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  

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/ 

Further details to be announced