The growing insecurity, flexibilisation and fragmentation of labour markets goes hand-in-hand with the decrease of social protection levels and collective representation for workers in non-standard employment relationships, such as the hybrid category of ‘solo self-employed workers’. In response, on the one hand, trade unions attempt to approach and organise this heterogenous category of workers. On the other, new freelancer organisations are emerging to improve worker rights and safety, and overcome their social and professional isolation. Reporting the findings of long-term, slow ethnography, we describe a failed collaboration between three new collective actors in the representation and organisation of self-employed workers. In the second half of the 2010s, two UK organisations, Coworking , a coworking space operator working in a deprived ex-industrial area, and Union, a former industrial union, created Coworking.Union, a cooperative trade union offering services and advocacy for the self-employed. Coworking.Union collaborated with Cooperative, a freelancer cooperative based in Northern Europe, with a view to emulate aspects of its model in the UK. We present a detailed reconstruction of the interactions of the three actors over time, including their context, expectations, and visions, starting from the motivations that generated the first contacts, through to the development of operational agreements, up to the failure of these agreements as relations cooled. The case study, and the failed experiment it captures, constitutes an important opportunity to understand the dynamism, complexity, and contradiction manifest in organising the self-employed. While the strategic ingredients of significant organisational innovation were in evidence between the three actors, it generated instead a failure. The case study thus demonstrates the importance of an in-depth analysis of failed attempts at organising the self-employed and their meaning for broader struggles by old and new actors to alter the terrain of the hybrid areas of employment more generally. The grey zones between self-employment and employment, of precariousness and flexibility produced by contemporary labour markets  and the Self-employed workers are one such site of potential renewal. Countries like the UK have witnessed dramatic increases in the number of self-employed workers since the 2008 financial crisis, many of them sole traders rather than entrepreneurs with employees of their own. This workforce suffers from low income, insecurity, and under-regulation of so-called ‘false’ or ‘bogus’ self-employment . The divReporting the findings of long-term, ‘slow’ ethnography , this paThe collaboration at the heart of the case study brought together three distinct kinds of new labour market and industrial relations actors that were formed in response to the alternative work arrangements: community unions, represented by Union; coworking spaces, represented by Coworking; and a cooperative providing social protection, represented by Cooperative. In analysing a highly experimental case study, this paper intends to combine different strands of literature that traditionally develop on different planes, while dealing, from different perspectives, with the process of collective organisation of the self-employed: the literature on workers’ representative organisations (in this specific case with a focus on community unionism), the literature on coworking spaces, and that on co-operatives.Trade unions are renovating their repertoires of contention through coalitions with social movements and new actors both within and beyond national borders . In partIn the UK, ‘business unionism’ focused on firm-level partnership, narrowly economic concerns and traditional union activities like wage negotiation and bargaining has been challenged by ‘community unionism’. Instigated by the Trades Union Congress’s ‘New Unionism’ campaign and ‘Organising Academy’ , communiScholars note a tension in community unionism insofar as it can be perceived as embracing excluded groups only to use the energy produced to power the growth and renewal of the union as a more conventional, traditional industrial relations actor . This teUnion, a leading example of community unionism in the UK, formed in the early noughties out of the remains of industrial unions whose memberships dwindled following the severe decline of those industries. Union has attempted to transcend their original composition to meet the challenges of new labour circumstances, embracing formerly excluded groups and even retraining workers so that they can take work in the expanding service sector. Broadening its focus beyond the declining trades and industries themselves, it turned its attention to all those workers impacted by the deindustrialisation of the communities they represented. This included seeking to represent the self-employed. At the time of the research, Union had sought for some time to follow other organisations in developing a digital platform to offer a variety of services including debts factoring, to ensure that members are paid on time.Coworking spaces offer desks, resources, and networking opportunities to independent or remote workers of various kinds. Most operate, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, through leasing desks on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Some spaces pursue a social mission or serve a specific community , includiHowever, membership churn, the imbalance between regular dues and volatile income, and cycles of urban regeneration and redevelopment threaten this supportive and socially oriented function. At the same time as increasing the corporatization of the sector, coworking spaces are thus increasingly exploring cooperative business models as a means to weather these tendencies and reproduce the conditions for organising alternatives in this area .HoutbecWork & Pensions Committee, 2018).Founded in 2010, the organisation Coworking is an example of where a cooperative business model has been used to advance a broader social and collective project with the context of coworking spaces. Like Union, Coworking’s origins lie in deindustrialised areas in a specific region of the UK where many of its coworking spaces are located, giving the self-employed and entrepreneurs access to local workspaces. At the beginning of this research, it had over 20 spaces with some 200 members. Prior to the research, Coworking was developing plans to go beyond space provision to offer invoice-factoring and payment-chasing services to members. They were also engaged in advocacy and representations about the upcoming implementation of Universal Credit in the UK, its introduction of a monthly ‘Minimum Income Floor’ governing welfare eligibility being taken to exclude self-employed workers subject to income volatility  to one vote. It was technically on this basis that Union became a stakeholder in the organisation. However, locally, there was little engagement in the AGMs, with only 14 of 600 members recorded as attending at one point in the development of the cooperative. At its peak during the period of research, Coworking.Union had some 800 members, many of whom were not users of Coworking’s coworking spaces. However, around 90 per cent of Coworking’s space users were members of Coworking.Union.Coworking.Union cross-subsidised the provision of coworking space insofar as the ‘connectors’ who acted as ‘organisers’ for the organisation were charged not only with recruiting members for the platform but also locating spaces from which Coworking could rent desks. This included those in existing coworking spaces where Coworking could sublet one or two desks as a foothold to expand reach and membership. In this way the two – Coworking and Coworking.Union – were conceived as cross-subsidising one another insofar as desks translated into members and members into desks, and, during the period when Coworking.Union was taking off, there was certainly a quickening of the pace at which new spaces or desks were coming on stream. Coworking had used the connections opened by Union to open spaces in atypical coworking locations like Oldham and Bury on the outskirts of Greater Manchester.The main champion of the collaboration within Union departed the union for a new position elsewhere very soon after the relationship with Coworking was formalised. While one interviewee from the union called this ‘the honeymoon period of the marriage’, it was not without tensions. Whilst Coworking were well aware of the union’s ‘strategic need to arrest the decline in membership’ by reaching out to a new cohort of workers, there were still early signs that the union’s focus on ‘growing membership quicker’ as a means of ‘showing return on [their] investment’ ran counter to Coworking’s aspirations for the relationship.One area in which both parties were in close alignment was in the aspiration to establish themselves as what one participant from Union called ‘the voice for self-employed workers’, which both organisations understood as entailing growing the membership, because, as an interviewee from Coworking suggested, ‘the more members you got the stronger your voice is’. The question of autonomy cropped up early on insofar as Union understood the organisations as separate actors in this space who were engaged in a partnership, as opposed to projecting one voice together. ‘My view was that we were setting out on the same path, same trajectory, just at a different pace’, as one Union official put it.For Union, Coworking.Union was a means by which to establish ‘credibility’ in this space among both self-employed workers and government by growing the organisation’s membership. With these foundations in place, it would be possible to ‘start to influence policy and political direction, whether it’s in the Labour Party or the TUC, or, more broadly, in your engagement with government ministers’. Meanwhile, Union’s support enabled Coworking to take steps towards realising its longstanding ambition to represent a political voice for self-employed workers. In their new ventures into poorer post-industrial communities elsewhere in the UK, Coworking felt they had ‘started to get our head around some answers’ that they were more confident in sharing with politicians and policymakers. For instance, a leading Labour MP was involved in promoting Coworking.Union at their branch in her constituency.However, the political connections that Union brought to the table did not enthuse everyone involved in Coworking, as one member commented:They were members of a union. They were, as far as we could tell, on the right of the Labour Party. They were hostile to Jeremy Corbyn. And they had this agenda about self-employed people. I don't really know… how it all ties together, but it was just three observations that we made. And the other thing was… I think the impression was that it was a sort of old school unionist type of person, someone who was used to kind of fighting against other political ideas. […] I don't know how much you know about the UK Labour Party but, you know, it's a party which has got an awful lot of different schisms in it. So this was definitely part of a schism.Conscious of some of these potential differences, Coworking ultimately aimed to use Coworking.Union to provide a platform to engage politically, while also providing a ‘good suite of services’ to members who did not want to participate in campaigning and advocacy. At times, however, participants from Coworking were clear that the collaboration with Union had emboldened Coworking to be more specific about what they offered next to other coworking space providers and organisations active in the self-employed workforce – in particular the ‘start-up culture’ that ‘tends to suck all the life out of spaces’ while they ‘become bigger and bigger’ – setting up a divide with independent workers who placed less emphasis on the more activist elements of their new organisational identity:When we started working with the trade union, then it was clearer that we have political motivation and there were a few people, but not many, who would completely disengage from that… [But] we railed against that model that makes very wealthy people even wealthier… You know I think that if there are people who would disengage with that, who have no interest in what we're doing, but actually just want cheap workspace then they probably buy that coming here, they probably don't get the best out of us.Coworking.Union and Cooperative. The Coworking.Union partnership having been ‘already established’, Coworking continued their initial interactions with Cooperative by visiting the latter’s European headquarters in December 2017 along with representatives of Union. This was the first extensive contact between Coworking and Cooperative, and the first time Cooperative had met anyone from Union, after which the latter considered themselves as ‘working with’ Cooperative. As one Cooperative member described it,We had a lot of exchange; they had a lot of questions on our model… And here we made them meet different people with different profiles. Because it's such a complex model, we thought it was important that they had different inputs. I can't remember exactly who they all saw, but they saw a bunch of people and it took a day and a half of encounters.The meeting was generally deemed a success by the parties involved. Coworking came away persuaded of the potential impact it would have on self-employed workers in the UK, principally in its power to ensure that ‘people could get paid when they were putting their invoice across’. Moreover, Coworking saw Cooperative as representing the same ‘change the world’ mentality they had themselves.Having met Coworking already, the European visit also enabled Cooperative to get to know Union. Having previously dealt with unions for whom it was ‘unbelievable that freelancers would have to pay for the employers’ contribution’, Cooperative were impressed by how ‘open minded’ the union seemed about their model, having ‘come from the [industrial] sector and transitioned to freelancing’ – a ‘huge leap’. With Coworking, Cooperative’s affinity was more natural, the two organisations sharing in commona kind of a utopia of what work should be… because we're both working on the same type of population, let's say with freelancers, we envisage the same problems, but also kind of solutions ideally… So for us, people should all be able to develop their work from their skills and competencies, whatever, regardless of the legal status, they should have access to the same rights […] So there was this both the idea of what the problem is […] and how to bridge both economically and on the more social aspect.The conversations over the course of the two days in the European capital city concerned the possibility and feasibility of exporting elements of the Cooperative model to the UK under the auspices of Coworking.Union. This began from a consideration of the potential difficulty of both Coworking and Union, as a coworking provider and trade union respectively, to ‘adapt to a model that is in between’ each, in a ‘grey zone’, and to make this work economically in the context of the underlying precariousness of coworking spaces and the contribution rates of union members. There was particular interest from Union in the technological element of Cooperative’s digital platform, the ‘optimisation’ of which for different kinds of contracts, benefits and statuses would be central to branching out into the UK context.Another central topic was the practicality of internationalisation in the UK. Cooperative by this point was accustomed to the consideration of different opportunities to ‘adapt the model to different legal and cultural contexts’. The joint economic and social mission of the cooperative meant that many aspects of a nation’s political economy and industrial relations – the most important being the legal architecture governing a self-employed worker’s tax and employment status – were relevant variables in determining whether an internationalisation opportunity was worth pursuing in any given case. The outcome of this first proper meeting of the different parties was that Cooperative was ‘economically feasible’ in the UK, as well as legally. However, the specificity of ‘state organized social protection’ in the UK was seen as ‘not sufficient enough for the model to be interesting’. To create a business case, it would be necessary to do ‘more than mutualized aspects’, pushing the state to provide more rather than operating in the interstices of an existing system of ‘social contributions’ and protections.Following the meeting at Cooperative’s European headquarters, Coworking.Union went away and continued developing their thinking about the possible form a business model would take in the UK and promoting the Cooperative model to policymakers and other stakeholders. While there was recognition that the ‘solution’ Cooperative posed to these issues ‘doesn’t necessarily work in the UK yet’, there was also the expectation that shifting political and economic conditions could enable the actors to start to ‘put some things in place’. This related in particular to one aspect of the Cooperative model. In the eyes of Coworking and Union, the main advantage of Cooperative’s ‘autonomous employer’ model was perceived to be the income-smoothing effect of being employed through an intermediary, whereby earnings could be pooled and salaries standardised on a monthly basis, overcoming income volatility and permitting access to benefits. The income-smoothing function of the Cooperative model was seen as a potentially attractive solution to this issue.Further stimulus for exploration of the Cooperative model in the UK came from the enthusiasm of policymakers like Matthew Taylor, whom the government had tasked with a review of ‘modern working practices’ in 2017, and the Royal Society of Arts, which he led at the time, for a possible pilot scheme. Just as the legal grey area around self-employment had given Cooperative cover to expand in Northern European states, the same might be said for the weak regulatory environment in the UK. Something akin to the category of the ‘Cooperative worker’ might serve to bring much-needed clarity to the uncertain status of the self-employed for the purposes of equalising tax and National Insurance Contributions, for instance. Moreover, while the new Director of Labour Market Enforcement installed during the same period of the Taylor Review was tasked with their elimination, the often exploitative ‘umbrella companies’ used to manage payroll on behalf of temporary workers and agencies showed that there was precedent for intermediary bodies resembling Cooperative within the UK regulatory context without falling afoul of competition law on so-called ‘cartels’. In this apparently conducive policy context, Coworking engaged with politicians on both sides of the parliamentary divide, meeting government ministers and shadow cabinet members, finding little knowledge of the issues on the Conservative side and little interest on the part of the Labour Party in the battles of the self-employed.After a period in which Coworking.Union explored and advocated for the Cooperative model domestically, there were renewed conversations with Cooperative, including a trip by a Cooperative delegation to Coworking’s headquarters in the UK (January 2018) and Coworking’s visit to Cooperative’s annual meeting in a European capital city (June 2018). For Cooperative, the former still felt ‘quite early’ in the relationship, it being ‘unclear’ what the options being explored would mean in practice, and the conversations were deemed more appropriate for a later stage ‘three years’ down the line rather than less than one year into the partnership.Coworking.Union and Cooperative. The more Coworking.Union explored the possibility of rolling out the Cooperative model in the UK, the more difficult it seemed to be to envisage success. The main reason was that the model ‘doesn’t translate easily to the UK taxation system’, most notably the rates at which National Insurance Contributions (NICs) were paid. In the words of one participant,the government in Westminster… doesn't know how to deal with self-employed people so it wants them to be paying the same taxes as the workers but to do that it needs to give them access to the same benefits…On the basis that ‘just coming up with anything in a barren landscape is useful’, there was a period where some thought was given to how the Cooperative model could be part of the solution to this legislative impasse, and, as aforementioned, representations were made to the government and the Department of Work and Pensions. But the divergence between the tax and national insurance system in continental European countries (where Cooperative enjoyed a discounted rate of employer NICs because it employed so many people) and the UK ended up placing an unsurmountable barrier before attempts to think through the feasibility of a British version of Cooperative. A British Cooperative would have had to organise on the basis of an initially quite costly contribution by its members, but with no prospect of a discount once critical mass was reached. This is because, where NICs for the self-employed were around 9%, the combined contributions for employer and employee were 25.8%, a sum that Cooperative payroll would have to pay out of member subscription rates – the extra costs would be passed on to clients.The legislative changes required to enable Cooperative to operate in the UK in a similar fashion as it did elsewhere were so great that little headway was made convincing policymakers, with the government proposing and later withdrawing legislation to redress the imbalance in contributions and protections. In this context, faith in the viability of the experiment dissipated. While perhaps not fully aware of the specificities of this policy stalemate, one interviewee sensed the cultural, political, and economic differences that placed the UK more in the ‘liberal’ orbit of the US than the more social or Christian democratic EU.At the same time, whereas for Coworking political impossibilities prevented implementation of the Cooperative model, Cooperative went cold on the collaboration owing to more prosaic issues about how the relationship had developed. Cooperative was keen to stress that in order for a programme of internationalisation to work, they needed to be actively persuaded of the business case for doing so by the proposed partner. As one interviewee from Cooperative explained, this was a question of priorities:We’re really not against it… But there's a difference between saying ‘why not’ and saying ‘let's do it’, and we're more at ‘why not’… If they're not going to propose something, we're not going to push it… I'm going to put into it and we can discuss financial aspects, but if we don't have that, we're not going to push it. We haven't had that really… except seeing each other and sharing a lot of values and enthusiasm and views and utopias even it was great but if they don't come to us with [something] we're not gonna push so well. So it's an open door but it's not a proactive when as I said internationalization is not necessarily a priority right now.Coworking.Union failed to present the cutting-edge argument necessary to capture Cooperative’s sense of priority, expressing a reluctance to ‘replicate’ Cooperative and an acceptance instead that ‘they’re the experts and we just want to help them into the UK market’ – hardly the compelling business case the Cooperative team were hoping for.To make matters worse, the relationship between Coworking and Union was breaking down. Union saw Cooperative as a ‘fantastic model’, despite the criticisms it had encountered from trade union counterparts in the very different European industrial relations context. Anticipating much less criticism from the labour movement in the UK, Union saw it as ‘a natural place for us to go’. However, despite Union’s ‘nimble and agile organisation’, there was felt to be insufficient institutional and governance support for the kinds of decisions necessary to develop the venture. The main driver of the project at Union departed the organisation. Had the driving force stayed, Cooperative would have been the ‘next step, the next logical thing for us to do’, according to a union official, instead the approach became ‘very transactional’ and support leaked from the endeavour. When Coworking and Cooperative met a final time at a Royal Society of the Arts event, one interviewee described the former as going through the process of a ‘very, very complicated’ breakdown of ‘trust’ with Union, that in turn brought an end to attempts to import Cooperative to the UK.Coworking and Union. The relationship between Coworking and Union disintegrated very quickly following the formation of Coworking.Union. As mentioned, the main point of contact and inspiration for the partnership at the union end left very soon after the deal was signed for Union to contribute a six-figure sum to Coworking. From Coworking’s perspective, the ensuing absence of other people with commitment to, understanding of, or care for the ‘output’ of the project put Coworking.Union ‘on a trajectory to fail’. The remaining union staff assigned to the partnership were perceived as being better suited to ‘someone who was unfairly dismissed’ or ‘had an industrial accident’, but less well-equipped to deal with ‘somebody who was earning next to nothing whose big guy wasn’t paying them their invoice in time’. According to one interviewee, this meant that they did not seem to ‘believe what we were saying about self-employed people being so precariously placed… I don’t think they were on the same page on this’. From Coworking’s perspective, this was bound up with politics:So, the first seven years of our life were characterized with us never taking anybody else's money so it was all self-funded which meant that we could be completely honest with our worldview. As soon we have taken the union's money we were brought into a perspective of having to behave slightly differently and in reality I think that lost some of what Coworking was. Now in this world, sadly, you need money to survive so we've got to find ways… it's just picking the one that that actually works.In this way, Union was seen as forcing upon Coworking a perspective that did not recognise workers or institutions that were not ‘affiliated or interested in party politics’, and were more concerned with ‘Labour leadership elections rather than worrying about whether [workers] get paid or not’. This imposition, in Coworking’s eyes, prevented them talking about some of the more radical ideas they were interested in politically, like the universal basic income or Breadfunds, an insurance scheme for the self-employed tested in the Netherlands. This was even seen as inhibiting Coworking’s ability to embrace the relationship with Cooperative. For Coworking, Union had become narrowly preoccupied with ‘selling a product’ – the range of services associated with Coworking.Union – of which Coworking’s leadership became a kind of ‘travelling salesman’ – ‘making a profit’ rather than ‘changing things’. Meanwhile, Union sometimes displayed an impression that Coworking’s ambitions were confined to coworking. These cultural differences and misunderstandings, while important, masked an important and intractable issue that undermined Coworking.Union: money. Once the main driver of the initiative had departed Union, the ‘vision’ was stripped back, and the underpinning material conditions of the collaboration began to play more of a structuring role. In particular, it was increasingly seen as ‘an exercise in growing membership’ alone, rather than the growth in membership supporting the construction of a broader and more independent alternative. Coworking had seen the experiment as ‘long term’, insofar as ‘you won’t see any benefits for those people for three, four, maybe even five years’. In line with their aforementioned ethos that ‘you can’t build a community, the community builds itself’, their intention was ‘connecting people’, without the expectation of an immediate benefit. But Union had invested a sizeable six-figure sum in the organisation and after two years ‘the membership figures didn’t match what they wanted’ in return for the amount they spent.From Union’s perspective, the ‘membership density’ was not what they ‘would have liked’ and in that sense it was clear to the union that ‘the relationship didn’t work’ and the ‘agreement was finished’. The risks were clear to the union, insofar as the examples that had influenced the venture – such as the Freelancers Union in the US – while successful in some ways, had not engaged the self-employed workforce ‘at a significant level in terms of building membership density’. This being the key impetus for Union’s initial outreach into the grey zone of self-employment, ‘we could argue the same thing happened in the UK… the idea was good – it didn’t really get the attraction it maybe could have’. In Union’s view, they had helped Coworking ‘develop that model for two or three years’, but ‘Coworking had developed and moved on’ and the experiment had failed on their own terms.Union was Coworking’s ‘biggest shareholder’, and when the decision was made to end the investment, a member of the union leadership called Coworking and, according to one participant, said ‘we’re gonna have to close you down then’. But, as a cooperative, Coworking was organised on a one-member, one-vote system, and Coworking’s response was ‘there’s another 1,000 people who’ve got votes as well, who may not want this to happen’. Later, after not turning up to the Coworking AGM, a representative of the union failed in their attempt to get voted onto the Coworking board, according to the same interviewee. The participant put these incidents down to a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘what it’s like to invest in a cooperative’, a ‘struggle to understand what a cooperative is’, and a difference in ‘values… even though cooperatives and unions were part of the same labour movement’.That Union ‘decided to pull the plug without having invested all the money they expected to invest’ was described by one participant from Coworking as ‘hugely damaging’, leading to redundancies of key staff. Union ‘pulling out’ was thus experienced as a ‘dramatic event’ for Coworking, causing ‘huge difficulties’ that manifested in a long ‘struggle for Coworking to exist’ that has continued to the present day.Coworking continued to offer the core ‘product’ associated with their collaboration with Union – insurance and legal support – but since the relationship ended with the union struggling to find investment sufficient to enable them to ‘market’ a ‘brand’ that was perceived as still having the potential to offer a lot of ‘value’ – language that showed shifting priorities from the values-driven project of previous years to one more concerned with the bottom line.More broadly, in response to the financial situation that set in following the collapse of Coworking.Union, Coworking had begun to transform their business model to a more flexible, hands-off relationship with individual coworking spaces that attempted to ‘push down responsibility and try and encourage people to be independent’. In this spirit Coworking relied to a much greater extent on ‘anchor associates’ who ‘for a free desk manage the space so we don’t have to’. While in principle, however, Coworking was happy to hand as much money as required to someone who was willing to set up and operate a space, in practice they were finding that this was not easy ‘because people still think it’s cheaper to stay at home and be lonely and talk to the dog’. They were thus moving to a model where Coworking would rent desks at a space in which the organisation had no other ‘financial interest’, and then the website would simply point subscribing users towards those desks which they would be entitled to use out of their membership fees. This enabled both the ‘product’ and the space provision to coexist in a cross-subsidising fashion, without Coworking being exposed to the liabilities of taking on the running of spaces themselves.But this low-resource model was not anticipated to be able to keep pace with the demands of resourcing existing coworking space operators and the ‘connectors’ that helped cohere those communities of self-employed workers. In this sense, it was widely accepted that if Coworking ‘is going to survive, it needs to survive in a different guise’ without the guarantee of any investment such as the large amount received from Union. Key personnel at the top of the organisation left and were replaced, with the view that new personalities would bring different and potentially more conducive approaches for new collaborations and partnerships in support of the organisation’s ambition to either ‘scale’ or ‘mature’. Meanwhile, the board of the cooperative had expanded in size from three or four people to 12, which was seen as a positive step forward.However, while one interviewee had remained an ‘optimist’, they were ultimately ‘very pessimistic’. This was partly about the continued viability of operating coworking spaces, as the ‘audience’ for them had ‘changed quite a lot’. The participant was frustrated at how users ‘behave like children’ in expecting Coworking to ‘do everything for them’. But this pessimism extended more broadly to the political project the organisation pursued, and specifically with regards to the ‘chances of the self-employed in the UK’, whose status was ‘very weak’ and apparently unresolvable through the kind of collective action Coworking had attempted to pioneer. In practice,Most of our members are running businesses, they're busy so they don't care sufficiently. They're pleased when we go and talk to politicians and persuade them of the argument that pleases them and some of them are pleased when they get the cheaper laptop… but does that mean that they get engaged in Coworking? … not really, so the reality is that very few people of the 500 engage in… the democracy of the organization which sadly means that actually most of the decision-making happens through [the leadership].In line with this downbeat appraisal, Coworking expressed no desire to ‘resolve the relationship with Union’ on the basis that they did not ‘think it matters at all to the people we’re trying to help’. Union, for their part, had taken the experience of working with Coworking as a ‘learning curve’ that paved the way for them to eventually explore or realise partnerships with other organisations active in the representation of non-standard workers operating in the grey zone of employment – unemployed and underemployed as well as self-employed. On hearing that Union had since gone on to work with a much longer-standing association of independent professionals and self-employed workers, Coworking were keen to highlight that the latter ‘work with people who are earning sixty, seventy, eighty thousand pounds a year, they’re not impoverished’ – unlike the perceived target audience of the cooperative.As regards Cooperative, on the other hand, Coworking expressed an ‘openness’ to work with them again in the future. Coworking continued to believe that the implementation of the model in the UK would be ‘a huge opportunity if someone got it right’ because of the persistent difficulties faced by self-employed people in accessing mortgages, for instance, owing to volatile pay. While the question of the incompatibility of the Cooperative model with the UK taxation system remained to be resolved, there was a belief that something like Cooperative could still be a potential solution to the impasse in Westminster. The feeling was mutual, insofar as Cooperative said they ‘really want[ed] to continue to work with Coworking’, even though they were reluctant to ‘go chasing it right now’ and would rely on the UK partners coming up with a ‘reliable model’ for doing so.While sustaining a slightly less direct relationship with Cooperative, participants from the Union side also remained positive about the possibility of bringing Cooperative to the UK. One participant saw the changing economic climate in the UK post-Brexit meaning an increase in independent or self-employed work that would leave ‘a vacuum… that can be filled with a thoughtful organisation that’s prepared to invest some time and resources and take a long-term view on this’. Indeed, it was participants connected with Union who seemed most optimistic about the potential to organise the self-employed in the UK, and specifically in those contexts where ‘freelancers work collectively’ such as broadcast and construction and ‘traditional organising models’ familiar to the repertoire of trade unions would still be applicable: recruitment, health and safety reps, individual and collective representation. However, it would still be necessary to make these workers an ‘offer’ of value and relevance to them:whether it's factoring arrangements to make sure they get paid on time, whether it's providing some form of access to portable benefits, whether it's providing access to a coworking space when they need to, whether… it's bringing these people together so they can collaborate and go together and get work together…The interviewee saw trade unions and cooperatives still playing an important role in such an offer, possibly in collaboration with coworking spaces. However, it would require two key factors: ‘finding credible partners to work with to help you deliver for people who need professional services’, possibly including private sector providers of benefits and support; and ‘finding campaign issues that are important and being their voice’. It was thus implied that one of the reasons Coworking.Union did not succeed was for a lack of these two factors.In this paper, through long-term ethnographic work conducted in parallel by the authors and through semi-structured interviews carried out in a coordinated manner, we analysed a collaboration involving three key actors in the context of self-employment: Union, Coworking, and Cooperative. The study of each of the three organisations mobilises specific literatures that only occasionally intersect. The contribution of our case study is the dialogue it constructs between the three reference literatures, highlighting their combined relevance for our understanding of the opportunities and limitations of organising the self-employed.In the preceding section, we presented a detailed reconstruction of the interactions of the three actors over time, highlighting the reciprocal positioning of the three players. This covered the context, expectations, and visions of the three actors and their evolution over time, starting from the motivations that generated the first contacts through to the development of operational agreements and up to the failure of these agreements as relations between them cooled.The case study, and the failed experiment it captures, constitutes an important opportunity to understand the dynamism, complexity, and contradiction manifest in organising the self-employed, of which the case is emblematic. While the strategic ingredients of significant organisational innovation were in evidence between the three actors, it generated instead a failure from which useful lessons may be nonetheless drawn. From this point of view, therefore, the case study demonstrates the importance of an in-depth articulation and analysis of failed attempts at organising the self-employed and their meaning for broader struggles by old and new actors to alter the terrain of the ‘grey areas’ of employment more generally. In particular, the case study contributes to continuing attempts to conceptualise alternative modes of organising by representing a unique combination of three distinct kinds of experimentation in a common endeavour, in turn exposing the paradoxes and contradictions that characterise them individually.The case took place in the context of a national institutional structure that provided a weak response to the emerging need for new forms of regulation and protection fit to address the changes, conditions and challenges faced by a growing self-employed workforce. Into this partial institutional vacuum stepped the bottom-up initiative promoted by Coworking and Union, including the attempted adaptation of the Cooperative model in the UK. The idea of combining the competences of the three actors seemed promising from the outset: Coworking was developing a coworking network in brownfields and rural areas to offer a sustainable alternative solution to the concentration of the self-employed in large urban areas. The trade union Union, for its part, offered considerable experience in collective representation and, by virtue of its interest in exploring the context of self-employment, a significant budget to invest in collaboration with strategic partners. Cooperative, meanwhile, was the authoritative guarantor able to offer long-standing organisational experience in the cooperative and mutualist frame for self-employed workers from different sectors, and the provision of a model that could inspire Coworking.Union.This combination of actors possessed significant political and organisational potential to provide a voice for self-employed workers while also materially advancing the capacity to represent and bargain for self-employed workers in the labour market and beyond. The findings demonstrate that the different actors brought with them different expectations of what the experiment would achieve. For Coworking, the desire to create a political voice for the self-employed motivated their involvement. While certain elements within Union had the same desire, such a role would have principally served the end of expanding membership and bargaining capacity in order to grow the union, rather than achieving an end in itself. The expectations different actors had constructed around these two possibilities increasingly came into conflict with one another. Union was committed to the political objectives only insofar as they corresponded with the union’s understandable priority to increase its power and presence in exchange for the investment of members’ subscription funds. Coworking, meanwhile, perceived the constraints on the union’s engagement in the experiment as expressing an instrumental approach that limited what the collaboration could achieve. This mismatch of expectations constrained the capacity of Coworking.Union to provide a persuasive and feasible model for the implementation of the Cooperative model in the specific institutional context of the UK, leading to the eventual end of the collaboration.In these respects, the two key actors in the attempted experiment remained confined, often understandably, to their existing set of practices. Beholden to their specific organisational logics, they failed to create an adequate or durable institutional carrier for a new approach to representation and decision-making. The case study thus complicates claims that there is anything inevitable about the emergence of new actors and new alliances to represent the unrepresented in the ‘grey areas’ of employment. Such new forms of representation require concerted organisation to be achieved, and concerted institutionalisation to be sustained – especially, as in this case, where the existing institutional environment of the specific national political economy makes experimentation difficult due to a weak regulatory context.At the same time, the specificities of the different actors involved in the case study – unions, coworking spaces, cooperatives – demand that we recognise the different opportunities for bargaining, representation, and organisation that they offer different groups of workers, particularly the self-employed. One response to the emergence of the grey area of new working practices is to identify the workers that inhabit it with a pervasive condition of precariousness within which specificity is ironed out and all struggles are articulated together. Nevertheless, this case concerns a workforce and a set of organisational actors that already carry their own specific identities and goals. Rather than a foundational commonality, the experiment was characterised by an original plurality that reflects the complexity of contemporary labour and contemporary society. Any unity of purpose would be established through organisational experimentation rather than automatically, through the setting of common goals and creation of common identities. The construction of ‘solidarity in difference’ 960489;The Research Ethics Committee of the University of Leeds on 13/09/2017, ethics reference LTLUBS-175;The Research Ethics Committee of the University of Milan on 08/11/2018, ethics reference No. 50/18;The Data Protection Officer of the University of Milan on 10/11/2018;The ERC ethics officer approved all the new elements submitted for ethics on 28/05/2019. This case study contributes to a better understanding of the complexities and struggles to develop collective representation for workers on non-standard contracts. It provides a comprehensive description of a failed collaboration between a trade union and two new collective actors in representing and organising self-employed creative workers. This case covers key aspects concerning the three actors involved, the development of the relations amongst them within the given context and, outcomes of their main actions. Although it is very informative and well written, at times, it is difficult to follow the overall argument. For instance, could it be argued that is impossible for trade unions to collaborate with other organisations to represent the collective interests of the growing number of self-employed professionals? If not, under which conditions such collaboration is more likely to succeed in improving working conditions for self-employed based on your findings? First, it would benefit from a stronger conceptual and analytical foundation. As regards theoretical underpinning, it could draw on union revitalisation literature. If so, it could contribute to answering whether is possible for trade unions to collaborate with other organisations to represent the collective interests of the growing number of workers on non-standard contacts. Nevertheless, the authors could to draw on other literature and develop a different overarching question that would make it easier for the readers to follow their argument. As regards the analytical aspects, the paper could be more explicit about what is meant by success or failure in this case study. It is specified that there was an “attempt to create a new institution”. Still, success could also mean any joint action undertaken by two or three actors that improved any working conditions for self-employed. Second, the key aspects examined in this case study could be presented in a simpler format by using tables (or figures), while providing less details in the text. Please see below some suggestions: e.g. Table 1 – Key characteristics of each actor*Set up (year/decade),Purpose, Key constituents /target group, Size (number of members)& Respondents (number). The following aspects might be covered for each actor: *Minor point: I would suggest to amend the pseudonyms of actors , to make it easier for the reader to differentiate whether you refer to the ‘union’ or ‘cooperative’ as a generic term or case study actors). Table 2: Key characteristics of the development of relations among the three actors over time. It might cover key joint actions (bipartite and/or tripartite) in Stage 1, Stage 2 & Stage 3, for instance. Table 3: Antecedents of successful and/or unsuccessful outcomes of joint (bipartite & tripartite) actions actors over time. Table 3 could be useful to identify and discuss under which conditions such collaboration is more likely to succeed in improving working conditions for self-employed. Also, it could help with identifying practical implications. Specifically, what are the lessons learnt from this failed experiment for trade unions, cooperatives and coworking organisations seeking to further the interests of self-employed as well as for policy makers? Finally, it might be useful to provide more details concerning the research methodology, if possible without compromising the anonymity. While the paper presents relevant findings and very interesting quotes, it could provide further details about interviews  and maybe the number of meetings attended at each stage. Overall, this is a very interesting case of a failed collaboration between trade unions and other new collective actors that would be of particular interest to policy makers and collective actors representing the interests of workers on non-standard contracts.Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for teaching or other practitioners?YesIs the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?PartlyIf applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Not applicableAre all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?YesIs the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?YesReviewer Expertise:Industrial relations, precarious work, trade union revitalisationI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Taking as a case study an original experiment in organizing the self-employed, this article outlines the main drivers and limits of new modalities of mobilization, in a context of gray-zones of employment and increasingly complex work situations. This attempt takes place at the intersection of three organizations and two social-economic and legislative spaces: 'Union', a historic trade union which, in the early 2000s, began to turn its attention - through community unionism - to new groups initially excluded from union representation, such as the self-employed; 'Coworking', a co-working and interest representation organization for the self-employed founded in 2010 (both are located in the UK); 'Cooperative', a freelancers' company founded in the late 1990s which expanded in Western Europe during the 2010s and is based in a European capital city. Drawing on the strengths offered by these three organizations, a new one was created: 'Coworking. Union', supposedly integrating the experience in collective and budget representation on the one hand, and the experience in the mutual and cooperative organization of freelancers and knowledge of their issues on the other hand.longitudinal study of these three organizations - between 2017 and 2021 - this article exposes the ins and outs of what turned out to be a failure. In short,it successfully inverts the now classic question of "unlikely mobilizations", which proposed to understand how causes had emerged in counter-intuitive ways. Instead, the article takes as its central axis the following paradox: how can we explain the failure of this initiative when it was deployed in a context of significant and urgent need for new forms of representation and protection for this emerging workforce, i.e. the self-employed? Through asetting collective actors in motion is never self-evident. This common approach now in political sociology, appears salutary when applied to the field of study of employment and work: indeed, its growing complexity is leading some researchers to consider the inescapable character of the "representation of unrepresented" (p. 13). However, it is essential to remind, as this article does, that transformations in labour relations and markets does not automatically generate effective transformations, far beyond the media discourses about inexorable social innovations. By bringing to light the contradictions and divergences of visions and interests  as well as other difficulties , the article develops a major posture that the sociology of collective action had initiated through the theory of resource mobilization:another strong point of this article, which also takes up certain proposals aimed at positioning interest groups and social movement actors on a continuum. Even if such an interweaving is often invoked in literature, it however remains little practiced in the social sciences, still too compartmentalized between the sociology of industrial relations and trade unionism, the sociology of interest groups and, finally, the sociology of work centered on cooperativist movements and workers' self-organization. As pointed out on p. 12, by positioning itself at the heart of these different subfields,this research raises important issues, both for the scientific literature and for the actors of social change:to link together different social phenomena that apparently belong to different spheres, to make some general and shared dynamics appear (Becker 2016). What common issues and strategies could enable these different organizations to be thought of in a common way, beyond their apparent separation ? This is by the way one of the intellectual 'tricks' given by H.S. Becker,the specific interests of certain social groups - or segments of groups - combined with broader and cross-cutting interests? This tension, mentioned in the conclusion (p. 15), raises the strategic challenge of reconciling the differences and singularities emerging in today's labor markets with their possible rallying around generic watchwords, such as "democracy", "collective representation or organization" or "precariousness" (p. 14). Overall, this appears to be a useful lesson for the sociology of social movements, far beyond work and employment issues.How are Ultimately, this article reveals a dual movement: on the one hand, a diversification of interests due to the increasing complexity of the world of work; on the other, the possible construction of lines of analysis and dynamics that cut across different social spaces. Thus, beyond the self-employed, articles like this oneinvite us to draw lines of transversality to understand certain social realities, even when the objects have been assigned to different types of literature due to the history of the constitution of our disciplines, as well as the social frontiers in our contemporary world. This isto propose a few suggestions to the authors: In line with this idea of the complexification of strategies and interests, I would now likemaking these strategic stakes more visible in the expression of its core issue; in particular, in terms of the recomposition of social classes, the representation of the different groups that make up the worlds of work, and economic or relational strategies with certain segments of the public policies. As it stands, the text mainly pretends to bring together different streams in the literature and only mentions the interest of studying "an attempt to create a new institution from elements of each [organization]" (p. 5) without specifying further with what stakes; in other words, the text seems to set out its contributions too modestly. a) It seems to me that the article might benefit fromworldviews and practices of the leading segment of the three organizations , even though it is specified that ethnographic observations were carried out in collective moments including a large proportion of the members (p. 5).specifying the social scenes observed and the roles or functions assumed by the interviewees with whom the six semi-structured interviews were conducted.This point would benefit from methodological clarification, for example bylimiting as far as possible formulations that leave the place of the speakers undecided, such as: "one cooperative member" (p. 8), "one participant" (p. 11), "participants" (p. 12), "certain elements within Union" (p. 13), etc. Similarly, we encourage authors to systematically specify the origin of quoted statements: e.g. p. 6 ("there were people in Union..." and following sentences), p. 7 ("showing return on [their] investment..."), p. 8 ("a kind of a utopia..."). [« a kind of a utopia of what work should be… » p. 8 ]With this in mind, I also suggest - for instance, by providing some details about the type of profession, role or function assumed, length of time in position -details concerning the positions quoted, or observations made within the organizations: are certain speeches the reflection of collective positions established after a deliberation process, or rather a dissenting confidence of certain members to the researcher(s)?Finally, this approach can also appear in the clarification of certain In short, while guaranteeing the anonymity of the respondents, such details would make it possible to relate the positions taken to social positions, and thusto further sociologize the analysis of this organizational complexity. In so doing, it would also dispel any grassroots myths or illusions of internal homogeneity within these organizations , they are no more than merely aggregates of segments, sometimes agonistic). Thus, the article is not necessarily intended to deal with the complexity of strategic arrangements applied within organizations, precisely because of the complexity of this dimension and the need to limit the article to a single point. However, it would make the existence of this additional challenge explicit. b) Generally speaking, the article seems to focus on theconcerted organisation to be achieved" and "concerted institutionalisation to be sustained". The various organizational and strategic interests exposed in the article are actually distributed between these two broad categories, and are very well detailed in the evolutionary restitution of the ideals and developments of the project, right up to its failure. However,the economic and materialistic dimension, which is a central issue (p. 11), might deserve more detail in p. 3-4-5, for example by providing economic data on each of the organizations: budget, number of salaried employees, etc. c) Lastly, two essential conditions for the realization of such mobilization projects are alluded to in an all-encompassing way, with the ideas of "to develop further in the future one of this work's strengths, mentioned briefly in the conclusion: thebenefits of integrating the analysis of social experimentation into long-term processes. The article thus evokes the factors that "weaken rather than strengthen nascent experiments" (p. 14), and it is likely to be an interesting path to study the future impacts of such a failure within the development of each of the organizations; more generally for social science, it is a point of interest to draw the attention to the longitudinal life of social entities. d) Finally, and most prospectively, I encourage the authorsReferencesLa bonne focale: De l'utilité des cas particuliers en sciences sociales (pp. 15-55). Paris: La Découverte.Becker, H. (2016). I / Aller voir ailleurs : raisonner sur le monde à partir d’un cas. Dans : , H. Becker,La trame de la négociation. Sociologie qualitative et interactionnisme, Paris, L’Harmattan.Strauss A.L.,1992. – Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for teaching or other practitioners?PartlyIs the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?YesIf applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Not applicableAre all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?PartlyAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?YesIs the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?YesReviewer Expertise:Sociology of work and employment ; political sociology ; sociology of professions ; sociology of arts and culture ; qualitative methodsI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. The growth of self-employed creative and knowledge work presents a fundamental challenge to existing systems of worker representation, and this case study illustrates quite clearly why this is the case. It is also an interesting case study illustrating barriers to interorganizational cooperation. Different kinds of organizations have different strengths and weaknesses, which motivates cooperation, but this fact also can scupper cooperation, as the case study shows. Union and Cooperative were well paired because of their differences, but those differences also undermined the cooperation It appears from the narrative that they required someone able to work in both worlds in order to make the cooperation work. The case narrative is well researched and empirically rich. It is well written and interesting, and raise various important issues. However, the manuscript is theoretically weak, and therefore does not reach its potential. The literatures it engages with on community unionism, coworking spaces and cooperatives, are appropriate to engage with but more or less simply set out the problems these organizations attempt to address and the solutions they present. Obviously, these things should be discussed and form part of the analysis, but don't provide an analytical framework to generalize the analysis. Since this case is being presented as a case of organizational cooperation , I suggest using a theory that deals with such matters to frame the analysis: institutional entrepreneurs, bridge builders, identity work, co-production (there are probably other options as well). This would mean cutting back a little on the discussion of the other literatures, but it seems to me like some of that could go without any loss to the analysis.  Another issue is, how is this ethnography? It seems like a pretty conventional case narrative; the data collected is good and detailed, which implies a decent level of access which was no doubt facilitated by ethnographic techniques to gain access. That's fine, as far as it goes, but the authors seem to have written themselves out of the story. This is not a serious flaw, as a good case study is still a good case study, but more of a missed opportunity to add texture and depth. If there is the data, some descriptions of direct observations involving work processes, disputes and issues of individual workers, and daily interactions to show community building (or not) would be interesting, although I recognize words used here would have to be balanced against description of the organizational governance and cooperation processes in terms of analytical value. I would say the manuscript could be published as is, but would benefit greatly from a stronger theorization, drawing on concepts of organizational identity, and synergies. The authors might also consider what they can do to give it a stronger ethnographic texture and feel.Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for teaching or other practitioners?YesIs the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?PartlyIf applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Not applicableAre all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?NoAre the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?YesIs the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?YesReviewer Expertise:Social and public policy, industrial relationsI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.


Recently, most service or product-oriented industries have been focusing on their activities to uphold the green and sustainable environment protocol owing to the increased environmental pollution. Concerning this issue, industries are now concentrating on developing recyclable or waste materials products. This research advocates developing and validating a banana fiber sandwich composite to promote the beneficial usage of bio-waste. The composite sandwich specimens were fabricated with resin-impregnated woven banana fiber mat as a skin, and the core was reinforced with three different weight percentages  of chopped banana fiber. The sandwich specimens were pressed into a three-point bending test to validate the structural integrity. The flexural characteristics like flexural strength and modulus were examined experimentally, whereas the key strength indices like flexural stiffness and core shear modulus were evaluated analytically. Post-fracture surfaces were studied through a scanning electron microscope to investigate the failure mechanism. The experimental and analytical results indicate that 10% banana fiber content in the sandwich core increases the flexural strength and flexural modulus to 225% and 147%, respectively, compared to the neat epoxy core. The numerical simulation was also performed through FEA to validate the experimental findings. The numerical results are in good concurrence with the experimental one. However, the strengthening may be in the form of synthetic or natural fibers. Synthetic fiber-reinforced polymer composite has higher strength and moisture resistance than natural fiber-reinforced polymer composite2. Nevertheless, environmental pollutant issues like non-biodegradability and carbon dioxide emission are the key difficulties with synthetic fiber, in addition to their high cost of production. Natural fibers such as sisal, banana, bamboo, jute, coir, etc., obtained from agricultural waste, have an excellent potential to replace synthetic fibers3. The development of modern polymer composites reinforced with different varieties of natural fibers could be a healthy attempt to sustain the environment by depleting the environment pollutant biomass wastages5. Many industries like packaging, plastic works, agriculture, sports and automobiles have been switched to NF-RPC  due to their improved mechanical properties6. Since synthetic fibers are increasing product costs and environmental pollutants, the industries are ready to compromise with the optimized mechanical properties of NF-RPC7.Several research attempts have been made on fiber-reinforced composite materials owing to their attractive mechanical attributes, such as high strength, high stiffness, lightweight, good corrosion resistance, and high dimensional stability compared with conventional monolithic materials8. Bananas help develop other foods and buy products, i.e., flavor, stain, nutrients, fertilizers, fibers, etc. 6. The banana leaf is applicable in food serving, preparation, packing, etc. The fiber extracted from the banana pseudo stem is utilized more in producing the polymer matrix, textile, marine rope, high-quality sanitary products, coffee and tin packing bags. According to statistical information, the yearly production of lignocellulosic fiber from food crops is four billion tons globally. The annual steel and plastic production is 0.7 billion and 0.1 billion tons, respectively9. Thus, properly using these fibers provides an enormous economic advantage for industry and society. Nearly 72.5 billion tons of banana fruit are harvested worldwide10. It is estimated that four tons of biomass waste are produced from each ton of banana fruit harvested11. In Ethiopia, banana farms cover 53,956.13 hectares, and 478,251.04 tons of banana fruit are harvested annually12.Banana is an abundant fruit crop that yields good agricultural revenue13. The interfacial bonding capacity can be enhanced by removing unwanted wastes from the fiber surface and projecting the surface as a coupling agent through chemical treatment14. Banana fibers are usually fed into NaOH treatment to remove needless amorphous constituents such as lignin, pectin and hemicellulose and reduce the water-sensitive nature, thereby enhancing the wettability15. Mejia et al.16 conducted an experimental investigation to study the effect of alkalization on the mechanical and morphological properties of banana fiber. They reported that the 5% sodium hydroxide treated fiber achieved reduced diameter and rough surface, thereby better wettability than the untreated one. Negawo et al.17 investigated the effect of different alkali concentrations  on the mechanical and morphological behavior of Ethiopia Ensete plant  pseudo fiber. They concluded that improved mechanical and dynamic-mechanical properties were obtained with 5% NaOH-treated banana fiber. Lachaud et al.18 studied the failure prediction of sandwich composite panels made from flax fiber mat/epoxy resin skin and flax fiber mat in omega core. The results were compared with conventional glass fiber and reported that the sandwich panels reveal nonlinear flexural behavior. Hoto et al.19 administered an experiment to study the flexural response of asymmetric sandwich composite made from corkboard as core and flax and basalt fiber fabric as skin material. The authors concluded that flexural strength is affected by variations in core material and skin position. Balaji et al.20 studied the effect of banana fiber length and weight percentage on the mechanical behaviour of banana fiber/epoxy composite. The study was conducted with 10 and 20 mm fiber lengths and varying wt.% of 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20. The investigation revealed the significant improvement in tensile and flexural strength recorded for the sample with 20 mm fiber length and 15 wt.% fiber content. Venkateswaran et al.21 examined the mechanical behavior of banana/sisal fiber hybrid epoxy sandwich composite and pure banana sandwich composites. Authors followed different fiber lengths  and weight ratios  while developing sandwich panels, and they reported that the pure banana sandwich achieves extreme flexural strength (57.53 MPa) with a fiber length of 15 mm and 16 wt.%. Mojtaba Sadighi et al.22 developed a dimensional woven glass fiber sandwich composite and evaluated its flexural ability through the experimental and simulation approach by implementing three-point and four point bending load formulations. The authors declared from the numerical simulation that the failure starts from the shear failure near to the point of intersection of piles and facesheets. Alberto Corigliano et al.23 conducted a mechanical characterization for syntactic foam filled epoxy core-glass fiber sandwich composite for novel lightweight industrial applications. The report concluded that the existence of good coherence between experimental and numerical results followed by the emphasis of improvement of stiffness and flexural strength due to the incremental inclusion of syntactic foam.The poor interfacial bonding and the water absorptivity are major drawbacks concerning the natural FibersThe innovative attempts made by the modern research communities to develop new materials by using recyclable waste materials pave the way for not only disposing of the landfill burden of waste materials but also providing a platform to produce cost-effective products. This research targets utilizing an abundantly available bio-mass banana fiber to develop polymer composite sandwich panels. These sandwich panels are expected to serve good structural properties and hence can be recommended for door panels, furniture and industrial shockproof dampers. The involvement of a banana fiber-reinforced core (three different variations) covered by banana fiber woven mat-impregnated epoxy face sheets distinguishes this work. The triple-layer evaluations of flexural properties by experimental, analytical, and computational methods also contribute to the novelty of the present work. The epoxy-based sandwich composite panels reinforcing both the faces and core with banana fiber are fabricated, and their fundamental structural property is evaluated experimentally and numerically. The trustworthiness of the materials is validated with fracture morphologies. The research outcome is expected to be beneficial to sustain an eco-friendly environment in terms of disposing of quantum available bio-waste.20. After the chemical treatment, the fiber was rinsed with drinking water to expel the alkaline solution; subsequently, the fibers were dried in sunlight completely, as shown in Fig. The natural fiber used for this investigation was extracted from a banana pseudo stem, a massive agricultural waste in Ethiopia, especially around Arba Minch town. The fiber-enriched pulp was extracted manually using a bamboo stick when the banana pseudo stem was placed at an angle of 30° to the horizontal, as shown in Fig. 26, stating that a higher twist angle affects the wettability of the fibers with a matrix interface. The customized handloom shown in Fig. As shown in Fig. 27 interposed between the resin-impregnated single layer of banana fiber woven mat on top and bottom skin to suit the mold, as depicted in Fig. The general-purpose epoxy resin and corresponding hardener were bought from a World Glass fiber supplier in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The rectangular mold box shown in Fig. A universal testing machine (Zwick) with a highest loading ability of 2 kN and a crosshead speed of 1.5 mm /min is utilized to conduct flexural testing on the samples. The test specimens were machined to 127 mm in length, 12.7 mm in width and 3.2 mm in thickness to meet the ASTM D790 standard. Another set of long specimens was fabricated to solve the homogeneous equation, with dimensions 197 mm in length, 12.7 mm in width, and 3.2 mm in thickness. The three-point bending test conducted for the developed sandwich composite is depicted in Fig. P is the maximum load, m is the slope of the stress–strain curve, and the geometry of the specimen is denoted by length (L), breadth (b) and thickness (t).The two important flexural property indicators, flexural strength and flexural modulus, were calculated from the experimental readings with the help of the following relation.28 that the bunches of banana fibers are covered with a combined membrane layer of hemicellulose and pectin. These cellulose-less components were scrapped out after the alkali treatment, and the remaining structure of the banana fiber bundles seems to be micro-ordered.It was explored by the researcher9.Figure 29. The mode of this longitudinal shear stress is in tension for the portion below the neutral axis, whereas in compression for the portion above the neutral axis. The specimen with a higher percentage of banana fiber core can withstand a higher load than the neat epoxy core.The load–displacement relationship plotted for all sandwich composite specimens with an epoxy core containing varied percentages of banana fiber and with a neat epoxy core is depicted in Fig. 21. The successful accomplishment of load transferring is realized due to the good interfacial bonding between the fiber and matrix. The enhancement in interfacial bonding is achieved through the rough surface of the fibers30, resulting from the alkaline treatment of the fibers.The sandwich specimen with a 10% banana fiber-filled core sustains nearly 2.2 times more load than a neat epoxy core specimen. The incremental load-bearing capacity is attributed to the content of more banana fiber, which successfully acts as a load-transferring agent. The banana fiber registers good physical properties, as depicted in Table The flexural behavior of the sandwich composite specimen can be well understood with the help of the stress–strain plot depicted in Fig. 31. In addition, the strong banana fibers act as microchains in delaying the propagation of cracks caused by shear failure.The face sheets are the same for all the specimens despite their different core constituents. Hence, flexural strength is proportional to their core strength. The results indicate that a 10% banana fiber core can withstand the maximum stress of 33.39 MPa before it fails. However, the sandwich panel with a neat epoxy core is susceptible to failure under 18.77 MPa bending stress. It can be seen that the 10% banana fiber core is relatively 1.77 times more rigid than the neat epoxy under the same loading circumstance. The treated banana fiber with uniform length has a good bonding with the matrix to transfer and sustain the load, which can be attributed to a noticeable improvement in strength29.P is the load on the specimen, S is the span length between supports, L is the loading span, D is flexural stiffness, and U is the transverse rigidity. As discussed in the materials and method section, specimen lengths varied in two lengths: 127 mm short specimen and 197 mm long specimen. The overhang length was maintained at 30 mm on both sides of all the specimens despite the support length being 67 mm for the short specimen and 97 mm for the long specimen. As per ASTM D7290 standard, the short specimen results are used for study and discussions, but the purpose of long specimens and their results is to solve the homogenous equations arrived for two different lengths and to determine the value of D and U32. Table This section elaborates on the method of calculations of flexural stiffness and core shear modulus of the sandwich specimen. The standard procedure prescribed by ASTM D7290 guidelines was followed to determine the flexural stiffness and shear modulus. The experimental deflection observed from the specimen was used to solve the following equationd is the total thickness of the sandwich specimen, t is the thickness of the factsheet, and b is the width of the sandwich specimen.These variations are attributed to the strength of the core; hence, the core shear modulus results calculated from the following equation reveal the actual scenario.29. However, the authors employed glass fiber-reinforced epoxy (GFRP) sheets as face sheets and woven 3D glass fiber fabric as a core. Another 33 researchers reported the average flexural stiffness of 6.2 kN and 9.2 kN for the GFRP face sheets sandwich beam with a polypropylene honeycomb core thickness of 6 mm and 12 mm, respectively. The reported average core shear modulus was 11.8 GPa and 13.9 GPa for 6 mm and 12 mm thicker polypropylene honeycomb cores, respectively. The comparison of previous literature reveals that 3.877 times poorer shear modulus was recorded for the 10% specimen. The GFRP-polypropylene honeycomb core sandwich specimen's higher performance is attributed to the honeycomb structure's ability to distribute the load flexibly due to its inherent geometrical stiffness. Nevertheless, the solid chopped banana fiber core miserably fails.Figure , calculated from the experimental results for all the sandwich specimens, annunciate the increment nature for the corresponding rise in banana fiber content in the core. Therefore, the flexural strength reported from the results is the corresponding flexural strength of the core since there is no change in the material’s constituent of face sheets. The core's bending strength improvement is interpreted with the incremental content of banana fibers.Flexural strength is a simple representation of the strength of the material against the bending load. The maximum stress that can be withstood by the extreme layer of an isotropic material, either on compression or tension, is considered to be rupture strength or bending strength. However, the flexural strength results in Fig. 1034 under the transverse load. However, the improvement in rupture strength is attained by cross-linking nature and better interfacial bonding of banana fibers with the matrix material to impede the propagation of the crack35, thereby postponing the failure. The analytical findings of flexural stiffness uphold this physical phenomenon. The improved flexural stiffness indicates an enhancement in sustaining higher stress before rupture, reflecting flexural strength. A similar finding was revealed by the researchers36, while they examined the flexural strength of steel wire mesh core-banana fiber sandwich epoxy composite. They obtained a 57.15% increment in the wire mesh banana sandwich than the neat banana specimen. Another researcher developed a hybrid polymer composite reinforced with constant volume fractions of carbon fiber and banana fiber with varying volume fractions of 50, 60, 70, and 80%. However, the authors reported the flexural strength as 253, 249, 246, and 243 MPa for 50, 60, 70, and 80% of volume fractions, respectively. Nevertheless, the 10% inclusion of banana fiber succumbs a 180 MPa of flexural strength; the earlier research outcome explores two perspectives: first, the abundant volume of banana fiber inclusion could not support the property development, and second, the property enhancement was not only dependent on the volume fraction but also the location of the plant and its soil nature.It is observed from the results that nearly 2.25 times bending strength has been achieved for the sandwich core with 10% banana fibers in comparison with that of the neat epoxy core. The neat epoxy is in nature of brittle failureThe flexural modulus is another indicator to reflect the material stiffness. The higher the flexural modulus, the lower the deflection, which is known to be stiffer. The slope of the line of proportionality of the stress–strain curve represents the flexural modulus. Figure 38 that the premature failure of the jute fabric–-honeycomb core filled with vinyl ester matrix at the maximum flexural modulus of 1150 MPa. The existing banana fiber woven mat–chopped banana fiber-filled epoxy core attains a 2.82 times more flexural modulus than the mentioned research work owing to its improved stiffness and load-bearing capacity.It can be seen from the results that a noticeable increment trend is evident in flexural modulus with the increase in banana fiber content in the core. The resistance to the deformation backed up by the improved flexural modulus is achieved through the enhancement in core shear modulus. Nearly 1.47 times increment in flexural modulus is recorded for the 10 wt. % fraction of banana fiber core in comparison with the neat epoxy. The involvement of strengthened fiber, like banana fiber, promotes the significant stiffness of the material. The increased fiber content in the core impedes the dislocation mechanism, paving the way for a poorer response against the deformation. The inherent property of the better tensile strength and Young’s Modulus of the banana fiber helps to transfer the load to the matrix successfully and to behave stiffer by sustaining a higher load. This physical phenomenon is considered a prime reason for the significant improvement in flexural modulus. It is interesting to report from the previous literatureThe fractured surfaces of sandwich panels were examined to gain insight into the response of the core, fibers in the core and face sheets against the transverse bending load. Figure As far as the core failure is concerned, the failure of the core was developed in two modes: one is through the fiber pull-out from the matrix, and another is through the sudden brittle failure of the fiber. Figure 0.Further, the flexural characteristics of banana fiber sandwich composite are evaluated numerically using finite element analysis (FEA). A commercial FEA package of ANSYS workbench 21 was employed to perform the analysis. Since the flexural stress developed significantly depends on the support conditions, the contact convergence is achieved upon the material model by assigning a proper radius to the support similar to that of the experimental structure. The developed model and its meshing are shown in Fig. Figure From the results, it is vivid that the prediction done through FEA is collinear to the experimental findings. Figure Figure The characterization results obtained through SEM images affirm the availability of umpteen holes to facilitate the transfer and distribution of water throughout the stem to survive the plant in all temperatures.The load–displacement graph reveals the incremental load-bearing capacity of sandwich specimens with the increased composition of banana fiber in the core. 10% banana fiber-reinforced sandwich core records 220% more load-sustaining ability than the neat epoxy sandwich core. The same trend is observed in the development of maximum stress before failure.The failure of the specimen is based on longitudinal shear stress. Hence, the shear rigidity of the core is evaluated through analytical mode. The analytical finding explores the secrecy of sustainability of higher weight % banana fiber reinforced core against bending load through the increased initial stiffness and shear rigidity values.The usual bending indices like flexural modulus and flexural strength of 10% banana fiber sandwich specimens are 147 times and 225 times greater than the neat epoxy core.The fracture morphology obtained through SEM images of the fractured surface reveals that the longitudinal shear stress caused the face sheet and core to fail in a brittle manner, followed by delamination of the face sheet from the core owing to poor bonding.The fracture morphology also affirms the two different ways of core failure: one is in brittle mode, and the other is in fiber pull-out mode.The finite element analysis conducted for all the specimen’s models reveals that the findings are in good compatibility with more than 95% accuracy compared with the experimental results.The innovative idea of replacing existing structural materials with materials developed with bio-mass wastages opens the gate for flexibility in raw materials and assures a sustainable green environment. This research focuses on developing and examining the flexural capacity of banana fiber-enriched sandwich panels. The following are the fruitful conclusions arrived:


Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common disease threatening human lives worldwide, and vitamin D receptor (VDR) contributes protective roles in this disease. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying VDR protection in CRC progression require further investigation.In this study, we statistically analyzed the relationship between VDR expression and CRC development in patients and detected invasion and apoptosis in CRC cells with VDR overexpression and interference. We also detected the expression of key genes involved in Wnt/β-catenin signalling -1 and cyclin D1) in SW480 cells and nude mice injected with VDR-overexpressing SW480 cells and observed tumour development. Additionally, we performed Co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) and glutathione-S-transferase (GST) pull-down assays to identify the protein interactions of VDR with β-catenin, dual luciferase (LUC) and chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) to detect the activation of LEF-1 by VDR.The VDR level was closely related to the development and prognosis of CRC patients. VDR overexpression inhibited invasion but promoted apoptosis in cancer cells. β-catenin shRNA contributed oppositely to cancer cell activity with VDR shRNA. Additionally, VDR interacted with β-catenin at the protein level and blocked its nuclear accumulation. VDR regulated the expression of β-catenin, cyclin D1 and LEF-1 and directly activated LEF-1 transcription in vitro. Furthermore, nude mice injected with VDR-overexpressing SW480 cells revealed suppression of tumour growth and decreased expression of β-catenin, cyclin D1 and LEF-1.This study indicated that VDR protected against CRC disease in humans by inhibiting Wnt/β-catenin signalling to control cancer cell invasion and apoptosis, providing new evidence to explore VDR biomarkers or agonists for CRC patient diagnosis and treatment.The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-023-10690-z. CRC is a commonly diagnosed cancer and a global health issue , 2. The 2vitamin D3 2D3), which plays important roles in the expression of numerous genes, maintaining calcium/phosphate homeostasis, regulating cellular proliferation and differentiation, and organizing the immune response [VDR belongs to the steroid hormone receptor superfamily and is a nuclear transcription factor , 8. It fresponse , 9–11. Vresponse –14, exerresponse . Althougresponse , 17, addWnt signalling controls a series of biological developments in animals , 19. AbeIn this study, we statistically analyzed 188 human CRC tissue samples of cases and 134 human colorectal normal epithelial tissue samples. We designed lentivirus-delivered VDR silencing and overexpression constructs in SW480 cells, detected the expression of key genes in Wnt/β-catenin signalling, and observed tumour growth in nude mice injected with VDR-OE SW480 cells. VDR was closely related to CRC progression and contributed to antitumour effects by inhibiting Wnt/β-catenin signalling. Additionally, VDR interacted with β-catenin at the protein level and directly activated LEF-1 transcription in vitro. Taken together, VDR protects against CRC by regulating the Wnt/β-catenin signalling pathway. Strategies to maintain VDR expression in CRC patients are promising to prevent and treat cancers in the future.The CRC tissues used in this experiment were collected from tissue specimens at the Department of Pathology, People’s Hospital of Suzhou High-tech Zone from 2009 to 2021. The CRC tissues were diagnosed by senior pathologists; 188 samples were colorectal cancer tissues, and 134 samples were colorectal normal epithelial tissues. The diagnostic criteria referred to the 2010 edition of ‘WHO Classification Tumours of the Digestive System’ and the 2009 7th edition of ‘the American Joint Committee on Cancer, AJCC’ tumour lymph node metastasis (TNM) staging standards. This study was conducted with written informed consent obtained from the individual patients and was approved by the ethics committees of People’s Hospital of Suzhou High-tech Zone.2 at 37 °C. We replaced the culture medium with fresh medium every 2–3 days until the cells grew to approximately 90% of the culture flask area and conducted cell experiments. Well-growing cells at passages 3–10 were chosen for subsequent experiments.The human CRC cell line SW480 was purchased from the Cell Bank of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. SW480 cells were resuspended in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM) containing 10% foetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin-streptomycin solutions and were incubated with 5% COA lentiviral vector encoding shRNAs for VDR and β-catenin were developed by Biostorms . The VDR sequence (5′-GGTCAGTTACAGCATCCAA-3′) and β-catenin sequence (5′-GCACAAGAATGGATCACAA-3′) were incorporated into the pLVH1-GFP vector, respectively. To produce lentivirus containing VDR or β-catenin, HEK-293 T cells were hybridized with the pLV-VDR or pLV-β-catenin plasmid using the Virapower Packing Mix and Lipofectamine 2000 . A vector for the overexpression of VDR was obtained from Biostorms. Chemical modifications of pre-VDR were included for use in selection and to improve the stability of the guide chain. A negative control was prepared using a nonsense oligonucleotide. After the prepared lentivirus were infected into SW480 cells, they were observed under a fluorescence microscope .The animal experiment in this study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Soochow University. BALB/C nude mice were purchased from Vital River (Beijing). OE-VDR SW480 cells and empty controls were injected into the mice. Thirteen days after the injection, the tumours were separated and measured using an electronic balance and Vernier calipers.-ΔΔCt method and normalized to actin. The primer sequence information was forward primer 5′-GACATCACTGATGTCTCCAGAGC-3′ and reverse primer 5′-GAGCAGCACATGTT CTTCCTCATG-3′ for VDR, forward primer 5′-CAGCTGCTGTCCTATTCCGAATGT-3′ and reverse primer 5′-TGTCCAGTCCAAGATCTGCAGTCTC-3′ for β-catenin, forward primer 5′-A GTCATCAAGTGTGACCCGGTC-3′ and reverse primer 5′-TGGCGCAGGCTTGACTCCAGAA G-3′ for cyclin D1, forward primer 5′-ACATGCAGCTTTATCCAGGCTG-3′ and reverse primer 5′-TGCACGTTGGGAAGGAGCTTCTC-3′ for LEF-1.Total RNA was extracted using TRIzol reagent  following the manufacturer’s instructions. Reverse transcription was performed using the PrimeScript® RT Master Mix Perfect Real Time kit . qPCR was conducted using SYBR Green Master Mix  and a qPCR instrument . The relative levels of genes were analyzed by the 2The proteins were extracted using RIPA protein extraction reagent  supplied with a cocktail . The lysis products were subjected to SDS–PAGE, transferred to polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membranes, and blocked in 5% milk. The membranes were incubated with primary antibodies   and secondary antibodies  . Autoradiograms were quantified by densitometry using GAPDH as a control with ImageJ software.SW480 cells infected with lenti-OE-VDR, lenti-shRNA-VDR and lenti-shRNA-VDR plus lenti-shRNA-β-catenin were trypsinized and washed twice with cold PBS. We detected SW480 cell apoptosis using the Annexin V-FITC/PI Cell Apoptosis Detection Kit  following the manufacturer’s instructions on a flow cytometer .We placed Transwell permeable supports in a 24-well plate. The upper side of the cell-permeable membranes was blocked with Matrigel . The cells were prepared for the cell apoptosis detection assay and transferred to blocked membranes. Culture medium with 20% FBS was added to the wells of the 24-well plate. The Transwell inserts were removed, and then the membranes were washed with PBS twice and the cells were fixed with methanol after 24–48 h of conventional cultivation. The membranes were stained with 1% crystal violet after gently wiping off the upper layer of nonmigrated cells. We counted the cells in the lower layer of the membranes under a microscope using 5 random fields of view.Forty-eight hours after transfection, the cells were lysed and subjected to the LUC reporter assay. The ratio of the activities of the two luciferases (firefly luciferase and Renilla luciferase) was used as the relative luciferase activity. The relative LUC activity was detected following the instructions of the Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay Kit  with the Modulus Single Tube Fluorometer .ChIP was conducted using the SimpleChip Plus Enzymatic Chromatin IP Kit  in SW480 cells following the manufacturer’s instructions. Immunoprecipitation was performed using a specific VDR antibody  compared with the control IgG. Twenty percent of each sample was reserved as Input. The relative immunoprecipitated DNA was normalized to the results of IgG controls and quantified to the respective inputs. Three biological repeats of each group were conducted.The Protein A/G Immunoprecipitation Kit  was used to enrich the VDR and β-catenin proteins. Cells expressing Myc-VDR, Myc-IRF9 (IRF9 was not related to Wnt/β-catenin pathway) and β-catenin were lysed, and 5 mg of each protein was used for immunoprecipitation with 100 μg of IgA and Myc antibodies . The immunoprecipitation of the interacting protein β-catenin was controlled by Myc-VDR and Myc-IRF9 with empty pcDNA3.1 respectively and Myc-IRF9 with β-catenin. Western blotting analysis of the input was used to determine the initial protein levels of VDR and β-catenin in each group.The fusion proteins of GST-β-catenin were prepared as described previously . ApproxiThe immunohistochemical staining results of VDR in the tissues were considered positive with brown particles in the cytoplasm/nucleus. Five fields of view were randomly selected for each slice under the microscope (× 200), and the percentage of positive cells was calculated. The final score was calculated by the product of ‘staining intensity × percentage of positive cells’. An IS value greater than 5 indicated high expression, and an IS value less than or equal to 4 indicated low expression.P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Statistical analysis was conducted using GraphPad Prism 5.0  and SPSS 22.0 . Student’s t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze the differences between distinctive groups. All the data were presented as means ± SD, and To determine the role of VDR in CRC, we collected patient tissues from the Department of Pathology, People’s Hospital of Suzhou High-tech Zone; 188 samples were from patients were diagnosed with CRC tissues, and 134 were from healthy subjects. Immunohistochemistry showed that in normal and CRC colorectal tissues, the VDR proteins were mainly located in the cytoplasm , significantly higher than that of cases with lymph node metastasis (25.6% (22/86); 02, signiWe conducted regular follow-ups on 109 CRC patients. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to analyze the relationship between VDR expression and the postoperative survival rate of CRC patients. With the decrease in VDR expression, the postoperative survival time of CRC patients showed a gradually shortening trend  eGFP signals from the three different lentivirus-delivered VDR shRNAs. Titer = 7.2 × 106 PFU/mL. (b) Western blotting analysis of VDR expression in the three different shRNAs normalized to GAPDH. Fig. S2. VDR expression in SW480 cells overexpressing lentivirus-delivered VDR. (a-e) eGFP signals in the lentivirus-delivered OE-VDR. Titer = 8.9 × 107 PFU/mL. (f) Western blotting analysis of VDR expression in OE-VDR normalized to GAPDH. Fig. S3. β-catenin expression of lentivirus-delivered shRNAs in SW480 cells. (a) eGFP signals from the three different lentivirus-delivered β-catenin shRNAs. Titer = 7.8 × 106 PFU/mL. (b) Western blotting analysis of β-catenin expression in the three different shRNAs normalized to GAPDH.Additional file 2.