Search results

Despite the potential for co-operatives to improve smallholder farmers' livelihoods, membership in the co-operatives is low. This study examines factors that influence smallholder farmers' decisions to join agricultural co-operatives.

This study involved a survey of 1,274 smallholder chicken farmers. The data were analysed through a two-sample t-test of association, Pearson's Chi-square test and binary probit regression model.

The results suggest that farming as the main source of income, owning a chicken house, education attainment, attending training or accessing information, vaccination of goats and keeping a larger herd of goats are the key factors which significantly influence co-operative membership. However, gender, age, household size, distance to the nearest agrovet, vaccinating chicken and the number of chickens kept do not influence co-operative membership.

The survey did not capture data on some variables which have been shown to influence co-operative membership. Nevertheless, the results show key explanatory variables which influence membership in co-operatives.

These findings have implications for development agencies that seek to use co-operatives for agricultural development and improvement of smallholder farmers' livelihoods. The agencies can use the results to initiate interventions relevant for different types of smallholder farmers through co-operatives.

This study highlights the influence of smallholder farmers' financial investments in farming and the extent of commercialisation on co-operative membership. Due to low membership in co-operatives, recognising the heterogeneity of smallholder farmers is the key in agricultural development interventions through co-operative membership.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-03-2022-0165.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a socio-ecological counter account of the role that agroecology plays in supporting the sustainable livelihoods of a co-operative of smallholder coffee farmers, where very little value is created at their end of the coffee commodity chain. Agroecology may be defined as the science that provides the ecological principles and concepts for the design and management of productive agricultural ecosystems that conserve natural resources.

This study uses a case study design of a coffee-producing co-operative in India using data collected from participant observation, focus groups and unstructured interviews with indigenous smallholder farmers. It combines the science of agroecology with the labour theory of value as a theoretical framework.

An agroecological approach supports agricultural biodiversity, while promoting sustainable livelihoods since members of the co-operative are able to reduce their use of external inputs. However, an agroecological transformation is curtailed by the continued dependence on corporate value chains. A framework using the labour theory of value is used to explain the extraction of surplus value from the labour of both the smallholder farmers as well as nature. This study provides evidence of the role of government policy and practice in perpetuating the status quo by not promoting either research on agroecology or direct consumer to producer value chains while providing subsidies for the inputs of industrial agriculture.

There have been very few studies that have provided an account of the limited value generated in agricultural commodity chains for smallholder farmers due to the need to purchase the inputs of industrial agriculture supported by government subsidies. This study extends the field of accounting for biodiversity into agriculture using the science of agroecology to explain the role played by biodiversity in increasing the amount of value generated by smallholder farmers. By utilising the labour theory of value, the authors have introduced the notion of the labour power of nature as represented by the environmental services that nature provides.

This paper aims to examine a core member-customer threat in co-operatives (co-ops) by drawing from ostracism research, assessing co-op ostracism’s impact on critical membership and relational exchange outcomes and discussing why relationship marketing research needs to pay more attention to the overlooked role of implicit mistreatment forms in customer harm-doing.

Three studies were conducted. In Study 1, ostracism in co-ops was explored, and a measurement scale for co-op ostracism was developed. In Study 2, the core conceptual model was empirically tested with data from members of three different co-ops. In Study 3, a coping strategy was integrated into an extended model and empirically tested with a new sample of co-op members.

Ostracism is present in co-ops and “poisons” crucial relational (and membership) outcomes, despite the presence of other relationship-building or relationship-destroying accounts. Coupling entitativity with cognitive capital attenuates ostracism’s impact.

Inspired by co-ops’ membership model and inherent relational advantage, this research is the first to adopt a co-op member-customer perspective and shed light on an implicit relationship-destroying factor.

Co-op decision makers might use the diagnostic tool developed in the paper to detect ostracism and fight it. Moreover, a novel coping strategy for how co-ops (or other firms) might fend off ostracism threats is offered in the article.

The present study illuminates a dark side of a relationally profuse customer context, painting a more complete picture of relationship marketing determinants. Little attention has been given to ostracism as a distinct and important social behaviour in marketing research and to co-ops as a research context.

One of the most significant innovations to emerge from Sydney's hosting of the 2000 Olympic Games has been the way that Australian tourism organisations have built the Games into their marketing strategies. As the Business Manager Olympic Games for the Australian Tourist Commission, Maggie White is responsible for the ambitious international Olympic tourism marketing program. Here she talks to Dr Laurence Chalip of Griffith University, about her role and the challenges she faced.

This study aims to investigate whether significant performance differences between cooperatives and investor-owned firms (IOFs) may exist.

Based on data from a sample of Italian wine firms for the period from 2009 to 2018, an adjusted measure of performance called earnings before interests, taxes, depreciations and amortizations gross the raw materials cost was adopted to consider the different objectives of cooperatives relative to those of IOFs.

Empirical evidence shows that in the context under analysis, cooperatives have performed better than IOFs.

Despite the theoretical literature suggesting that the cooperative form of organizations suffers from many weaknesses, these results highlight that cooperatives operating in the wine sector are at least as economically efficient as other organizations, and more specifically, they perform better than for-profit firms. Consequent implications for theory and practice are discussed.