Search results

The purpose of this paper is to study the progress of rural development through the performance of a rural co‐operative.

Random sample of 100 members of the co‐operative have been selected. The opinion of sample members has been collected personally through questionnaire and also direct interview. Secondary data were collected from the published annual reports of the co‐operative. The data, both primary and secondary have been tabulated in a suitable sheet prepared for the purpose. Analyzing and interpreting the collected data, conclusion has been drawn.

The study reveals that the rural co‐operative has been able to improve the living standard of the rural people of the studied area, thus the rural co‐operative accelerated the process of rural development in remote India.

The study, is totally based on the sample opinion and published data of the co‐operative. The period of study is very short. So, the outcome of the study may not be generalized.

A smooth and active system of loan‐issuance and loan‐recovery of a rural co‐operative may uplift the living standard of the rural populace.

This research could assist in the management of a co‐operative since management‐efficiency regarding the recovery of loan has been proved in this paper.

For many, co‐operatives represent a challenge to existing systems of industrial relations and organisation structure. However, many of the co‐operatives which have been formed in recent years do not approximate to this vision, since they have not been set up from an ideological standpoint. Co‐operatives can be divided into three types: small business; participative; ideological. It is also important to evaluate their development against the reasons for their evolution. Indeed, the new co‐operatives are ideologically diverse, organisationally different, and a considerable way off being the job generators of the future.

In this article it is intended to describe aspects of internal working relationships in small co‐operative businesses which distinguish such firms from conventional companies. Subsequently we go on to assess the effect of such relationships on the work of an outside consultant brought in to advise the co‐operative. The article is based on the work that the authors did with four small co‐operatives in the London Borough of Lambeth during the first half of 1980.

This policy brief calls for co-operative industry associations to implement policies that encourage co-operatives to embrace the SDGs in a way that reflects the co-operative difference. In particular, this brief explores why it is important for co-operatives to measure and report on the SDGs and to link the SDGs to the seven principles of co-operatives. We argue that reporting on the SDGs in the context of the seven principles enables co-operatives to illustrate their co-operative difference from investor-owned businesses (IOB) who are increasingly reporting on SDG performance. We identify key recommendations that are critical in facilitating co-operatives’ adoption of the SDGs and in reporting their performance relative to the SDGs and the seven principles.

How the Chinese Nationalist Government tried to use co‐operatives as a socio‐economic instrument in mainland China (1928‐1949) but met with little success is discussed. The historical background of the Chinese co‐operative movement is presented, the structure and quality of different types of co‐operatives examined, the performance of co‐operatives and the benefits of being a co‐operator evaluated and the characteristics and problems of this system considered.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the historical basis of development of corporate social responsibility and the impact of this on co‐operative enterprises and member‐owned businesses.

This is a viewpoint identified by years of experience dealing with co‐operative organisations.

The paper finds that the basis of development of corporate social responsibility from the perspective of commercial corporations does not promote an adequate accounting framework for co‐operative enterprises and member‐owned businesses.

Practitioners in different areas of business are trying to make sense of sustainability accounting and reporting in a commercial setting. This piece by one of these, draws on a topical initiative around co‐operative enterprises to raise questions around what is meant by performance in the context of member‐owned enterprises and whether the field of corporate social responsibility has overlooked the relevance of ownership in terms of organisational incentives for action.

The author proposes a series of definitions for co‐operative performance, which are designed to underpin metrics that relate to “member value”. This is offered in contrast to “shareholder value” for companies that, unlike co‐operatives, are owned by external shareholders.

The field of corporate social responsibility is a major user and innovator of the tools and techniques for sustainability accounting and reporting. But it tends to be silent on ownership. However, if different models of ownership create different incentives for action on sustainable development, then rather than just accounting for “how” an enterprise operates, however it is owned and led, there may be value in tools to test “whether” an institution is fit for purpose in its fundamental design.

The paper develops a new perspective and future research opportunities in identifying performance measures for co‐operative enterprises.

The second half of the 1970s witnessed a resurgence of interest in industrial co‐operatives and all the evidence suggests that this interest will gain further momentum in the 1980s. An understandable but regrettable tendency to concentrate publicity on a number of celebrated rescue cases should not be allowed to obscure the fact that some 200 new industrial co‐operative ventures have been established over the last decade.

This article analyses how the MONDRAGON Group has overcome the barriers that the literature identifies in the creation of employee owned companies (Mygind and Poulsen, 2021), and how it has managed to grow over the last few decades.

To this end, based on an analysis of the legislative framework and the internal documentation of the MONDRAGON Group and its cooperatives, the case of what is often considered the most successful and highly developed network of co-operative firms is studied.

The study leads us to conclude that MONDRAGON has had sufficient capacity to overcome the barriers faced by worker-owned companies and has known how to adapt to the economic and social demands of each moment, despite the fact that at certain times it has had to act flexibly in its principles.

The work is limited to the analysis of the Group's internal documentation. It would be interesting to complement this vision with the perceptions of MONDRAGON's partners.

The MONDRAGON Group's study can show other cooperative experiences what the keys to success are.

MONDRAGON has been analysed from different perspectives, but how it has overcome the specific barriers presented by employee-owned companies has not been specifically studied. This perspective makes it possible to identify some of the group's success factors.

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.

Co-operative managers must invest appropriately to strengthen member relationships, such as by initiating corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions or providing members with more relational benefits. This paper aims to investigate how members’ motives (collectivistic vs individualistic) might influence the effectiveness of these investments in terms of enhancing members’ trust and loyalty intentions.

This research combines an exploratory approach, based on six focus groups, with a confirmatory approach based on a field study and two scenario-based experiments.

Members tend to regard the two motives in contest and infer a “more CSR versus more benefits” arbitration effort by co-operatives, such that they appear to prioritize one motive over the other. Members with individualistic motives principally support co-operatives’ arbitration toward relational benefits, so the positive effects of CSR initiatives on their trust and loyalty intentions are weaker (Study 1). Both CSR and relational benefits can be more or less efficient, depending on members’ motives (Study 2).

Reflecting their contrasting motives, members infer arbitration by co-operative managers, reflected in their “more CSR versus more benefits” belief. This insight and the related implications for trust and loyalty intentions have not been addressed in prior research.

Managers can avoid the negative consequences of “more CSR versus more benefits” inferences by ensuring a good fit between their investments and their members’ prevailing motives. If members have more collectivistic (cf. individualistic) motives, CSR initiatives (cf. relational benefits) enhance their trust and loyalty intentions more effectively.

This research builds on previous work on members’ relationships within co-operatives and on members’ motives. Results find that the effectiveness of co-operatives’ investments to strengthen members’ loyalty intentions depends on members’ prior motives.