Multi-stakeholder cooperatives

Lund, Margaret; Novković, Sonja

doi:10.4337/9781802202618.00045

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…46 Traditionally, cooperatives have been centered on a single category of members who own, control, and benefit from the cooperative. 47 Multistakeholder cooperatives, in contrast, involve multiple categories of members (typically two to eight) who share the same mission but do not necessarily have the same interests. 48 While it is difficult to attribute this growing interest to a single cause, promising candidates include growing concerns about meeting the needs of a broader range of stakeholders, the ability to access more capital and resources, and a desire to overcome the limitations of pure forms of producer and worker cooperatives.…”

Section: The Governance Of Multistakeholder Cooperativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from Cooperatives to Strengthen Economic Bicameralism

Pek

2023

Politics & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bicameral firms can generate societal benefits both directly, by granting representatives of labor investors voice in shaping firm decision-making, and more indirectly, by serving as a transition phase from capital investor–owned firms to worker cooperatives. However, there is room to augment these benefits by leveraging insights from research on cooperatives. This article draws lessons from three types of cooperatives—traditional worker cooperatives, multistakeholder cooperatives, and union cooperatives—to help refine Ferreras's proposal for bicameral firms. First, bicameral firms should offer labor investors more opportunities to participate in firm governance and hold their representatives to account. Second, they should create robust channels for other stakeholders to influence firm decision-making. Third, they should carefully delineate the role of labor unions vis-à-vis the Chamber of Representatives of the Labour Investors. These refinements will better position bicameral firms to achieve their direct benefits and facilitate subsequent transitions to worker cooperatives.

show abstract

Section: The Governance Of Multistakeholder Cooperativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from Cooperatives to Strengthen Economic Bicameralism

Pek

2023

Politics & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of these are internet-based projects that promote software mediated forms of co-operation (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2020;Vieta, 2010Vieta, , 2018. There are various points in history theorised as significant to the development of this new cooperativism, including: the social co-operatives of Italy that developed in the 1970s and led to new co-operative laws in 1991 (Restakis, 2010); the subsequent rise of social and community co-operatives (Borzaga & Depredi, 2014;Vieta et al, 2017); a 'multi-stakeholder turn' combined with renewed emphasis on worker co-operatives throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, starting with key institutions in the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation based in Spain and culminating in formal support for solidarity and union co-operatives across North America, France, Italy and other territories (Conaty et al, 2018;Lund, 2011;Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2019).…”

Section: Why 'New Cooperativism'? Why Now?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2022

JCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EMES and EURICSE to support this special issue with a seminar series. As a result, we had a good response to the call. This issue includes six of the submissions plus a review article on the seminar series.Below, we outline the rationale for the special issue. In particular, we draw attention to two waves of co-operative development starting in the early 1970s and late 1990s that underpin an emerging theory of new cooperativism. The first formal articulation of the theory appeared in a special issue of Affinities edited by Marcelo Vieta in 2010. From 2014, references were made to this in articles published in the UK discussing innovations in co-operative development taking place outside the established structures of the UK's consumer retail co-operatives (see Ridley-Duff, 2015). Below, we briefly introduce how new cooperativism was understood at the time of the call for papers, then contextualise how each article relates to emerging theory.Before we start, however, we want to clarify the editorial choice we have made on use of the hyphen in 'co-operative'. In this issue, we follow the Anglo-American preference for inserting a hyphen when authors refer to the international movement as a whole (e.g., the co-operative movement), as well as when they refer to a group of co-operatives (such as platform co-operatives) or a single co-operative enterprise. However, 'new cooperativism' -at the current time -describes a mode of thought evolving both within and beyond the formal boundaries of the global movement. It is increasingly used to discuss and refer to practices within informal networks of co-operation as well as innovations in co-operative development. When referring to this mode of thought and practice, we do not use a hyphen.

show abstract