Research streams

The principle of “Cooperation among Cooperatives” was officially added to the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) principles in 1966, making it one of the most recent additions to the ICA’s guiding framework. This principle states: “Cooperatives serve most effectively and strengthen the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.” 

Although cooperatives may successfully overcome market entry barriers and establish themselves within specific sectors, their sustainability can still be compromised—not due to internal inefficiencies, but rather due to a lack of collaborative networks with other cooperatives in their sector, supply chain, or geographic area. Academic research highlights how some cooperative groups, such as Mondragon, have thrived largely thanks to the application of the “cooperation among cooperatives” principle. 

However, while the benefits of cooperation among cooperatives have been widely celebrated in academic literature, there are significant challenges in implementing this principle. The absence of strong inter-cooperative networks in many regions, the difficulties faced by institutions attempting to foster cooperation in other settings, and recent issues within established networks—such as the departure of four successful worker cooperatives from the Mondragon group—reveal the complexities and limitations of inter-cooperation. 

We invite papers that explore both the successes and challenges of cooperation among cooperatives. We encourage researchers to critically examine not only the bright side of inter-cooperation but also the obstacles and barriers that hinder its implementation. 

Additionally, we are particularly interested in papers that bridge business and legal perspectives. Successful cooperative groups often operate within countries whose legal and tax frameworks are specifically designed to support both individual cooperatives and cooperative networks. Yet, these institutional and legal dimensions are frequently overlooked in business and management research when analyzing whether successful models like Mondragon can be replicated in other contexts. 

Submissions are invited on the following topics: 

• Structures and Models of Cooperation: Examining different organizational structures and formulas for inter-cooperation. 

• Governance in Cooperative Networks: Innovations and advancements in the governance of inter-cooperative structures. 

• Conflict Management: Approaches to managing conflicts within cooperative networks. 

• Challenges and Barriers: Identifying the obstacles that impede effective cooperation among cooperatives. 

• Diversity and Conflicts of Interest: Exploring how heterogeneity among cooperatives can lead to conflicts within inter-cooperative networks. 

• Cooperative Trade: Analyzing cooperative-to-cooperative trade and supply chain collaborations. 

• Innovation in R&D: Open innovation and cooperative collaborations in research and development. 

• Internationalization: Cooperation among cooperatives in global expansion and international trade. 

• Access to Finance: Exploring how cooperatives collaborate to secure financial resources. 

• Cross-Sector Cooperation: Extending inter-cooperation to include other stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, and academic institutions. 

• Legal and Institutional Support: Investigating the role of national and international legal frameworks in facilitating or hindering inter-cooperation. 

We welcome papers that address these topics from both theoretical and practical perspectives, including case studies, comparative analyses, and cross-disciplinary approaches. 

A cooperative society is an old form of business that has played an unquestionable role in the economic and cultural history all over the world. Co-operatives have always sought social change and fulfilled a wide range of social, economic and environmental tasks thus responding to the needs of their owner-members. Co- operative ideology also tries to resolve issues related to unfairness and inequality in the labor markets as well as distorted competition and other market failures.  

Co-operatives continue to show their relevance and value to this day. Co-operatives comprise some of the world’s largest businesses contributing to resilient employment, a sustainable economy and the well-being of workers.  

Despite their undisputable significance for many national economies, local societies or even individuals, co- operatives have attracted surprisingly little interest in the field of management science; they have been largely overlooked in research and thus, within the mainstream economics and management theory and therefore, more research is required to better understand the unique characteristics of this business model. In addition, as people, values and operational environments change, co-operatives also restructure themselves making the reappraisal of co-operative theory topical.  

The aim of this track is to bring together researchers, students and practitioners interested in different types of co-operative enterprises and namely their hybrid character that stems from the cooperative mission and purpose.  

Multiple roles and objectives are naturally inherent in the co-op idea, captured by the Statement on the Co- operative Identity (ICA, 1995) and thus in co-operative enterprises’ practices. This complex nature derived from the co-operative mission has been conceptualized as the dual nature, which is in the DNA of all co- operatives. However, the concept is somewhat ambiguous, and a comprehensive theoretical framework is missing (Novkovic, Puusa & Miner 2022).  

Dual nature in co-operatives typically implies that they are two things in one: a business enterprise and an association (Draheim 1952). The two sides of the coin are seen to rest on different sets of values and are often perceived to be contradictory. However, the dual nature represents the core co-operative identity which implies one unified set of values and thus the dual nature has also been defined as combining two roles, the business role and a member community role, in a unique and complimentary way. However, in practice, the meaning and implementation of duality remain somewhat ambiguous, and rife with tension (Puusa, Mönkkönen & Varis 2013; Puusa, Hokkila & Varis 2016).  

Therefore, it is obvious that this duality needs clarification both in theory and in practice: What was the original idea and purpose of co-ops from the perspective of duality? How can the duality be theorized? What do the business dimension and member community dimension of dual nature mean and include? How does the duality manifest itself in practice from the perspectives of management, co-operative governance, membership, employees, region or society?  

The combining theme of this track is the unique identity of both the cooperative movement and co-operatives and movement’s significance that goes well beyond economic factors.  

We wish to refrain from (at least solely) following the logic of neoclassical theories that approaches theorization of co-operatives so that the cooperative movement as well as co-operative businesses have been given a status of being abstractions separate from the socioeconomic and historical context in which they exist.  

Suggested topics include but are not limited to:  

• The cooperative difference: The dual purpose in theory/in practice  

• Co-operative identity  

• Special characteristics of co-operative management: managing duality  

• Co-operative governance: role and responsibilities in managing and supervising the fulfilment of co-operative duality  

• Participation, commitment and a sense of ownership in a co-operative context; what do owners expect from their cooperatives?  

• Co-operative purpose from employee perspective  

• The awareness and understanding of the co-operative idea and identity  

• Understanding the various forms and unique features of co-operatives: duality in producer-, service-, worker-, and/or consumer cooperative  

References:

Draheim, G. (1952). Die Genossenschaft als Unternehmungstyp (2nd edition 1955). Goettingen: Vandenhoeck, and Ruprech.

Holger, B. (1986). The co-operative association as a business enterprise: A study in the economics of transactions. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 142(2), 310–339. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40750872

ICA (1995). Statement on the Co-operative Identity. https://www.ica.co-op/en/co-operatives/co-operative-identity

Levi, Y. (2006). From the ‘Double Nature’ of Cooperation to the Social Economy: Fifty Years of Associationalism. International Review of Sociology, 16(1), 149-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906700500485770

Mazzarol, T., Clark, D., Reboud, S., & Mamouni Limnios, E. (2018). Developing a conceptual framework for the Co-operative and Mutual Enterprise business model. Journal of Management and Organization, 24(4), 551-581. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.29

Novkovic, Sonja, Puusa, Anu & Miner, Karen (2022). Co-operative identity and the dual nature: From paradox to complementarities. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management 10 (1), June 2022, 100162 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2021.100162

Puusa, Anu & Saastamoinen Sanna (2021). Novel ideology, but business first? Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management 9 (1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2021.100135

Puusa, Anu, Hokkila, Kirsi & Varis, Antti (2016). Individuality vs. Communality – A new dual role of co-operatives? Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 4/2016. pp. 22-30.

Puusa, Anu, Mönkkönen Kaarina & Varis Antti (2013). Mission lost? Dilemmatic dual nature of co-operatives. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2013.06.002

The digital revolution is reshaping the financial landscape, impacting private financial institutions and cooperatives in the banking, financial, and insurance sectors. Principles of mutual support, member ownership, and democratic governance historically drive cooperatives operating in these sectors. They face unique challenges as they navigate the push toward digital transformation and meet new societal needs. This track invites papers critically examining how these digital advancements influence the cooperative identity in these sectors, shaping cooperatives’ role, relevance, and function in the contemporary financial ecosystem.  

As the International Cooperative Alliance outlines, the cooperative identity includes values of self-help, democracy, equality, and solidarity, distinguishing cooperatives from for-profit entities. Digital transformation, however, brings a new dynamic that tests these values. With advancements like artificial intelligence, blockchain, and big data, cooperatives have opportunities to improve operational efficiency, better meet member needs, and expand their reach. Yet, these tools also bring risks: they can centralise power, introduce privacy concerns, and potentially lead to mission drift. This tension between innovation and core identity is central to this track.   

This track gathers researchers, practitioners, and cooperative leaders to reflect on how digital transformation influences and redefines cooperative identity within the banking, finance, and insurance sectors. By sharing insights, challenges, and best practices, contributors to this track will foster a deeper understanding of how cooperatives can navigate and leverage technological advancements while remaining true to their foundational principles.  

Suggested topics include but are not limited to:  

1. How does digitalisation impact governance and decision-making in cooperatives?  Traditional cooperative governance relies on democratic member participation, but digital tools can streamline decision-making, potentially shifting power dynamics. Do digital voting platforms and virtual general meetings empower or disenfranchise members?  
2. Can cooperatives maintain their commitment to member-centric services in an AI-driven financial landscape?  Artificial intelligence can optimise member services by personalising banking/financial/insurance products, enhancing risk assessment, and improving accessibility. However, reliance on data analytics may challenge the cooperative’s commitment to transparency and privacy. Papers may explore whether AI can be a tool for aligning services with cooperative values or if it risks undermining trust.  
3. What strategies can cooperatives adopt to balance technological innovation with cooperative principles within the banking, finance, and insurance sectors?  Many cooperatives need help with integrating technology without compromising identity. This track seeks practical strategies and case studies on cooperatives that have successfully adapted to the digital era without compromising their mission.  
4. How do digital needs influence cooperative membership and engagement?
   Digital channels facilitate more effortless engagement. This track should investigate whether cooperatives attract and retain a digitally native membership that may have different expectations than previous generations. Papers could address how digital transformation influences member loyalty and engagement in cooperatives.  
5. What role do cooperatives play in financial inclusion and social responsibility in a digital economy?  Digital platforms can widen access to financial services, yet they also pose barriers to those who need more digital literacy or access. These realities challenge cooperative commitment to financial inclusion, prompting cooperatives to innovate inclusively.  
6. Can digital transformation enable new business models in the banking, financial and insurance sectors while maintaining the principles of cooperative identity?  Digital transformation can enable new banking, financial, and insurance business models. Digital tools can create cost-effective, scalable solutions tailored to members’ needs, supporting financial inclusion and mutual benefit while preserving cooperative identity by fostering inclusive, member-centred approaches. 
7. How can cooperative identity inform digital transformation strategies within the banking, finance, and insurance sectors?  Finally, this track invites reflections on how the cooperative identity might serve as a guiding framework for digital transformation, ensuring that technological advancements reinforce rather than erode cooperative values.  

The global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-2008 sparked significant interest in bank business models (BBM) among policymakers and regulators (Ayadi et al., 2023). Recent approaches to BBM analysis emphasize characteristics beyond ownership structures, such as the differences between shareholder banks and cooperative banks, making BBM a key supervisory priority today (Badunenko et al., 2021). However, a common definition of bank business models remains elusive, and recent crises may have introduced greater variability in BBM development.  

For cooperative banks, the primary goal of their BBM is to maximize member consumer surplus rather than owner profits. The discussions surrounding BBMs have intensified, highlighting the increasing regulatory burden on banks, particularly cooperative banks. Brocardo et al. (2021) raise important questions about the connection between cooperative banks and the emerging peer-to-peer funding solutions, especially in sustainable finance. In broader terms, Caselli (2022) and Bevikacqua (2022) thoroughly discuss cooperative financial intermediation, focusing on sustainability and climate risks. Venanzi and Matteucci (2022) analyze the business models of major cooperative banks in continental Europe from this perspective.  

Previous research has increasingly shown that cooperative bank business models have historically included characteristics that align with sustainability-focused funding. This opens avenues for deeper research into the role of cooperative banks in the sustainable development of the global economy, which is the central theme of this track. 

Key topics of interest in this track include, but are not limited to: 

• Comparative analysis of stakeholder and shareholder bank business models 

• The impact of governance structures on crisis management and recovery 

• Case studies of stakeholder and shareholder banks during recent financial and systemic crises (e.g., COVID-19) 

• The role of stakeholder engagement in enhancing bank stability, resilience, and sustainability 

• Risk management strategies and their effectiveness across different bank business models 

• The influence of regulatory frameworks on stakeholder and shareholder banks concerning sustainability requirements 

• Long-term sustainability, including climate change and ethical considerations in banking models 

We encourage submissions that provide theoretical insights, empirical research, and practical case studies. Papers offering interdisciplinary perspectives or novel data and methodologies are particularly welcome. This track aims to foster a comprehensive understanding of how different banking models navigate crises and contribute to financial stability and sustainability. Join us in examining the critical characteristics of cooperative bank business models and their implications for crisis management and economic resilience. 

References 

Ayadi, R., Challita, S. & Cucinelli, D. (2023); Cooperative banks, business models and efficiency: a stochastic frontier approach analysis. Annals of Operations Research (2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05526-9  

Badunenko, O., Kumbhakar, S. C., & Lozano-vivas, A. (2021); Achieving a sustainable cost-efficient business model in banking: The case of European commercial banks. European Journal of Operational Research, 293(2), 773–785, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.12.039.  

Bevilacqua, E. (2022); European Cooperative Banks and Sustainability, Chapter 8 in M. Migliorelli and E. Lamarque (eds.), Conteporary Trends in European Cooperative Banking, 165 – 192  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98194-5_8.  

Broccardo, E., Graziano, C., & Erzegovesi, L. (2021); The quest for a sustainable social finance business model: is peer-to-per öending the legitimated heir to cooperative banking? Journal of Sustainable Finance a & Investment Vol 11, No 2, 123 – 142, https://doi.org./10.1080/20430795.2019.1706314.  

Caselli, G. (2022); How Do Cooperative Banks Consider Climrte RRisk and Climte Change? Chapter 9 in M. Migliorelli and E. Lamarque (eds.), Contemporary Trends in European Cooperative Banking, 193 – 223  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98194-5_9. 

Venanzi, D. & Matteucci, P. (2022); The largest cooperative banks in Continental Europe: a sustainable model of banking, International Journal of Sustaanable Development & World Ecology 29/1, 84 – 97, https://doi.org/10.1080/135404509.2021.1919784      

How can we strengthen education on cooperatives (in dedicated courses and/or in other courses and study programs)? How can cooperative educators support each other? What can we learn from each other? What interesting case studies can we use in our courses? Such session would also include an overview of who is doing what on cooperative education in Europe. We want to invite several people to give a short presentation on how they teach on cooperatives, and then have discussion on how to improve, share and exchange. …Maybe you are already considering a session on this topic (on the basis of your mandate from Cooperatives Europe); if so, we need to discuss and align.  

Cooperatives, as democratic organizations owned and governed by their members (Novkovic, 2008), pursue multiple goals and objectives. These goals can be broadly classified into two groups as economic, focused on profitability and market share, and social, related to the normative values and principles defined by the ICA (International Co-operative Alliance, 2015). The dual nature of cooperatives, entailing the simultaneous pursuit of both sets of goals, brings inherent tensions on individual, organizational and community level (Novkovic et al., 2022). This creates a unique environment for human resource management (HRM), that is not found in other types of organizations. Furthermore, members and employees often hold multiple roles simultaneously (Mamouni Limnios et al., 2018; Piasecki, 2021) which presents further challenges for HRM.  

Although employees are key stakeholders in cooperatives (Davis, 2006), influencing both its effectiveness and the implementation of its stated values and principles (International Co- operative Alliance, 2015), the literature on HRM in cooperatives remains limited (Voigt & von der Oelsnitz, 2024). Based on exiting frameworks such as sustainable and contextual HRM (Diaz-Carrion et al., 2018; Farndale & Paauwe, 2018), value-based HRM practices (Luu, 2017), multistakeholder perspectives (Beer et al., 2015), and employee ownership (Kaarsemaker & Poutsma, 2006) there is much room to broaden our understanding of HRM in cooperatives.  

Accordingly, in this track, we aim to synthesize existing knowledge and generate new insights about HRM in cooperatives, focusing on (but not limiting to) the following themes, which we find particularly interesting:  

• Paradoxical research on managing duality: Examining how cooperatives navigate tensions between economic and social issues in their HRM practices and policies.  

• Comparative studies across cooperative types: Exploring differences between member- focused and community-focused cooperatives, as well as among producer, worker, and consumer cooperatives, in relation to HRM issues.  

• Multifaceted roles within cooperatives: Addressing the complexities of employees holding multiple roles within cooperatives and managing potential role ambiguity.  

• Outside-in perspective: Investigating how cooperatives exchange with external stakeholders and examining the societal outcomes of their HRM practices.  

• Power dynamics and decision-making: Exploring the role of employees and managers in decision-making processes in cooperatives.  

• Values in practice: Examining how the declared values of cooperatives are perceived and implemented by their employees.  

References :

Beer, M., Boselie, P., & Brewster, C. (2015). Back to the future: Implications for the field of HRM of the multistakeholder perspective proposed 30 years ago. Human Resource Management, 54(3), 427-438. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21726  

Davis, P. (2006). Beyond human resource management in co‐operatives. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600610643493  

Diaz-Carrion, R., López-Fernández, M., & Romero-Fernandez, P. M. (2018). Developing a sustainable HRM system from a contextual perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1143-1153. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/csr.1528  

Farndale, E., & Paauwe, J. (2018). SHRM and context: Why firms want to be as different as legitimately possible. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 5(3), 202-210. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE  

International Co-operative Alliance. (2015). Guidance Notes to the Co-operative Principles.  

Kaarsemaker, E. C., & Poutsma, E. (2006). The fit of employee ownership with other human resource management practices: Theoretical and empirical suggestions regarding the existence of an ownership high-performance work system. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 27(4), 669-685. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0143831×06069009  

Mamouni Limnios, E., Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G. N., & Siddique, K. H. (2018). The member wears Four Hats: A member identification framework for co-operative enterprises. Journal of Co-Operative Organization and Management, 6(1), 20-33. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcom.2018.03.003  

Novkovic, S. (2008). Defining the co-operative difference. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(6), 2168-2177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2008.02.009  

Novkovic, S., Puusa, A., & Miner, K. (2022). Co-operative identity and the dual nature: From paradox to complementarities. Journal of Co-Operative Organization and Management, 10(1), 100162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2021.100162  

Piasecki, P. (2021). The influence of employee membership on training intensity: The case of Polish co-operative banks. Journal of Co-Operative Organization and Management, 9(2), 100144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2021.100144  

Voigt, L., & von der Oelsnitz, D. (2024). A framework of HRM in cooperatives: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Journal of Co-Operative Organization and Management, 12(1), 100232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcom.2024.100232  

How large, incumbent cooperatives and small, new cooperative differ in their identity (building) and how they could learn from each other (and how they can collaborate to address the challenges in rural areas). This topic is very much about (sustainability-oriented) innovation by and through cooperatives. This topic can be approached from an organisational point for view (focussing on question of internal organisation related to structure, coordination, and culture, or to questions of collaboration and alliances), or from a rural innovation point of view, addressing issues from a policy maker perspective how cooperatives can support rural innovation, sustainability and inclusivity. Also, the interaction between business, social organisations and governmental agencies could be explored under this topic. We have a few persons in mind who could present a paper in such session.  

Recent years have witnessed an increased discussion on hybrid threats. These threats can be defined as “harmful activities that are planned and carried out with malign intent through a variety of means, as information manipulation, cyberattacks, economic influence or coercion, covert political manoeuvring, coercive diplomacy, or threats of military force” (www.hybridcoe.fi). Further, “Hybrid threats are used by authoritarian states and regimes, and by non-state actors (NSAs), which often act as proxies for authoritarian regimes” (www.hybridcoe.fi). Hybrid attacks are often targeted not only at public institutions, but to a large extent at private companies with an aim to paralyze the functioning of a society and its’ economic activities. This puts private companies and organizations to the frontline of facing hybrid attacks. 

Majority of scientific discussion on hybrid threats stem from the disciplines of politics (e.g. ) or military science (e.g. Wijnja, 2022) that emphasize the view of the public institutions. At the same time, elaboration of the private sector’s role in countering hybrid threats is limited. While the role has been recognized (e.g.), related systematic research is still to evolve.  

References 

Wijnja, K. (2022). Countering hybrid threats: does strategic culture matter? Defence Studies. Defence Studies, 22(1), 16-34. 

Hybrid CoE. Hybrdi threats as a concept. Retrieved on 7 November from https://www.hybridcoe.fi/hybrid-threats-as-a-phenomenon/ 

The autonomous self-identification of the large majority of cooperatives around the world has found heteronomous recognition in law.  This ‘cooperative identity’, composed of three intertwined elements – a definition of cooperatives, two sets of values and a set of principles – is enshrined in the 1995 International Cooperative Alliance Statement on the Cooperative Identity (ICA Statement). The text of the ICA Statement is legally binding. Taking the general legal principle of sustainable development into account, cooperative law delimits therefore as follows: “Cooperative law are only those legal principles, rules and practices that translate ‘the cooperative identity’ and that oblige cooperatives to contribute to sustainable development.” Cooperative law is therefore not only the law on cooperatives, but also any other legal principle, rule or practice that impacts the organization of cooperatives.

The realization of this double delimitation of cooperative law meets a number of challenges that cooperative law has to address, if it is not to lose its raison d’être.

Detailed description

The description of the track relies on the premise that the double delimitation of cooperative law by ‘the cooperative identity’ and by sustainable development is legally justified.

Concerning ‘the cooperative identity’, for the following reasons: the text of the ICA Statement is legally binding for the ICA, its members and possibly also the members of these members as it forms part of the Articles of Association of the ICA and as the ICA is a legal entity registered under Belgian law. The legal obligation of legislators to translate the text of the ICA Statement ensues from public international law. A systematic reading of the Articles of Association of the ICA, the Charter of the United Nations (especially Articles 55 and 56), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 22.), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, Articles 1.1 and 2.1) and the general legal principle of the prohibition of contradictory behavior, leads to this conclusion. This obligation stems also from the Promotion of Cooperatives Recommendation, 2002 [No. 193] of the International Labor Organization (ILO R. 193). With modifications that are insignificant in this context the text of the ICA Statement is included in it. The ILO R. 193 is legally binding as far as cooperative law is concerned. Furthermore, in whole, in part, with modifications or by reference to it the text of the ICA Statement forms part of many national laws on cooperatives, of the regional uniform and regional model laws on cooperatives. Thus, the text of the ICA Statement has been included in sources of public international law according to the Statute of the International Court of Justice (Article 38, 1.a. and c.; Article 38, 1. a.; and Article 38, 1.b. respectively).

Concerning sustainable development, for the following reasons: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has introduced sustainable development into the world of binding law. In its first decision on the matter the ICJ recognized in 1997 sustainable development as a “concept” of public international law; [1] later as an “objective”; [2] the Arbitral Tribunal classified it as a “principle”. [3] Since then, sustainable development has increasingly become part and parcel of other phenomena that are also recognized as sources of law. For example, the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (Articles 2 and 6); the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (Recital 1); the Treaty on European Union (Article 21) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 11); the European Court of Human Rights, Decision 9.4.2024), the Constitutions of Germany and Switzerland.

However, besides a number of technical legislative challenges a series of external and internal factors challenge the realization of the double delimitation of cooperative law. ‘

Concerning the delimitation by ‘the cooperative identity’: Law-makers continue to react to the financialization of the economies by allowing cooperatives to make use of the same financing instruments as capital-centered enterprises, reopening thus the debate on whether cooperatives are non-profit, for-profit or not-for-profit organizations, a debate which also concerns for example social cooperatives (see below). To the debate on the stakeholder value superseding the shareholder value (capital-centered companies) and the member value (cooperatives) legislators react by gradually extending the corporate social responsibility to societal issues and by making it a legal obligation for all types of enterprises, as well as by providing the possibility in a growing number of jurisdictions to obtain the status of social and/or solidarity economy actor irrespectively of the type of enterprise. On the one hand, this has led to an isomorphism of enterprise types; on the other hand, this has led to challenging the differentiation of cooperatives from other enterprise types, failing which there is no raison d’être for cooperative law.

What continues to differentiate cooperatives from other enterprise types is the metaprinciple of member democratic participation. It runs through all elements of ‘the cooperative identity’. A number of obstacles make the realization of the metaprinciple difficult. In addition to the “typical” cooperative control risks and the balancing of hierarchical and heterarchical elements in higher-level cooperative organizations, new types of cooperative structures and the de-organization of enterprises erect additional obstacles. New types of cooperatives mix private and public actors and interests (example: social cooperatives), as well non-commercial and commercial approaches (example: cooperative groups), and some fuse the figures of producer, distributor and consumer (example: energy cooperatives). While the factors of globalization open hitherto underused possibilities to realize the metaprinciple of democratic member participation in the more classical cooperative structure, in these new structures its realization must take into account new loci of participation, an enlarged group of participants and new modes of participation. As for the de-organization of enterprises, the factors of globalization cause or allow enterprises of all types to mutate from being singular, more or less permanent entities that link their operations to other entities by means of contracts to becoming organizational elements of more or less permanent global vertical and horizontal value chains. It is not clear how the metaprinciple of member democratic participation can realize in such circumstances. Where elements of the value chains or whole value chains dissolve into networks of global ephemeral and amorphous actors (platforms), they mutate from being organized collectives to being contractual connectives. The networks of actors might not be regulatable by law. However, they are ever more regulated by algorithms. We are confronted with a double phenomenon: organizational relationships contractualize (example: decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO) and contractual relationships organize (certain types of multi-party contracts). Again, it is unclear how the metaprinciple of member democratic participation can realize in such de-organized networks and organized contractual arrangements. This leads to the question of whether the core principle of the cooperative idea, solidarity, can only regenerate through an organized collective or whether it can also regenerate through an institutionalized cooperative connective, regulated by a new type of cooperative law.

Suggested topics include, but are not limited to

• The recognition of ‘the cooperative identity’ by law
• The recognition of sustainable development by law
• The translation of ‘the cooperative identity’ into legal principles, legal rules and legal practices, taking into account the wide notion of cooperative law as mentioned in the Description
• The translation of sustainable development into legal principles, legal rules and legal practices
• Financing and ‘the cooperative identity’
• Cooperative groups and ‘the cooperative identity’
• Cooperation among cooperatives (6^th ICA Principle) and ‘the cooperative identity’
• Social cooperatives and ‘the cooperative identity’
• Energy cooperatives and ‘the cooperative identity’
• Value chains and ‘the cooperative identity’
• Digitalization and ’the cooperative identity’
• Platform cooperatives and ’the cooperative identity’
• Multi-party contracts and ‘the cooperative identity’
• Cooperative law and algorithms
• Decentralized autonomous organizations and ‘the cooperative identity’
• The principle of solidarity and ‘the cooperative identity’ – organized or institutionalized?
• ‘The cooperative identity’ and social and/or solidarity economy actors

[1] See Case Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1997, Paragraph 140.

[2] See Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, ICJ Reports (2010) 14 at Paragraph 177.

[3] See Indus Waters Kishenganga (Pakistan v. India), Partial award 2013, at Paragraph 450.

Considering the Rochedale pioneers principles as the cradle of the Cooperative identity, it seems that coops are the oldest form of enterprises to have defined themselves by displaying their values and principles.

For many years this way of proclaiming its identity was unique and gave to cooperatives a preeminent political role (for example their international representative structure ICA was among the first NGO in the business sector to be listed as international players in settling an international public opinion through the UN Social and economic committee)

Time running,  other categories of enterprises became active players at the international level.

• The first were the multinational companies. They pushed an influential agenda to set international rules, especially in the economic field, which would be different from these created at the end of WW2. During the 70’s, by putting an end to the Bretton woods agreement this turned, into a new era for free trade in which multinational increased their role and influence at the national and international level.
• Latter a new phase occurred, in  the 80’s, with the building of a “globalised economy” driven by the shareholder value where Finance took over the major role in influencing the international policies, where free trade, free flows of capital were supposed to bring prosperity to the whole world. This was the golden age of what is called the “financial capitalism”.
• The financial crisis of 2008 drove to the emergence of a new paradigm for enterprises: “ capitalism with a human face”, in which enterprises pushed forward  the “stakeholders value” trough the promotion of new leveraging drivers: ESG, for purpose enterprises, B corps.

Nowadays, the cooperatives are not the only enterprises to present themselves to the public trough their values and principles.  Does this mean that cooperatives have lost the battle of soft power?

Trough different communications coming from different academic fields we would like to understand, even from people not being specialists of the cooperative sector, if cooperatives should try to regain some place in the “field  of the free market of identity”. (The concept of “free market” used here mainly refer to the concept of “free market of ideas” which is often used in the USA considering the use of the 1^st amendment to the Constitution on the freedom of speach)

Taking into consideration this concept of “free market” it seems that values have become new form of “goods” competing on a global free market to convince consumers, shareholders, governments and international institution of the values of different types of enterprises.

We would expect academics to help us to give some clues to these questions:

• Can values and principles be considered as “goods” which could be “traded” in an open market ?
• If so, could there be like in other open market some major risks: trend of standardization for a better trading through rankings and ratings made by third parties such as rating agencies?.
• Is this new trend to consider values and principles as goods a new form of isomorphism through which coops will just be players among others of the global financial capitalism?
• Can such a “free market” of values and principles work properly considering the risk “that bad money drives out good money”?
• Who could be the regulators and the controllers of such a free market of values and principles”?
• Considering the growing role of asserting on values and ethical practices, do we already the good tools and metrics to assess that what is said is really “true” and turn into real behaviours?  What should be the new fields of academic research to create or improve to guarantee that these assertions are scientifically based?
• In a globalised market, are values and ethical principles, such as cooperative identity, good tools to improve the business activity?

This session aims to better understand the competitiveness of farmers and cooperatives in the Mediterranean agri-food sector. To this end, the session focuses on the challenges affecting co-operatives (coops) and geographical indications of origin (GIs) as fundamental tools for achieving cooperation and collective action among smallholders. GIs and cooperatives are connected because they share complementary goals and mechanisms for delivering economic and social value, particularly locally. Regarding their goals, both are member-driven organizations that aim to serve their communities’ economic and social needs. As for the means used, both are firmly grounded on cooperation to improve the well-being of members, being complements in terms of production and commercialization.  GIs can help cooperatives leverage private-sector production and marketing skills and public-sector credibility to build strong brand identities, increase visibility, and access broader markets. Similarly, cooperatives contribute to GI by providing enough volume and ensuring compliance and authenticity.

Based on PRIMA AGRICOMPET project, the contributions explore the motivations and factors for improving competitivess under cooperative model.

• First, cooperatives may be regarded as a solution for avoiding the negative consequences of agri-business producer fragmentation. However, their success differs substantially across types of coop, countries, and industries, and significant inefficiencies can still be found in their operation (e.g., internal agency costs and the commons’ problem). Therefore, the main objectives are to determine whether the adoption of new business models and governance solutions by co-ops can: a) improve competitiveness in the initial stages of the different agri-food chains, b) mitigate the weaknesses of traditional cooperatives, and c) be adapted to other Mediterranean industries/regions.
• Second, GIs, the majority of which are in the Mediterranean area, constitute a central instrument of the EU’s agri-food quality policies. However, despite their proliferation, their potential (and weaknesses) at firm, industry, and regional levels have yet to be explored. Since GI governance differs within and among regions, the key objectives of these contributions are: a) to understand how the institutional and regulatory context of GIs affects their effectiveness at the micro and macro levels, b) to determine how GIs are reacting to sustainability challenges in the agricultural sector, and c) to identify benchmark reputation indicators for GIs (e.g., for the wine sector).

 Papers on Cooperatives and Geographical Indicators

Benchmarking and Measuring Cooperatives’ Performance Across Multiple Dimensions

Leading author: Angelo Zago (University of Verona),

Unpacking Cooperative Governance: The Role of Social Capital, and Formal Rules in Shaping Cooperative Performance

Leading author: Irene Martínez-López (University of Oviedo)

Effectiveness of official control systems and their impact on the success of geographical indications

Leading author: Susana López-Bayón (University of Oviedo),

The reputation of Geographical Indications: A comparative analysis of Italy and Spain

Leading author: Guenter Schamel (Free University of Bozen-Bolzano)

We are pleased to invite submissions for the “Academia meets Business” – Bridging Co-operative Research and Co-operative Practice track as part of the CCR 2025 research conference, focusing on connecting cooperative research with practical applications. This track seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice by showcasing research that is closely aligned with real-world challenges and opportunities in cooperative systems and related fields.

Scope and Objectives

This track aims to bring together researchers and practitioners who are:

• Developing research ideas and methodologies that have direct relevance to practice.
• Sharing results and insights that are readily applicable or easily transferable to real-world scenarios.
• Exploring collaborative approaches that enhance the interplay between academic inquiry and practical implementation.

We welcome submissions from diverse domains, including but not limited to:

• Cooperative management
• Cooperative governance
• Cooperative and collaborative systems
• Sustainability and social innovation
• Cooperative specific succes value measures
• Cooperative education
• Industry-academic partnerships

Topics of Interest

Papers that address, but are not limited to, the following topics are encouraged:

• Reflections on the lessons learned from integrating research into practical settings.
• Insights into how practice-inspired problems drive innovative research questions, solutions and conclusions.
• Innovative research methods that incorporate real-world constraints or requirements.
• Case studies demonstrating the successful application of research outcomes in practice.
• Frameworks, models, or tools designed with practitioners’ needs in mind.

Submission Types

We encourage submissions of:

• Full Research Papers: Comprehensive studies presenting significant and novel findings.
• Case Studies: Detailed reports on the application of research in practice, including outcomes and lessons learned.
• Position Papers: Conceptual contributions advocating for new directions in practice-informed research or research-informed practice.
• Practitioner-Researcher Collaborations: Joint submissions highlighting co-created solutions and their impacts.

Key Dates

• Submission Deadline: January 31, 2025
• Notification of Acceptance: February 21, 2025
• Final Paper Submission: May 31, 2025
• Conference Dates: June 11–13, 2025

Submission Guidelines

Submissions must be original, not previously published, and not under consideration elsewhere. All submissions must adhere to the principles of good academic practice and comply with ethical guidelines, including proper citation of sources (including AI), avoidance of plagiarism, and compliance with relevant ethical standards for research involving human subjects.

All submissions will undergo a rigorous peer-review process, emphasizing both academic quality and practical relevance.

Why Participate? 

This track offers a unique platform to:

• Engage with practitioners and academics alike.
• Gain insights into the practical applications of your research.
• Receive feedback from a diverse audience, enhancing the impact of your work.
• Build collaborations that span academia and industry.

Join us in shaping a vibrant dialogue between research and practice, fostering innovations that truly make a difference.

For any inquiries, please contact the track chair at anu.puusa@uef.fi

We look forward to your contributions!