If I recall correctly, in theory, following the Worker Co-operative Code of Governance is a condition of membership of Co-operatives UK, so all worker co-ops who are members follow it.

In practice, resource shortages and poor practices (IMO – it feels like everything Co-operatives UK does has to be done by staff or elected representatives) means that it’s not yet been checked and I’ve only ever heard of software.coop producing reports (and sending actions to our decision-makers) from it, although I expect some others do too.

Thanks for your comments. The tool has been refined a little bit. I agree with your comments in principle, however, I think that the point is to take action on the reports. We can’t really know where to improve our coops if we don’t measure them. Creating metrics for the values and ethics is, to me, vital if we are really going to create something different. If we aren’t getting the engagement from our membership (the ephemeralaity of the compliance and commitment as you eloquently phrase it), then what are we really creating? I would argue that we fail to get engagement because we aren’t really creating structures significantly different from our non-coop competitors. If it is just a job, then why bother exerting the effort?

The “code”, at first glance, looks great. But how do you know it is being followed? What is the rank-n-file workers (or a segment of them) think it is being violated but another faction (or the leaders) think it is being followed? Without a way to measure that, it becomes like some many other codes–something to hang on the wall and become a source of conflict.

As to the question from the web site link (why haven’t worker coops developed in UK as they have in Spain and Italy)?

The answer isn’t that we haven’t learned how to properly manage; we haven’t really even tried to figure out what that means due to the root structure of paternalism that developed at the beginning of capitalism. Even the Fabian Society disregarded the worker as an errant child in need of a strong parental hand. The Fabian’s parent may have been a socialist, but it was still a parent. I think that the Spanish and the Italians reject that and argue for the value of all humans. Essentially accepting the Distributism of Chesterton and Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum without the negative baggage that this movement destroyed itself.

The Oslo Declaration, the Coop Index Tool and (I imagine), the Worker Coop Code are attempts to correct that error in coop history. It will take a mix of things and likely a life-time or two of development to really get to those answers.

There’s not much point creating reports in worker coops because they don’t get actiond (much like most businesses in fact). Far better to have a simple r call to discussion and agreement which is the intention of the worker code.

Im sorry to say I found the 185+ questions of the coop index difficult to get through and rather non-intuitive which is a big drawback for use ‘In the field’ where compliance and commitment are ephemeral (catch them before they lose interest).

The 42 points of the worker code are arranged around the ICA7 and incorporate the ICA/CICOPA definition of a worker cooperative (which is missing from the original 7) the points are written from the point of view of direct experience of worker cooperators themselves.

I agree most certainly–and I will get to that discussion soon. Of course, turning existing co-operatives into multi-stakeholders means uprooting existing power structures, hierarchies and power cliques (a lot easier said than done). Also, keep in mind that a lot of consumer (George Bernard Shaw included) don’t believe in the ability of workers to manage let alone participate in governance. That is what should make this a very fun discussion!