United States

Department of 

Agriculture

U

D

A

Rural Development

Rural Business-Cooperative Programs

Research Report 229

Member 

Satisfaction 

With Their 

Cooperatives: 

Insights From 

Dairy Farmers
For questions about this report, or cooperatives in general, contact USDA Cooperative Programs at: 

coopinfo@wdc.usda.gov, or (202) 720-7558. USDA maintains an on-line library of more than 100 publications about cooperatives at: www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_LibraryOfPubs.htm. Free hard copies 

of some of these publications are also available. Requests can be made via the contacts provided above. 

USDA also publishes “Rural Cooperatives” magazine bimonthly. The current and past issues can be 

viewed online at: www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_RurCoopMag.html.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers. If you believe 

you experienced discrimination when obtaining services from USDA, participating in a USDA program, 

or participating in a program that receives fi nancial assistance from USDA, you may fi le a complaint with 

USDA. Information about how to fi le a discrimination complaint is available from the Offi ce of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

To fi le a complaint of discrimination, complete, sign and mail a program discrimination complaint form, 

available at any USDA offi ce location or online at www.ascr.usda.gov, or write to:

USDA

Offi ce of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410

Or call toll free at (866) 632-9992 (voice) to obtain additional information, the appropriate offi ce or to request documents. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA 

through the Federal Relay service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD). 

Cover photo courtesy Dairylea Cooperative
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers i

ABSTRACT

The key to being a successful cooperative is performing functions and providing services to members’ satisfaction. Correlations between factors 

related to members’ satisfaction with their cooperatives were calculated using data from four dairy 

cooperative membership surveys. Corporate-level 

issues concerning how well the cooperative is run 

and items affecting members’ pay prices are strong 

forces in member satisfaction. 

Keywords Member satisfaction, dairy, cooperatives, correlation, surveys, governance, management.

Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: 

Insights From Dairy Farmers

Carolyn B. Liebrand

K. Charles Ling

Agricultural Economists

USDA Rural Development

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

RBS Research Report 229

June, 2014
ii Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

ABSTRACT i

HIGHLIGHTS iii

Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 1

Introduction 1

Data 2

Methodology 3

Findings 4

Correlation analysis—factors associated with member satisfaction with their cooperative 4

Cluster analysis—relationships between factors associated with member satisfaction 8

Discussion 10 

Conclusions 11

References 11

TABLES 

Table 1—Survey data statistics 3

Table 2—Relative strength of correlation coeffi cient values 4

Table 3—Distribution of member responses for variables common to all surveys 5

Table 4—Distribution of responses for reasons for belonging 6

Table 5—Factors strongly and very strongly correlated with member satisfaction 

 with their cooperative overall 6

Table 6—Communication factors strongly correlated with member overall

 satisfaction with their cooperative 7

Table 7—Moderate correlations between member overall satisfaction with their cooperative 

 and cooperative practices 7

Table 8—Moderate correlations between overall satisfaction with cooperative and 

 services provided by cooperatives 7

Table 9—Moderate correlations between overall satisfaction with cooperative and 

 level of agreement with statements of cooperative principles and practices 8

Table 10—Corporate management cluster 9

Table 11—Governance cluster 9

Appendix table 1.1—Survey questions 12

Appendix table 1.2—Survey questions – reasons for belonging 15

Appendix table 2—Correlation matrix membership survey data, 1,736 dairy farmer responses 16

Appendix table 3.1—Comparison of correlation coeffi cients, entire database, equal number of 

 observations, and four-survey average 19

Appendix table 3.2—Corporate management cluster, simple average 23

Appendix table 3.2.1—Corporate management cluster, equal number of observations 23

Appendix table 3.3—Governance cluster, simple average 24

Appendix table 3.3.1—Governance cluster, equal number of observations 24

CONTENTS

orrelation coefficient values 4

mmon to all surveys

member satisfaction

y correlated with member overall

mber overall satisfaction with their cooperative

een overall satisfaction with cooperative and

7

all satisfaction ith cooperati e and

8

 9

9

TS i

odology

n analysis factors associated with member satisfaction with their cooperative

1

 1

1

2

1

reasons for belonging 1

1 736 dairy farmer responses 1

f

1

ster simple average 2

of observations 2

 2

of observations 2
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers iii

HIGHLIGHTS

Dairy cooperatives are member-owned organizations through which members conduct the business 

of marketing their milk. The key to operating a successful cooperative is for it to perform functions and 

provide services needed and desired by the memberowners to their satisfaction. 

USDA’s Cooperative Programs has assisted 

several major dairy cooperatives in conducting a 

number of membership surveys over two decades. 

These surveys collected information directly from 

dairy farmers about how producer-members think 

and feel about their cooperative. These opinions 

were analyzed to determine what factors are related 

to member satisfaction with their cooperative.

A variety of surveys conducted over many years 

and across the Nation reveal that dairy farmers 

continue to look to their cooperatives for an assured 

market, or, put another way: for the guarantee of a 

market and payment for their milk. 

Correlations between each of the variables (the 

survey items the producers were asked about) were 

calculated. These correlation coeffi cients reveal 

whether or not there is a linear relationship between 

member sentiment on the various items and the 

strength and direction of the relationship. 

Member satisfaction with their cooperative overall was very strongly correlated with:

• Satisfaction with the cooperative’s management;

• Satisfaction with the cooperative’s milk pricing 

policies.

Member satisfaction was strongly correlated with 

their:

• Opinion that the cooperative was doing a good job 

of marketing members’ milk and returning the 

best price for their milk;

• Satisfaction with the cooperative’s management of 

operating and marketing costs;

• Satisfaction with the cooperative’s board of directors.

Communication and member infl uence were also 

strongly related to member satisfaction, as evidenced by the strong correlation between members’ 

satisfaction with their cooperative overall and their:

• Agreement the cooperative keeps them well 

informed about its operations;

• Agreement they have a great amount of infl uence on how the cooperative is run;

• Satisfaction with the amount of infl uence members have on how the cooperative is run.

Many additional items showed moderate correlation with overall satisfaction with the cooperative. 

These concern member connection to the cooperative, viewing the cooperative as a unique organization, and satisfaction with various services the cooperative provides, as well as agreeing with certain 

cooperative principles. A higher overall satisfaction 

level with the cooperative was moderately associated with greater disagreement that “the cooperative was more concerned about operations than its 

members.” 

The issues affecting members’ bottom lines appear to be the strongest forces in member satisfaction. Feeling informed about the cooperative may 

contribute to members’ feeling satisfi ed in these 

areas. 

The fi rst priority to cultivate member satisfaction 

with their cooperative appears to be a competent 

board of directors and a capable management team 

that do the best job of marketing member milk, 

minimizing operating costs, and setting satisfactory milk pricing policies in place. A second area 

for member satisfaction is sound communications 

to keep members well-informed of cooperative 

operations and to provide feedback from members 

regarding their wishes and concerns.
Member Satisfaction With Their 

Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

Carolyn B. Liebrand

K. Charles Ling

Agricultural Economists

Introduction

The key to being a successful cooperative is to 

perform functions and provide services needed and 

desired by its members to their satisfaction.

In the dairy industry, cooperatives are memberowned organizations, through which members 

conduct the business of marketing their milk. 

Controlled, fi nanced, and used by members, these 

organizations benefi t members by enhancing returns 

to their milk production efforts. To support the primary marketing function, cooperatives may further 

process member milk, offer additional services to 

their member producers, and represent producers’ 

interests in the marketplace and in policymaking. As 

organizations of producers, dairy cooperatives have 

the advantages of working closely with members 

for assembling milk, providing fi eld services, and 

performing farm-related functions as well as or better than other milk handlers.

To effi ciently perform their roles, dairy cooperatives have adopted various organizational structures. In many cases, this has meant handling large 

amounts of producer milk, operating over a wide 

geographic area (multistate, regional, or national in 

scope) and carrying on manufacturing and processing plant operations, resulting (in some cases) in 

fairly bureaucratic, complex business organizations 

that require high levels of management expertise. 

This complexity may lead to a lower level of 

direct participation and grassroots involvement by 

the members, or it may cause some members to 

feel less connected to their cooperative. This underscores the value of understanding members’ views 

about their cooperatives and how satisfi ed they are 

with the cooperative in order to better serve them.

There were two major studies into dairy farmer 

evaluations of their milk buyers (cooperatives as 

well as proprietary handlers or “non-cooperatives”) 

in the 1980s. A March 1981 survey collected the 

opinions of 1,612 dairy farmers who produced 

Grade A milk across the United States (Boynton, et 

al.). Sixty percent of the farmers were cooperative 

members. Responding farmers gave favorable ratings to their milk buyers in all six aspects examined:

1. Guarantee market and payment for milk;

2. Assure accurate weights and tests;

3. Increase milk price;

4. Reduce marketing costs;

5. Provide fi eld services, and

6. Provide a voice to farmers in marketing decisions.

Other highlights from the study included:

• Cooperatives were rated as good as or better 

than proprietary handlers on 17 of 19 statements 

related to the areas mentioned above.

• Only on the price paid for milk and the fl exibility 

to improve income by shifting to another buyer 

did farmers indicate cooperatives were outperformed by proprietary handlers.

• Farmers felt that cooperatives were most often 

the leader in establishing price level in the market.

• Farmer characteristics, size of milk buyer, and 

whether their cooperative operated a plant had 

little effect on farmers’ evaluation of their buyer.

Most of these fi ndings were echoed in a February 

1989 survey in 12 Southern States that collected the 

opinions of 2,538 dairy farmers (Liebrand, et al.). 

Eighty-two percent of the respondents were cooperative members. Insights gained in this study were:

• The prices farmers receive may be one of the 

most signifi cant factors affecting satisfaction 

1
2 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

level with their milk buyers—cooperative or 

otherwise.

• Some tradeoffs appeared between price and 

deductions versus service and market and payment assurance. Farmers most frequently chose 

to market through cooperatives to get an assured 

market and payment, higher prices, and better 

services. In contrast, those who sold to proprietary handlers most frequently chose their buyer 

to gain higher prices and/or because of friendly 

personnel.

• As the size of the dairy farm increased, the portion of farmers rating the cooperative excellent in 

providing an assured market, checking weights 

and tests, providing market information, and 

providing policymaking also increased. However, 

the percentages of the largest herd-size group that 

rated the cooperative ”excellent” in milk hauling 

and fi eld services were lower than other, smaller 

herd-size groups.

• In general, a larger portion of farmers agreed that 

cooperatives should process or manufacture more 

member milk than those who agreed that member 

investment should be increased to process more 

milk.

• A higher proportion of bargaining/operating 

cooperative members participated in various 

cooperative activities than did members of 

bargaining-only cooperatives. (Bargaining/operating cooperatives operate dairy plants while 

bargaining-only cooperatives do not.)

The fi ndings from these two studies yielded 

valuable information about the functions and services that dairy farmers want their cooperatives 

to perform in marketing their milk. However, this 

information represents only the general assessments 

of the milk buyers by the survey respondents. For 

a cooperative to take concrete steps to satisfy its 

members, direct input from members is necessary.

During the past two decades, USDA’s Cooperative Programs has provided technical assistance to 

several major dairy cooperatives in conducting fi ve 

membership surveys to fi nd out directly from their 

members what they think about their cooperatives. 

The surveys included questions about the cooperatives’ internal management and operational issues, 

as well as some of the points highlighted by the two 

studies cited above. Specifi c reports were presented 

to the respective requesting cooperatives upon 

completion.

The data collected in conducting these technical 

assistance projects constitute a unique and valuable database of cooperative membership opinions. 

This report pools the data of four of these surveys 

for further analysis (data from the fi fth, and earliest, survey was irretrievable). This research has the 

premise that members’ satisfaction with the cooperative is of vital importance to the cooperative and 

–through the use of the survey database – it identifi es factors that are associated with, or contribute to, 

members’ satisfaction.

Data

The membership surveys were conducted independently in January through March in various 

years between 1993 and 2012. The four surveys 

combined had 2,379 mailed-in responses. Individually, a majority of each cooperative’s members 

sent in their questionnaires, ranging from 53 to 60 

percent of the cooperatives’ members. There were 

43 questions that were the same, or similar, between 

the different surveys; most were relevant to the 

topic of member satisfaction. 

Some respondents did not answer all the questions, as is typical with most surveys. So a subset 

of the data where each respondent had answered 

all of the 43 selected questions (1,736 dairy farmers) was used for this study (table 1). These 1,736 

respondents represent nearly three-fourths of all 

the respondents and between 37 and 43 percent of 

each cooperative’s entire membership. (One survey 

did not ask 2 of the 43 questions; so for this survey, 

respondents who answered each of the 41 remaining 

questions in common were included.)

In addition to soliciting members’ overall levels 

of satisfaction with their cooperatives, questions 

that were asked on all the surveys fell into 6 general 

topic areas:

• Milk pricing;

• Cooperative services;

• Cooperative operations;

• Cooperative principles;

• Cooperative governance, and
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 3

• Member connection with their cooperative.

The 43 questions are reproduced in appendix 

table 1.1; notations are made where the wording 

was slightly different between surveys. 

The respondents were asked to indicate their 

level of agreement with various statements with a 

code number (ranging from 1 to 5) representing the 

strength and direction of their opinions. The range 

attempts to reveal the respondent’s intensity of feeling about a given item. The rating scales used in 

each of the surveys are shown in appendix table 1.2. 

For two of the items, some of the surveys asked for 

a rating rather than satisfaction level.

The 1,736 member opinions are examined as 

a single data set to preserve the anonymity of the 

individual cooperatives, despite each survey contributing a different number of observations. 

Several caveats should be kept in mind when interpreting the results. The pooled data represent the 

opinions offered by members who took the time to 

respond to their cooperative’s survey. Further, these 

respondents were members of specifi c cooperatives 

that polled member opinion in this manner. Thus, 

it can’t be known how representative the fi ndings 

are of all members of all dairy cooperatives. In addition, over the two decades in which the various 

surveys were conducted, dairy economic conditions 

have varied substantially. So, the economic or marketing climate, as well as the fi nancial performance 

of the cooperatives, was most likely different for 

each set of survey respondents. How, or if, these 

items may have swayed member opinions is not 

known.

Methodology

This study explores the correlations between members’ 

levels of overall satisfaction 

with the cooperative and the 

variables that represent members’ opinions of the functions 

and services performed by the 

cooperative. Also if groups 

of these variables are found 

to closely correlate between 

themselves within the respective groups, they are clustered 

into theme categories to allow for focused management attention.

Correlation analysis reveals the degree of association between two random variables. The correlation coeffi cient is a measure of the strength of 

this linear relationship. Correlation coeffi cients 

range between -1 and 1 and will equal -1 or 1 if the 

variables are perfectly linearly related. However, 

if there is a non-linear relationship between two 

variables, the correlation coeffi cient cannot properly 

refl ect the association (Freeman, et al.).

 In analyzing the data in this study, the correlation coeffi cients reveal whether or not there is 

a relationship between member sentiment on the 

various items and the direction of the relationship. 

For example, higher levels of satisfaction in one 

area may be related to higher levels of satisfaction 

in another area. Or, if the correlation coeffi cient is 

negative, it indicates an inverse relationship where 

higher levels of satisfaction may be related to lower 

levels of agreement with a particular principle or 

practice.

The membership survey data can be thought of as 

“ranked,” because fi ve possible values were used to 

represent their feeling about, or rating of, a particular item. For example, many questions asked if the 

respondent’s feeling toward a particular statement 

was: “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “unsure,” 

“agree,” or “strongly agree.” In this manner, the 

responses are essentially a ranking from the least 

positive (“strongly disagree”), to the middle response (“unsure”), to the most positive (“strongly 

agree”). However, while the responses are ranked in 

an order, a “value” cannot be assigned to the differ-

 Number All questions

 of in common

 respondents answered1

 ----------------Number----------------

Survey #1 1,156 921

Survey #2 518 354

Survey #3 408 271

Survey #4 297 190

Total 2,379 1,736

1

Forty-three questions, except for Survey #1 where two of these questions were not 

included in the survey. 

Table 1 Survey data statistics 
4 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

ences between the rankings. For example, it cannot 

be said that “strongly agree” is 25 percent more 

positive than “agree,” or fi ve times as strong as 

“strongly disagree,” and so forth (Kitchens).

For social science studies, variables are considered to be correlated when their correlation coeffi cient is 0.3 or greater (Freedman, et al., page 126). 

For this study, a correlation coeffi cient of 0.5 and 

greater is considered a strong relationship, and a 

correlation coeffi cient of 0.7 and greater indicates 

a very strong relationship. Likewise, a correlation 

coeffi cient of -0.5 and smaller is considered a strong 

inverse relationship, while a correlation coeffi cient 

of -0.7 and smaller indicates a very strong inverse 

relationship. Correlation coeffi cients equal to 0.3 

and up to 0.5 are considered moderately correlated 

(and -0.3 down to -0.5 are moderately, but inversely, 

related) (table 2).

 When the number of variables is more than two 

and especially with the large number of variables 

in this study, the correlation coeffi cients may be 

arranged into a correlation matrix for easier comprehension. The correlation matrix also allows for 

inspection to determine whether the variables can 

be clustered into groups or categories. 

A correlation matrix with the correlations between each pair of variables considered in this 

report can be found in appendix table 2.

There is more than one way of doing cluster 

analysis (Kendall). In the current context, cluster 

analysis is the process of examining the correlations 

between each possible combination of variables to 

determine if additional variables also are correlated 

to one or both of them. Cluster analysis reveals 

groups of variables where each variable is highly 

correlated with the other variables in the group. As a 

result, one of the variables (or alternatively, a composite of all the variables) may be used to represent 

the sentiment of the producers around a theme.

Findings

The distribution of the respondents’ ratings for 

each key factor associated with member satisfaction 

with their cooperative are presented in tables 3 and 

4. Some highlights are:

• 20.3 percent of the respondents indicated they 

were very satisfi ed with their cooperative overall.

• 18.1 percent were very satisfi ed with their cooperative’s board of directors, and 16.8 percent 

were very satisfi ed with their cooperative’s management.

• 34.7 percent were very satisfi ed with their cooperative’s bulk milk hauling services, more 

than for any other service asked about, but only 

one-half of that (15.2 percent) were very satisfi ed 

with their cooperative’s milk hauling policy.

• While a majority indicated that the cooperative 

kept them informed about operations and programs (63.0 percent), fewer indicated that they 

received as much information as they need (44.9 

percent).

• The majority of respondents indicated that the 

cooperative’s offer of a secure market for their 

milk was a major reason for belonging to the 

cooperative (54.1 percent).

Correlation analysis—factors associated with 

member satisfaction with their cooperative

Member satisfaction with 

their cooperative overall was 

most strongly correlated with 

member satisfaction with 

their cooperative’s management (table 5). Also, satisfaction with the cooperative 

overall was very strongly correlated with satisfaction with 

their cooperative’s pricing 

policies. Moreover, satisfaction with the cooperative 

 Positive correlation Negative correlation1

Strength of relationship coeffi cient value coeffi cient value

Perfectly related 1.0 -1.0

Very strong 0.7 to less than 1.0 -0.7 to greater than -1.0

Strong 0.5 to less than 0.7 -0.5 to greater than -0.7

Moderate 0.3 to less than 0.5 -0.3 to greater than -0.5

Weak 0.1 to less than 0.3 -0.1 to greater than -0.3

No relationship 0.0 to less than 0.1 0.0 to greater than -0.1

1

An inverse relationship where as one variable increases in value, the other decreases

Table 2 Relative strength of linear correlation coeffi cient

 values 
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 5

 Rating 

Code Item 1 2 3 4 5

 Percent

 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

 dissatisfi ed dissatisfi ed Unsure satisfi ed satisfi ed

S Cooperative overall 3.9 7.3 7.4 61.1 20.3

P1 Cooperative’s pricing policies 5.1 16.4 16.2 50.6 11.8

O2 Co-op’s management of 

 operating and marketing costs 5.9 10.9 28.1 45.0 10.1

O4 Cooperative management 4.6 9.3 19.5 49.8 16.8

G4 Cooperative board of directors 2.8 5.5 21.7 52.0 18.1

 Percent

 Strongly Strongly

 disagree Disagree Unsure Agree agree

P2 Cooperative pays members fairly for their milk 5.7 11.7 22.3 49.3 11.1

P3 Cooperative’s practice of paying different milk 

 prices by area is justifi ed 10.8 21.0 37.4 26.2 4.6

O3 Co-op is more concerned about operations 

 than about its members 4.4 36.0 27.2 22.9 9.4

S6 Co-op does a good job of marketing my milk 

 and returns the best price for my milk 9.3 14.2 30.9 40.5 5.0

I1 Cooperative keeps members well informed 

 about its operations and programs 6.0 14.0 17.1 53.4 9.6

I2 Members receive as much information as 

 they need about operations and programs 7.1 22.2 25.9 43.0 1.9

C1 I feel I am part owner of the coop 5.2 12.6 12.5 56.1 13.5

C2 Belonging to the cooperative is important 

 part of my identity as a farmer 5.3 20.4 19.0 45.5 9.7

C3 The cooperative is just another place to 

 do business 5.0 44.0 14.0 33.1 4.0

C6 I would discontinue my membership with 

 the co-op if an alternative was available 16.5 42.4 29.5 7.3 4.3

G1 Cooperative members have a great amount 

 of infl uence on how cooperative is run 9.1 27.2 25.4 35.6 2.7

G2 Satisfi ed with the amount of infl uence I have 

 on how co-op is run 8.4 21.0 25.9 41.5 3.1

CP1 Co-op year-end earnings are considered a 

 return on your investment 4.7 8.7 18.3 58.4 10.0

CP2 Co-op pays patronage refunds in proportion 

 to patronage 2.9 5.8 24.9 56.2 10.3

CP3 Co-op supports cooperative education for 

 members and the public 1.0 4.1 30.9 57.9 6.0

CP4 Co-op works appropriately with other 

 agricultural cooperatives 1.4 3.7 44.1 45.2 5.5

CP5 Cooperative tries to cover too big an area 

 as an organization 10.5 44.6 28.9 10.7 5.4

 Percent

 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

 dissatisfi ed dissatisfi ed Unsure satisfi ed satisfi ed

S1 Bulk milk hauling services (farm pick up services) 1.8 2.9 24.3 36.2 34.7

S2 Field representation (farm visits, interface 

 between producers and coop) 4.9 8.2 33.6 32.9 20.4

S3 Laboratory services 2.4 5.9 33.9 34.5 23.4

S4 Providing marketing information 2.5 7.4 39.5 35.5 15.1

S5 Milk hauling policy 9.7 18.7 15.7 40.7 15.2

Table 3 Distribution of member responses for variables common to all surveys
6 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

overall was strongly related to agreement that the 

cooperative does a good job of marketing members’ 

milk and returns the best price for their milk. 

In addition, member satisfaction with the cooperative overall was strongly related to satisfaction 

with their cooperative’s management of operating and marketing costs, and satisfaction with the 

cooperative’s board of directors. All but one refl ect 

corporate-level issues that concern how well the cooperative is run (board and management) and items 

that affect members’ pocketbooks (pay prices and 

cooperative costs). 

As might be expected, the more satisfi ed members were with their cooperative, the less likely they 

were to drop out or vice versa. This is indicated by 

the strong, inverse relationship (correlation coeffi cient 

-0.5966) between satisfaction with the cooperative 

overall and agreement that 

they would drop out of the 

cooperative if an alternative 

is available. 

Three communication 

(member relations) issues 

were strongly correlated with 

members’ satisfying feelings 

toward the cooperative (table 

6). Agreement that their 

cooperative keeps them well 

informed about its operations 

was strongly correlated with 

overall satisfaction with the 

cooperative. Similarly, member opinion on the infl uence 

they had in the cooperative, 

and level of satisfaction with 

their infl uence on how the 

cooperative is run, were both 

strongly related to overall 

satisfaction. 

Quite a few items were 

moderately correlated with 

overall satisfaction with the 

cooperative (table 7). These 

include items similar to those 

identifi ed above that affect member’s pocketbooks 

(agreement that cooperative pays all members fairly 

for their milk), and communication (agreement that 

members receive as much information as they need 

about operations and programs). 

Also moderately correlated with overall satisfaction are items concerning members’ feelings of 

connection to their cooperative. Disagreement that 

the cooperative was more concerned about operations than the members was moderately associated 

with a higher satisfaction level with the cooperative 

overall. (In other words, a satisfi ed member tended 

to view the cooperative as not more concerned 

about its operations than about its members--and 

vice versa.)

Agreement that belonging to the cooperative is an 

 Correlation 

 coeffi cient1

Satisfaction with...

 Cooperative’s management 0.7448 

 Cooperative’s pricing policies 0.7064 

Level of agreement that...

 Cooperative does a good job of marketing members’ 

 milk and returns the best price for their milk2 0.6537

Satisfaction with...

 Cooperative’s management of operating and marketing costs 0.6519 

 Cooperative’s board of directors 0.5940 

Level of agreement that...

 Member would drop out if an alternative was available (0.5966)

1

 See table 2.

2

 815 survey responses, question not included in survey #1.

Table 5 Factors strongly and very strongly correlated with

 member overall satisfaction with their cooperative 

 Major Minor Not a

Item reason reason reason 

 ----------------Percent------------

Cooperative offers a secure market for my milk 54.1 24.7 21.0

My belief in the cooperative model 41.0 31.8 26.5

Cooperative’s pay prices 25.2 30.0 44.8

I have no alternatives 24.8 12.7 61.1

Cooperative’s component and quality testing 23.9 34.8 40.8

Cooperative offers more on-farm services 12.9 31.3 55.8

Cooperative’s hauling program 12.9 30.6 56.0

Cooperative has fewer smaller special 

 assessments/deductions 9.5 32.0 58.5

Table 4 Distribution of responses for reasons for belonging
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 7

important part of the member’s identity as a farmer and 

that the member feels that 

he or she is part owner of 

the cooperative were moderately related with the level of 

satisfaction with the cooperative overall. Furthermore, 

agreement that the cooperative is just another place to 

do business was inversely 

related to overall satisfaction 

with the cooperative. This 

indicates member satisfaction 

with their cooperative overall 

is moderately correlated with 

a view of their cooperative as 

a unique organization.

Five service aspects were 

asked about in the surveys. 

Individual surveys asked 

other questions about services 

provided by the cooperative, 

but these fi ve were comparable across surveys: level of satisfaction with the 

cooperative’s provision of market information, ...its 

milk hauling policies, ...the cooperative’s fi eld representative, ... the cooperative’s laboratory services, 

and ...the cooperative’s milk hauling services (table 

8). However, satisfaction with milk hauling services 

(operating or arranging routes) was weakly correlated with satisfaction with the cooperative (0.2274).

The relatively weaker correlation between 

member satisfaction with their cooperative and 

satisfaction with the various services provided by 

or through the cooperative may be because of the 

individualistic nature of the relationships between 

service provider and member. Members may hold 

service providers—such as fi eld representatives and 

milk haulers whom they have direct contact with—

accountable for the quality of the services provided 

rather than the cooperative itself. 

Member satisfaction with their cooperative may 

be more heavily infl uenced by how the cooperative 

guides the provision of these services. For example, 

member satisfaction with, or rating of, the cooperatives’ milk hauling policy is more strongly correlated with satisfaction with the cooperative overall 

than was member’s rating of the milk hauling 

service itself. 

While member satisfaction with the cooperative 

was moderately related to satisfaction with, or rating of, these services provided by the cooperative, 

the fact that they were not more strongly correlated 

does not necessarily mean that the provision of, or 

quality of, services the cooperative supplies are not 

important to member satisfaction. It just may mean 

that member unhappiness with certain aspects of 

the services provided may or may not translate into 

overall dissatisfaction with the cooperative, depending on the nature of the specifi c trouble. 

The surveys also asked members about their 

agreement with various statements on the perceptions of cooperative principles and practices. Of the 

items similar across the four surveys, none were 

strongly correlated with member overall satisfaction 

with the cooperative, but seven were moderately 

correlated (table 9). 

Items concerning milk pricing and communication – that the cooperative pays all members fairly 

for their milk and that members receive as much 

information as they need about operations and pro-

 Correlation 

 coeffi cient1

Level of agreement that...

 Co-op keeps me well informed about its operations 0.5467

 Satisfi ed with amount of infl uence on how co-op is run 0.5246

 Members have a great amount of infl uence on 

 how co-op is run 0.5216

1

 See table 2.

Table 6 Communication factors strongly correlated with

 member overall satisfaction with their cooperative 

 Correlation 

 coeffi cient1

Level of agreement that...

 Co-op is more concerned about operations than its members (0.4971)

 Belonging to the cooperative is an important part of the 

 member’s identity as a farmer 0.4527

 Member feels he or she is part owner of the cooperative 0.4567 

 The cooperative is just another place to do business (0.3561)

1

 See table 2.

Table 7 Moderate correlations between member overall 

 satisfaction with their cooperative and member 

 connection with their cooperative
8 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

grams – were moderately correlated with member 

satisfaction with their cooperative. Agreement that 

the cooperative tries to cover too big an area as an 

organization was inversely related to the level of 

satisfaction with the cooperative overall. In other 

words, by and large, members who were satisfi ed 

with their cooperative did not agree that their cooperative tried to cover too big an area.

The level of agreement with the statements that 

the cooperative’s earnings were a return on the 

member’s investment, and that the cooperative paid 

patronage in proportion to the member’s patronage, were both moderately associated with overall 

satisfaction with the cooperative. Likewise, agreement that their cooperative works appropriately 

with other agricultural cooperatives and that it 

supports cooperative education for members and the 

public were also moderately 

correlated with the level of 

satisfaction with the cooperative overall. 

That these correlations 

were not stronger may indicate that, for some members, 

satisfaction with the cooperative does not depend on 

whether or not their cooperative practices these principles, 

or perhaps whether or not the 

members are aware of their 

cooperative’s practices.

Cluster analysis: relationships between factors associated with member satisfaction

Examining the correlation 

between each pair of variables 

reveals those that “cluster” or 

group together. The cluster 

then suggests that the items 

belonging to it are interrelated 

or may be equivalent in the 

respondent’s mind. 

Cluster analysis may be 

approached in different ways. 

This exercise was carried out 

by examining the correlation 

matrix (appendix table 2) to identify pairs of variables that are highly correlated. Additional variables 

that highly correlate with this particular set of variables were then sought (Kendall pp 32-35). For this 

method, variables that are strongly correlated are 

considered to cluster together. 

A strict requirement is imposed on the matrix to 

screen for variables that are each related to every other variable in the cluster with a correlation 

coeffi cient of 0.5000 or greater, and the others are 

excluded. (The variable, “member satisfaction with 

the cooperative overall,” is not used here in discovering the clusters.)

Two variables–member satisfaction with the 

cooperative’s management of operating and marketing costs and member satisfaction with cooperative 

 Correlation 

 coeffi cient1

Satisfaction with...

 Cooperative pays all members fairly for their milk 0.4779

 Cooperative members receive as much information as 

 they need about operations and programs 0.4770

 The cooperative tries to cover too big an area as an 

 organization (0.3934)

 The cooperative’s year-end earnings are considered a return 

 on member’s investment. 0.3832

 The cooperative works appropriately with other agricultural 

 cooperatives 0.3726

 The cooperative pays patronage refunds in proportion 

 to patronage 0.3559

 The cooperative supports cooperative education for 

 members and the public 0.3480

1

 See table 2.

Table 9 Moderate correlations between overall satisfaction

 with the cooperative and level of agreement with 

 statements on cooperative principles and practices

 Correlation 

 coeffi cient1

Satisfaction with...

 Cooperative’s provision of market information 0.4907

 Coop’s milk hauling policy2 0.4300

 Field representation (farm visits, interface between producers 

 and cooperative) 0.3490

 Laboratory services (component and quality tests, and reports) 0.3375

1

 See table 2.

2

 815 survey responses, question not included in survey #1

Table 8 Moderate correlations between overall satisfaction

 with the cooperative and services provided by 

 cooperatives
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 9

management–are the most 

strongly correlated (0.7316) 

and form the nucleus of a 

“corporate management” cluster. Two other variables are 

also strongly correlated with 

these items as well as with 

each other. They are satisfaction with the cooperative’s 

pricing policies and with the 

cooperative’s board of directors. 

Table 10 shows these variables that are strongly correlated with each other. The 

four variables in this cluster 

are also the variables that are 

most highly correlated with 

member satisfaction with the 

cooperative overall (table 5). 

Together these relationships 

indicate that members hold 

management accountable for 

the cooperative’s milk pricing policies and management 

of operating and marketing 

costs—the aspects most important to their pocketbooks 

and to their satisfaction level 

with their cooperative.

Since satisfaction with the 

cooperative’s board of directors is very strongly correlated 

with satisfaction with cooperative management, it could be 

that members view capable 

management as a refl ection of 

the board doing a good job of 

setting policy and supervising management.

This group of variables (corporate management 

cluster) is of particular interest. If members are 

satisfi ed with the cooperative’s pricing policies and 

with how the cooperative manages its costs, it could 

be quite certain that they are also satisfi ed with the 

cooperative’s management and the board. Conversely, if they are satisfi ed with the cooperative’s 

management and the board, it could be pretty sure 

that they are also satisfi ed with the cooperative’s 

policies related to milk marketing and pocketbook 

issues. 

Next, these variables are removed from further 

consideration, and the remaining variables are examined for the strength of their relationships to each 

other. Four variables formed a “governance” cluster 

(table 11). Member satisfaction with the amount 

of infl uence on how the cooperative is run is most 

strongly correlated with agreement that members 

have a great amount of infl uence on how it is run 

 Satisfaction with cooperative’s...

 Management

 of operating

 Pricing and marketing

 Management policies costs

 Correlation Coeffi cient1

Satisfaction with...

 Cooperative’s pricing policies 0.6516 

 Cooperative’s management of 

 operating and marketing costs 0.7316 0.5956 

 Cooperative’s board of directors 0.7129 0.5128 0.5488

1

 See table 2.

Note: these variables all are strongly correlated with member satisfaction with the cooperative overall.

Table 10 Corporate management cluster

 Agreement that...

 Members 

 receive as Members

 much have a

 Co-op information great

 keeps as they amount

 me well need about of infl uence

 informed operations on how

 about its and cooperative

 operations programs is run

 Correlation Coeffi cient1

Agreement that...

 Members receive as much 

 information as they need about 

 operations and programs 0.6203 

 Members have a great amount of 

 infl uence on how cooperative 

 is run 0.5578 0.6397

Satisfaction with 

 The amount of infl uence member 

 has on how cooperative is run 0.5354 0.6596 0.6672

1

 See table 2.

Note: All but “cooperative members receive as much information as they need about 

operations and programs” is strongly correlated with satisfaction with the cooperative 

overall.

Table 11 Governance cluster
10 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

and forms the core of this second cluster. Agreement that they receive as much information as they 

need about operations and programs is also strongly 

correlated with each of these two items. 

Likewise, agreement that members have a great 

amount of infl uence on how the cooperative is run 

is strongly correlated to agreement that members 

receive as much information as they need about 

operations and programs. This second cluster indicates that communication and member infl uence are 

related to each other. 

Three of the variables in this cluster are strongly 

correlated with member overall satisfaction with 

their cooperative (table 6), while the remaining item 

(“cooperative members receive as much information as they need about operations and programs”) 

is moderately correlated with overall satisfaction 

(table 7).

After removing these two groups of variables 

from consideration, no more clusters emerged. Six 

pairs of variables remained that are strongly correlated. One of these pairs, “agreement that the 

cooperative does a good job of marketing member’s 

milk and returns the best price for it” and “member 

would drop out if an alternative were available” was 

strongly, inversely correlated (-0.5306) and both of 

the variables in this pair are strongly correlated with 

member satisfaction with the cooperative overall. 

In summary, variables in each cluster above are 

strongly or very strongly correlated with each other. 

No other variables could be included because their 

correlations with these variables were not strong 

enough (correlation coeffi cients less than 0.5000), 

nor were any additional clusters evident. 

Correlation and clustering analyses in this report 

are useful in focusing attention on the actions that 

the cooperative may take to make members more 

satisfi ed. The fi rst priority is the variables included 

in the corporate management cluster: a competent 

board of directors and a capable management team 

that would do the best job of marketing member 

milk, minimizing operating costs, and setting satisfactory milk pricing policies in place.

The second priority is the governance cluster: 

a sound communication mechanism in order to 

keep members well informed of its operations and 

to receive feedback from members regarding their 

wishes and concerns.

Discussion

The survey data is examined and reported on as a 

single data set. However, each survey had a different number of observations, and one may wonder 

if one survey might sway the overall results. In 

an attempt to mitigate any potential impact due to 

unequal numbers of observations from the individual surveys, correlations are also calculated for a 

dataset with an equal number of observations from 

each survey. 

A sample of 190 observations each was drawn 

from surveys No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 to match the 

number of observations from survey No. 4. And as 

a further check, correlation coeffi cients are also calculated for each survey individually. Results from 

the two methods, in addition to the average of the 4 

correlation coeffi cients from each survey are summarized for selected variables in appendix table 3. 

These exercises show that the relative strength 

of the correlation coeffi cients is fairly consistent 

among the different approaches to calculating them. 

It is clear that the most consistent factors related to 

member satisfaction are a cooperative’s:

• Management; 

• Milk pricing policies; 

• Management of its operating and marketing 

costs;

• Board of directors;

• Member relations.

There were just four variables where the strength 

category of the correlations with overall satisfaction 

varied from weak to strong among the 4 surveys 

individually. These variables were agreement that 

the cooperative does a good job of marketing members’ milk and returns the best price for their milk; 

that they would drop out of the cooperative if an 

alternative was available; that cooperative members 

receive as much information as they need about 

operations and programs; and that the cooperative 

works appropriately with other agricultural cooperatives. What causes the variation between cooperatives and survey periods for these few variables 

is beyond the scope of this study.
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 11

Conclusions

Dairy farmers’ livelihood depends on their milk 

being effi ciently marketed and receiving the highest possible price for it. Without a doubt, all studies 

show that they cherish an assured market and high 

milk price. So it is natural that their satisfaction 

with their cooperative is tied closely to whether 

the cooperative does a good job of marketing their 

milk at a well-managed cost and returns the best 

milk price. Furthermore, they hold the cooperative 

management and board of directors in high regard 

for satisfying their main concerns, as the corporate 

management cluster in this report clearly indicates. 

To enhance member satisfaction, fi rst and foremost, members should elect a board that is competent in setting policies and recruiting and supervising a capable management team that does the best 

possible job of marketing members’ milk. Secondly, the cooperative should devise a mechanism 

for members to exercise governance infl uences. 

Thirdly, the cooperative should have an education 

program to augment members’ understanding of the 

milk market and the nature of the cooperative business model. 

Last but not the least, the cooperative should 

ensure that service providers who are in direct 

personal contact with members are well trained in 

technical expertise as well as customer service.

The information presented here is gleaned from 

surveys designed for specifi c needs of the cooperatives involved. Therefore, it is possible there may 

be other important factors that play a role in members’ satisfaction with their cooperatives that are not 

identifi ed by the analysis of this data. 

This study reveals important factors in member 

satisfaction. Cooperative may wish to focus attention on these items. It also may serve as a starting 

point for individual cooperatives wishing to conduct 

their own assessment of the sentiment among their 

members. 

References

Boynton, Robert D. and Emerson M. Babb. 

Grade A Dairy Farmers’ Perceptions of Milk Buyer 

Performance: The Findings of a National Survey, 

Station Bulletin No. 367, Agricultural Experiment 

Station, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 

March 1982.

Freedman, David, Robert Pisani and Roger 

Purves. Statistics, third edition, W.W. Norton and 

Company, New York, London, 1998, Chapters 8 and 

9.

Gray, Thomas W. Structure for the Agricultureof-the-Middle Initiative. Research Report 216, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, March 2009.

Kendall, Maurice. Multivariate Analysis, Hafner 

Press, New York, 1975, Chapters 1 and 3.

Kitchens, Larry J. Exploring Statistics, Second 

Edition, Duxbury Press, Washington, 1998. Pages 

177-180.

Liebrand, Carolyn, Dale M. Carley, K. Charles 

Ling. Southern Dairy Farmers’ Evaluation of Milk 

Handlers, ACS Research Report No. 97, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Cooperative 

Service, Washington, DC, September 1991.

Liebrand, Carolyn, and K. Charles Ling. Value 

of Cooperative Benefi ts to Southern Dairy Farmers, ACS Research Report No. 99, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Cooperative Service, 

Washington, DC, October 1991.
12 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

Alternative wording

Topic Code Question (Survey #4) Survey #3 Survey #2 Survey #1

S Satisfaction level with 

Co-op overall

- same - - same - - same -

Satisfaction level with...

PRICING P1 Cooperative’s pricing policies Milk pricing policies 

(competitiveness, bonus 

programs)

Milk pricing policies 

(competitiveness, bonus 

programs) 

RATING: POOR (1)

-EXCELLENT(5)

- same -

Level of agreement that...

P2 Cooperative pays 

members fairly for their milk

Cooperative pays all 

members fairly for their 

milk

Cooperative pays all 

members fairly for their 

milk

Cooperative pays all 

members fairly for their 

milk

P3 Cooperative’s practice of paying 

different milk prices by region is 

justifi ed

- same - Cooperative’s practice 

of paying different milk 

prices by area is justifi ed

Cooperative’s practice 

of paying different milk 

prices by area is justifi ed

P4 Where one lives within cooperative’s territory affects how fair a 

price one gets for their milk.

- same - - same - - same -

SERVICES S1 Bulk milk hauling services (farm 

pick up services)

- same – Bulk milk hauling service 

(operating or arranging 

routes)

Milk hauling (operating 

or arranging routes)

Satisfaction level with...

S2 Field representation (farm visits, 

interface between producers 

and coop)

- same wording –

RATING: POOR (1)

-EXCELLENT(5)

Field staff performance 

(farm visits, interface 

between producers and 

corporate) 

RATING: POOR (1)

-EXCELLENT(5)

Performing fi eld services 

(assisting in milk production and quality problems) 

RATING: POOR (1)-

EXCELLENT(5)

S3 Laboratory services (component 

and quality tests, and reports)

- same wording – 

RATING: POOR (1)-EXCELLENT(5)

Laboratory services 

(component and quality tests, and bulk tank 

tests) RATING: POOR 

(1)-EXCELLENT(5)

Checking milk weights 

and tests 

RATING: POOR (1)

-EXCELLENT(5)

S4 Providing market information Providing economic 

information 

RATING: POOR (1)

-EXCELLENT(5)

Providing marketing 

information 

RATING: POOR (1)

-EXCELLENT(5)

Providing milk marketing 

information 

RATING: POOR (1)

-EXCELLENT(5)

S5 Cooperative’s milk hauling policy Coop’s milk hauling 

services (hauling rates, 

volume discounts)

Coop’s milk hauling 

services (hauling rates, 

volume discounts)

- not asked -

Continued next page

Appendix Table 1.1 Survey Questions
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 13

Alternative wording

Topic Code Question (Survey #4) Survey #3 Survey #2 Survey #1

Level of agreement that...

OPERATIONSO1 Co-op operations should be the 

concern of only co-op management

The operation of the 

co-op should be the 

concern of only the 

management

The operation of the 

co-op should be the 

concern of only the management

The operation of the 

co-op should be the 

concern of only the management

Satisfaction level with...

O2 Coop's management of operating and marketing costsCoop's ability to hold 

down operating and 

marketing costs

Coop's ability to hold 

down operating and 

marketing costs

Coop's ability to hold 

down operating and 

marketing costs

Level of agreement that...

O3 Co-op is more concerned 

about operations than about its 

members

- same - - same - - same -

Satisfaction level with...

 O4 Cooperative's management - same - - same - - same -

Level of agreement that...

S6 Co-op does a good job of marketing my milk and returns the 

best price for my milk

- same - - same - - not asked -

GOVERNANCEG1 Cooperative members have a 

great amount of infl uence on 

how cooperative is run

- same - - same - - same -

G2 Satisfi ed with the amount of 

infl uence I have on how co-op 

is run

- same - - same - - same -

G3 Members have too much say 

on how the co-op is run

Members have too 

much say about how 

the co-op is run

Members have too much 

say about how the co-op 

is run

Members have too much 

say about how the co-op 

is run

Satisfaction level with...

 G4 Cooperative's board of directorsCooperative corporate 

director

Cooperative corporate 

director

- same -

PRACTICE 

OF CO-OP 

PRINCIPLES

CP1 Co-op year-end earnings are 

considered a return on your 

investment.

- same - - same - I consider co-op earnings a return on my 

investment in the coop

CP2 Co-op pays patronage refunds 

in proportion to patronage

- same - - same - - same -

Continued next page

Appendix Table 1.1 Survey Questions (continued)
14 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

Alternative wording

Topic Code Question (Survey #4) Survey #3 Survey #2 Survey #1

CP3 Co-op supports cooperative 

education for members and the 

public

Co-op supports education for members and 

the public

Co-op supports education for members and the 

public

Co-op supports education for members and the 

public

CP4 Co-op works appropriately with 

other agricultural coops

- same - - same - Co-op works with other 

coops in milk pricing and 

marketing

CP5 Cooperative tries to cover too 

big an area as an organization

- same - - same - - same -

CP6 Every dairy farmer should have 

a choice of more than one 

place to sell their milk

- same - - same - - same -

Level of agreement that...

MEMBER 

CONNECTION

C1 I feel I am part owner of the 

coop

- same - - same - - same -

C2 Belonging to the cooperative is 

important part of my identity as 

a farmer

- same - - same - - same -

C3 The cooperative is just another 

place to do business

- same - - same - - same -

C4 I would be willing to assume a 

leadership role within the coop

I would be willing to assume a leadership role 

to improve the coop

I would be willing to assume a leadership role 

to improve the coop

I would be willing to assume a leadership role 

to improve the coop

C5 I don't have time to attend most 

co-op functions

- same - I don't have time to 

attend most co-op functions or activities

Lack of time prevents 

me from attending most 

co-op functions or activities

C6 I would discontinue my membership with co-op if an alternative was availableI would drop out of coop if an alternative was 

available

I would drop out of co-op 

if an alternative was 

available

I would drop out of co-op 

if an alternative was 

available

I1 Cooperative keeps members 

well informed about its operations and programs

Cooperative keeps 

members well informed 

about its operations

Cooperative keeps members well informed about 

its operations

Cooperative keeps 

members well informed 

about its operations

 I2 Co-op members receive as 

much information as they need 

about operations and programs

- same - - same - - same -

Continued next page

Appendix Table 1.1 Survey Questions (continued)
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 15

Alternative wording

Topic Question (Survey #4) Survey #3 Survey #2 Survey #1

REASON 

FOR BELONGING

Cooperative’s pay prices Cooperative pays 

higher milk prices

Cooperative pays higher 

milk prices

Cooperative pays higher 

milk prices

Cooperative has fewer smaller 

special assessments/deductions

- same - - same - - same -

Cooperative offers more onfarm servicesCooperative offers more 

on-farm services than 

other buyers

Cooperative offers more 

on-farm services than 

other buyers

Cooperative offers more 

on-farm services than 

other buyers

Cooperative offers a secure 

market for my milk

Cooperative offers more 

assurance of a market 

for my milk

Cooperative offers more 

assurance of a market 

for my milk

Cooperative offers more 

assurance of a market 

for my milk

My belief in the cooperative 

model

My belief in the cooperative form of businessMy belief in the cooperative form of businessMy belief in the cooperative form of business

Co-op’s hauling program Co-op charges lower 

hauling rates

Co-op charges lower 

hauling rates

Co-op charges lower 

hauling rates

Appendix Table 1.1 Survey Questions (continued)

Appendix Table 1.2 Rating Scales

Code Opinion on the statements Opinion on the statements Rating Opinion on reason for 

belonging

1 Strongly disagree Very dissatisfi ed Poor Major 

2 Disagree Somewhat dissatisfi ed Below Average Minor 

3 Unsure Unsure Unsure Not a reason 

4 Agree Somewhat satisfi ed Above average

5 Strongly agree Very Satisfi ed Excellent
16 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

 Code S P1 P2 P3 P4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 I1 I2 

Correlation Coeffi cient1

P1 0.7064 1.0000 

P2 0.4779 0.5600 1.0000 

P3 0.1907 0.2304 0.2301 1.0000 

P4 (0.1218) (0.1510) (0.2025) 0.1250 1.0000 

S1 0.2274 0.2107 0.2149 0.1150 (0.0725) 1.0000 

S2 0.3490 0.2960 0.2741 0.1808 (0.0592) 0.2792 1.0000 

S3 0.3375 0.3457 0.2386 0.2082 (0.0704) 0.3759 0.4300 1.0000 

S4 0.4907 0.4307 0.3468 0.1225 (0.1380) 0.2629 0.3801 0.4189 1.0000 

S5 0.4300 0.5031 0.3554 0.2614 (0.1724) 0.4338 0.2175 0.3563 0.3076 1.0000 

S6 0.6537 0.6187 0.5501 0.3053 (0.1523) 0.2356 0.2886 0.3282 0.4391 0.3663 1.0000 

I1 0.5467 0.4793 0.4389 0.0750 (0.1699) 0.1800 0.3024 0.2076 0.4761 0.3643 0.4949 1.0000 

I2 0.4770 0.4487 0.4085 0.1120 (0.1526) 0.1662 0.2830 0.1842 0.4262 0.3458 0.4617 0.6203 1.0000 

C1 0.4567 0.4128 0.3946 0.2268 (0.1107) 0.1346 0.2533 0.2198 0.3353 0.3162 0.4733 0.4164 0.4391 

C2 0.4527 0.3909 0.3732 0.1894 (0.0839) 0.1471 0.2327 0.2331 0.3131 0.2705 0.4628 0.3817 0.3829 

C3 (0.3561) (0.3356) (0.3092) (0.1332) 0.1017 (0.1135) (0.2120) (0.2028) (0.2712) (0.1883) (0.3517) (0.2770) (0.2752)

C4 0.0548 0.0343 0.0300 0.0981 (0.0242) 0.0174 0.0336 0.0663 0.0210 (0.0374) (0.0473) (0.0520) (0.0445)

C5 (0.0104) (0.0391) (0.0005) (0.1636) (0.0501) 0.0250 (0.0758) (0.0676) (0.0204) 0.0276 (0.0692) 0.0444 0.0053 

C6 (0.5966) (0.5370) (0.4444) (0.1605) 0.1485 (0.1944) (0.2822) (0.2559) (0.4014) (0.3562) (0.5306) (0.4769) (0.4030)

G1 0.5216 0.4915 0.4581 0.1505 (0.1865) 0.1602 0.2856 0.2233 0.4065 0.3466 0.5213 0.5578 0.6397 

G2 0.5246 0.4762 0.4292 0.1782 (0.1695) 0.1233 0.3185 0.2380 0.3950 0.3605 0.5026 0.5354 0.6596 

G3 0.1736 0.1403 0.1232 0.0717 (0.0031) 0.0303 0.0905 0.0249 0.0683 0.1554 0.2254 0.1558 0.2059 

G4 0.5940 0.5128 0.3849 0.2091 (0.0975) 0.1759 0.3232 0.3057 0.4215 0.3396 0.4612 0.4455 0.4326 

O1 0.1081 0.0787 0.0640 0.0587 0.0229 0.0027 0.0530 0.0228 0.0512 0.1246 0.1729 0.0797 0.1461 

O2 0.6519 0.5956 0.4821 0.1834 (0.1660) 0.2275 0.2962 0.2976 0.4710 0.4124 0.6163 0.5202 0.5185 

O3 (0.4971) (0.5040) (0.4724) (0.2104) 0.2067 (0.1628) (0.3147) (0.2188) (0.3881) (0.3407) (0.4756) (0.4756) (0.4969)

O4 0.7448 0.6516 0.4781 0.2115 (0.1495) 0.2065 0.3505 0.3280 0.4820 0.4440 0.6279 0.5646 0.5348 

CP1 0.3832 0.3700 0.3966 0.1543 (0.0920) 0.1401 0.1615 0.1741 0.2942 0.2362 0.3546 0.3789 0.3864 

CP2 0.3559 0.3646 0.3477 0.1614 (0.0954) 0.1412 0.1503 0.1655 0.2351 0.2540 0.3352 0.3179 0.3001 

CP3 0.3480 0.3186 0.3295 0.1709 (0.0960) 0.1645 0.1998 0.1890 0.3182 0.2274 0.3196 0.3356 0.3289 

CP4 0.3726 0.3266 0.3237 0.2037 (0.0510) 0.1356 0.1957 0.1885 0.2871 0.2172 0.3985 0.3210 0.3000 

CP5 (0.3934) (0.3460) (0.3525) (0.1630) 0.1992 (0.1493) (0.1824) (0.1815) (0.2926) (0.2251) (0.3384) (0.3055) (0.3049)

CP6 (0.2049) (0.2194) (0.1800) (0.1068) 0.0849 (0.0481) (0.0729) (0.1109) (0.0835) (0.2081) (0.3133) (0.1910) (0.1614)

Continued next page

Appendix Table 2 Correlation matrix, membership survey data, 1,736 dairy 

 farmer responses

NOTE: See Appendix Table 1.1 description of the codes.
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 17

 Code C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 G1 G2 G3 G4 O1 O2 O3 O4 

Correlation Coeffi cient1

P1

P2

P3

P4

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

I1

I2

C1 1.0000 

C2 0.6227 1.0000 

C3 (0.4298) (0.5360) 1.0000 

C4 0.1308 0.1330 (0.1601) 1.0000 

C5 (0.1164) (0.1124) 0.1254 (0.2613) 1.0000 

C6 (0.4330) (0.4659) 0.4124 (0.0914) 0.0568 1.0000 

G1 0.5198 0.4944 (0.3696) 0.0736 (0.0524) (0.4692) 1.0000 

G2 0.4881 0.4401 (0.3301) 0.0246 (0.0616) (0.4696) 0.6672 1.0000 

G3 0.1094 0.1326 0.0287 (0.1002) 0.0565 (0.0632) 0.1851 0.1861 1.0000 

G4 0.4206 0.3918 (0.3346) 0.0797 (0.1144) (0.4483) 0.4696 0.4785 0.1182 1.0000 

O1 0.0640 0.1036 0.0549 (0.1179) 0.0383 (0.0589) 0.0893 0.1481 0.3639 0.1002 1.0000 

O2 0.4221 0.4440 (0.3262) 0.0247 (0.0104) (0.5467) 0.5387 0.5161 0.1742 0.5488 0.1069 1.0000 

O3 (0.4599) (0.4217) 0.4027 (0.0487) 0.0473 0.4932 (0.5804) (0.5133) (0.1216) (0.4223) (0.0370) (0.5223) 1.0000 

O4 0.4862 0.4656 (0.3689) 0.0410 (0.0573) (0.5631) 0.5757 0.5658 0.1838 0.7129 0.1477 0.7316 (0.5378) 1.0000 

CP1 0.5034 0.4310 (0.3395) 0.0834 (0.0366) (0.3798) 0.4194 0.3897 0.0926 0.3579 0.0771 0.4102 (0.3740) 0.4183 

CP2 0.3829 0.3128 (0.2203) 0.1348 (0.0749) (0.3404) 0.3747 0.3395 0.0475 0.3008 0.0349 0.3387 (0.3075) 0.3609 

CP3 0.3635 0.3125 (0.2605) 0.1157 (0.0556) (0.3272) 0.3714 0.3467 0.0072 0.3335 (0.0120) 0.3472 (0.3103) 0.3469 

CP4 0.3278 0.3038 (0.2178) 0.1069 (0.1196) (0.3101) 0.3695 0.3202 0.0115 0.3341 0.0065 0.3390 (0.2883) 0.3703 

CP5 (0.3148) (0.2819) 0.2816 (0.1265) 0.0724 0.4180 (0.3388) (0.3201) (0.0137) (0.3315) (0.0194) (0.3751) 0.3888 (0.3842)

CP6 (0.1778) (0.2256) 0.1644 (0.0017) 0.0400 0.2376 (0.1930) (0.1952) (0.1391) (0.1883) (0.1582) (0.1751) 0.1826 (0.2234)

Continued next page

Appendix Table 2 Correlation matrix, membership survey data, 1,736 dairy 

 farmer responses (continued)
18 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

 Code CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 CP5 CP6

Correlation Coeffi cient1

P1

P2

P3

P4

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

I1

I2

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

G1

G2

G3

G4

O1

O2

O3

O4

CP1 1.0000 

CP2 0.5546 1.0000 

CP3 0.3609 0.3637 1.0000 

CP4 0.3340 0.3515 0.4794 1.0000 

CP5 (0.2731) (0.2684) (0.2481) (0.2524) 1.0000 

CP6 (0.1550) (0.1432) (0.0748) (0.0933) 0.1551 1.0000 

Continued next page

Appendix Table 2 Correlation matrix, membership survey data, 1,736 dairy 

 farmer responses (continued)

1

 Strength category of the correlation coeffi cients: 

Red indicates very strong correlation 

Bold indicates strong correlation 

Regular font indicates moderate correlation

Italics indicates weak correlation
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 19

 Variable Code Entire 

database1

Equal 

samples2

4-survey 

average3

Entire 

database1

Equal 

samples2

4- survey 

average3

Correlation with satisfaction with cooperative 

overall

Strength category of correlation4

Table 4:

Satisfaction with 

cooperative’s management 

 O4 0.7448 0.7857 0.7231 VS VS VS

Satisfaction with 

cooperative’s pricing policies 

 P1 0.7064 0.7251 0.6904 VS VS S

Cooperative does a 

good job of marketing member’s milk 

and returns the 

best price5

 S6 0.6537 0.6699 0.5868 S S S

Satisfaction with 

cooperative’s management of operating and marketing 

costs 

 O2 0.6519 0.6825 0.6210 S S S

Member would drop 

out if an alternative 

available 

 C6 (0.5966) (0.5924) (0.5370) S S S

Satisfaction with 

cooperative board 

of directors 

 G4 0.5940 0.5947 0.5843 S S S

Table 5:

Cooperative keeps 

member well 

informed about its 

operations 

 I1 0.5467 0.5730 0.4996 S S M

Satisfi ed with 

amount of infl uence 

on how cooperative 

is run 

 G2 0.5246 0.5525 0.4944 S S M

Members have 

great amount of 

infl uence on how 

cooperative is run 

 G1 0.5216 0.5304 0.4785 S S M

Continued next page

Appendix Table 3.1 Comparison of correlation coeffi cients, entire database, 

 equal number of observations, and 4-survey average 
20 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

 Variable Code Entire 

database1

Equal 

samples2

4-survey 

average3

Entire 

database1

Equal 

samples2

4- survey 

average3

Correlation with satisfaction with cooperative 

overall

Strength category of correlation4

Table 6:

Cooperative is 

more concerned 

about operations 

than its members 

 O3 (0.4971) (0.5027) (0.4376) M S M

Cooperative pays 

all members fairly 

for their milk 

 P2 0.4779 0.4855 0.4232 M M M

Members receive 

as much information as they need 

about operations 

and programs. 

 I2 0.4770 0.4951 0.4298 M M M

Member feels they 

are part owner of 

co-op 

 C1 0.4567 0.4708 0.4182 M M M

Belonging to cooperative is important 

part of member’s 

identity as a farmer 

 C2 0.4527 0.4801 0.4108 M M M

Cooperative is just 

another place to do 

business 

 C3 (0.3561) (0.3811) (0.3263) M M M

Table 7:

Satisfaction with 

cooperative’s 

provision of market 

information 

 S4 0.4907 0.5017 0.4630 M S M 

Satisfaction with 

cooperative’s milk 

hauling policy 5

 S5 0.4300 0.4409 0.4257 M M M 

Satisfaction with 

fi eld representation (farm visits, 

interface) 

 S2 0.3490 0.3620 0.3691 M M M 

Satisfaction with 

laboratory services 

 S3 0.3375 0.3767 0.3523 M M M 

Continued next page

Appendix Table 3.1 Comparison of correlation coeffi cients, entire database, 

 equal number of observations, and 4-survey average (continued)
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 21

 Variable Code Entire 

database1

Equal 

samples2

4-survey 

average3

Entire 

database1

Equal 

samples2

4- survey 

average3

Correlation with satisfaction with cooperative 

overall

Strength category of correlation4

Table 8:

Cooperative tries 

to cover too big an 

area as an organization 

 CP5 (0.3934) (0.4090) (0.3467) M M M 

Member considers cooperative’s 

year-end earnings 

a return on their 

investment

 CP1 0.3832 0.3533 0.3103 M M M 

Cooperative works 

appropriately with 

other agricultural 

cooperatives 

 CP4 0.3726 0.4092 0.3741 M M M 

Cooperative pays 

patronage refunds 

in proportion to 

patronage 

 CP2 0.3559 0.3920 0.2822 M M W 

Cooperative supports cooperative education for 

members and the 

public 

 CP3 0.3480 0.3223 0.3226 M M M 

Weak correlations:

Satisfaction with 

milk hauling (operating or arranging 

routes) 

 S1 0.2274 0.2296 0.2491 W W W

Every dairy farmer 

should have a 

choice of more than 

one place to sell 

their milk 

 CP6 (0.2049) (0.2274) (0.2099) W W W

Cooperative's 

practice of paying 

different milk prices 

by area is justifi ed 

 P3 0.1907 0.2234 0.2632 W W W

Members have too 

much say on how 

the cooperative is 

run 

 G3 0.1736 0.2439 0.1904 W W W

Continued next page

Appendix Table 3.1 Comparison of correlation coeffi cients, entire database, 

 equal number of observations, and 4-survey average (continued)
22 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

 Variable Code Entire 

database1

Equal 

samples2

4-survey 

average3

Entire 

database1

Equal 

samples2

4- survey 

average3

Correlation with satisfaction with cooperative 

overall

Strength category of correlation4

Weak correlations (continued):

Where one lives 

within the cooperative's territory 

affects how fair a 

price one gets for 

their milk 

 P4 (0.1218) (0.1623) (0.0877) W W W

Cooperative operations should be the 

concern of only 

cooperative management 

 O1 0.1081 0.1419 0.0852 W W W

Member is willing to 

assume leadership 

role in cooperative 

 C4 0.0548 0.0263 0.0336 W W W

Member doesn’t 

have time to attend 

most cooperative 

functions 

 C5 (0.0104) (0.0174) (0.0358) WWW

1

 Entire data set of 1736 observations

2 A sample of 190 observations each was drawn from surveys #1, #2 and #3 to match the number of observations from survey #4.

3

 Average of the correlation coeffi cients from each of the 4 surveys

4

 Strength category of the correlation coeffi cients: VS=Very strong, S=Strong, M=Moderate, W=Weak 

Red indicates very strong correlation (VS) 

Bold indicates strong correlation (S) 

Regular font indicates moderate correlation (M)

Italics indicates weak correlation (W)

5

 Question not asked in one of the surveys.

Appendix Table 3.1 Comparison of correlation coeffi cients, entire database, 

 equal number of observations, and 4-survey average (continued)
Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers 23

Satisfaction with cooperative’s...

Management Pricing policies Management of operating and 

marketing costs

Average Correlation Coeffi cient

Satisfaction with...

Cooperative’s pricing policies 0.6903

Cooperative’s management of operating and 

marketing costs

0.7494 0.6317

Cooperative’s board of 

directors 0.6987 0.4883 0.5625

Level of agreement that...

Cooperative does a good 

job of marketing members’ 

milk and returns the best 

price for their milk1

0.6432 0.6418 0.6440

1 Average of the correlation coeffi cients from each of the 4 surveys

Red indicates very strong correlation

Bold indicates strong correlation

Normal font indicates moderate correlation

Satisfaction with cooperative’s...

Management Pricing policies Management of operating and 

marketing costs

Average Correlation Coeffi cient

Satisfaction with...

Cooperative’s pricing policies 0.6279

Cooperative’s management of operating and 

marketing costs

0.7055 0.5728

Cooperative’s board of 

directors 0.7001 0.4829 0.5412

Level of agreement that...

Cooperative does a good 

job of marketing members’ 

milk and returns the best 

price for their milk1

0.5634 0.5880 0.5551

1 Average of the correlation coeffi cients from each of the 4 surveys

Red indicates very strong correlation

Bold indicates strong correlation

Normal font indicates moderate correlation

Appendix Table 3.2 Corporate management cluster, 4-survey average1

Appendix Table 3.2.1 Corporate management cluster, equal number of observations1
24 Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights from Dairy Farmers

Satisfaction with cooperative’s...

Management Pricing policies Management of operating and 

marketing costs

Average Correlation Coeffi cient

Agreement that...

Members receive as much 

information as they need 

about operations and 

programs

0.6292

Members have a great 

amount of infl uence on 

how cooperative is run 0.5458 0.6035

Satisfaction with 

The amount of infl uence 

member has on how 

cooperative is run

0.5290 0.6440 0.6830

1

 A sample of 190 observations each was drawn from surveys #1, #2 and #3 to match the number of observations 

from survey #4.

Bold indicates strong correlation

Satisfaction with cooperative’s...

Co-op keeps me well informed 

about its operations

Members receive as much 

information as they need about 

operations and programs

Members have a great amount 

of infl uence on how cooperative 

is run

Average Correlation Coeffi cient

Agreement that...

Members receive as much 

information as they need 

about operations and 

programs

0.6203

Members have a great 

amount of infl uence on 

how cooperative is run

0.5578 0.6397

Satisfaction with 

The amount of infl uence 

member has on how cooperative is run

0.5354 0.6596 0.6672

1 Average of the correlation coeffi cients from each of the 4 surveys

Bold indicates strong correlation

Appendix Table 3.3 Governance cluster, 4-survey average1

Appendix Table 3.3.1 Governance cluster, equal number of observations1