as well, we all have repeated now and then something we have heard from Morticians in the past, but do please refrain from useing the C word, its horrible and very Inappropriate.
I think it’s important to notice that Jonathan was quoting an offensive remark, not making one.
Thanks, Kathryn, nice to be heard.
Seconded GMT. Not just ladies and children.
But, it’s also a good illustration of differing opinions which have been evident over the last few days. Whilst some see home funerals as the way forwards, others think they’re a lousy idea. Neither is right probably, it’s all about choice and what is right for the individual isn’t it?
Equally, what some see as acceptable words to use on this blog, others are offended by, and others see as unnecessary.
point taken, its just the wrong word to use, may be im just getting old. it is my 47th Birthday today, feel free to raise a glass, I will be very soon.
A very happy birthday to you, Gregory Michael Taylor!
Charles, thank you for the kind words.
Andrew, my comments are my own views, some like me for speaking my mind and some dont,
You havent offended me I just find certain words not nice in public, have a nice weekend.
……and more good cheer (NOT) regarding the Coop banking division:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22651713
it’s clearly time to tap into Funeralcare for a “supporting Loan”, that will no doubt mean that F’care will have to up their prices again, one just has to support the new branch opening programme and gawd knows what else, of course, too, doesn’t one………………….?
andrew
An interesting blog followed by many comments, a shame they are all so negative.
yes, well, James
what else is there to say regarding these issues with Funeralcare?
andrew
There is a lot to say Andrew.
That there are 1,000’s of dedicated funeral professionals working for co-operatives across the country who care for bereaved families.
Just as there equal numbers of co-operative members who are passionate about co-operative values, believe and practice them.
This seems to be forgotten in the comments on the GFG blogs.
Good Funeral Guide? Well co-operatives can and do carry out very good funerals.
Regards
James
thankyou James
with no disrespect at all, you (may) have missed the point(s) that I’ve been making, I have no issue at all with any of the dedicated professionals that work there, my disappointment is with the management per se
regards
andrew
Thank you for your response Andrew.
I do appreciate the point(s) you have been making and to some degree agree with some of them. My concern is that there does not appear to be a balance, rather a focus on all things negative. Even when a positive co-operative story or comment is placed on the GFG blog it is followed quickly by cynical and critical comments.
I did not mean to challenge your points in particular it was just you have perhaps been more vocal than most on this particular thread and I felt a response to the whole blog was appropriate to try to get some sort of balance.
Afternoon Charles,
I value your comments and thought that has gone into them. However I do think that the anti co-operative stance of the blogs will not encourage responses from any parties involved with co-operatives, be they employees, members, societies or managers. I think perhaps that in your role as moderator you could do more to show all sides of an issue and encourage responses.
I should perhaps state Charles, for readers of the blog, that I am both a member and an employee of a co-operative.
Regards
James
I would hazard a guess, James, that most of the commenters here are sympathetic to the ideals of co-operation, and it is this that informs their dismay. It is always our preference to look on the bright side and not be boringly, relentlessly obstreperous. We wish we had more good news stories to tell about the Group but, in truth, we have had a number of emails in the last few months from very decent people saddened by Funeralcare’s treatment of poor people. It seemed to me that Parnell, a man who has devoted his life to co-operation, has useful insights.
You are quite right to say that there are a great many dedicated people who work for Funeralcare, and we think we have not, over time, omitted to recognise this. Nor have we failed to recognise the work of at least one co-operative society which, it seems to us, conducts itself in an outcomes-focussed way.
When the focus on outcomes is displaced, I think, a co-op becomes just another player in the market, and in this respect the Group is not making a good fist of competing with the corporates.
We are always open to a response from Funeralcare. We’re interested in getting to the truth through debate, not in sitting, smug and immoveable, on a fixed point of view. This blog is a dialogue or it is nothing, which is why we allow unmediated access to anyone, however discomforting their response. I hope that this is a discipline which compels us to weigh our words carefully and keeps us honest.
thankyou James
I agree, I do highlight “the negative(s)” but there are significant reasons why I do so. An immediate 25-30% reduction in Funeralcare’s pricing structure would more than do the trick, but and……………………..as has been said on here many times, why is it that with Funeralcare’s massive organisation and significant buying power, that they have to be so so (over) expensive…..? I certainly agree that there should “be a balance” but how can that be, at these pricing levels?
and there has been a long standing invitation to Funeralcare to make an appearance on here, but they simply do not do so
regards
andrew
Hi James
I should also have added that I have scant time for the other large Corporates, Dignity, LM and FP, they’re all way too expensive, they do all however resist in constantly blowing their own proverbial………………..
imo, families are far better served by the Indy’s (and I appreciate that they’re not always 100% spot on, either)
I do wonder if we’re not all the victim of what went on in the “greed is good for you 1980’s”, prior to that there certainly weren’t any Plc funeral holding Companies around, but then, Hodgson Holdings, Kenyon Securities and Great Southern decided to get in on the act, and……………
regards
andrew
The problem is that the Co-Operative are simply in it for the money rather than caring deeply about the family. The time they spend with the family all revolves around how much the funeral will cost, rather than the person being laid to rest.
It’s a shame, but big industries will always be the same.
thanks ‘UDF’
part of my argument too, I’m afraid
regards
andrew
(PS Funeralcare are imo nothing other than ‘a quasi Corporate’, they may have a different legal structure with their holding Company than the other three Corp’s, but they act in exactly the same way)
Firstly how hood winked some people are. Sadly having worked for this company for 5 years. Until I could no longer take there lying. Only interest in profit and not at all interested in the deceased or the family. When having the despicable ways uncovered. The top management seem to think they can pay people of and keep them quite. The general public have a right to no freedom of information act. Don’t be fooled. You would not believe what goes on behind the scenes. Chan al 4 undercover undertaker. Was nothing compared to what goes on behind the scenes