Excerpted from Pat Conaty:
“Most co–operative practice is single stakeholder. Therefore the co-op sector divides between typically consumer co-ops, worker co-ops and farmer co-ops, each generally with their backs to each other and walking away from each other. This one dimensional aspect is impeding in my view an untapped revolutionary economic potential for a new generation of full dimensional co-ops to ignite.
The key for a civilised economy is to unite citizens under all their actualities and capacities as creative people and providers. Thus we need to move to multi-stakeholder co-ops. This is in fact under development in a few countries – notably Italy and Quebec.
The focus is mainly on social and health care services but we ran another event in the summer with a different theme, ecological ventures, and the support for the model was equally strong. You will note that these new forms of economic democracy as they develop force the co-op banks to adapt to the identified needs and to work to co-devise diverse solidarity financing solutions.”
(email contribution)
Multi-stakeholder co-ops are great in theory, but in practice, I’ve experienced a couple of them where one of the multiple stakeholders either took over or was so dominant that their wishes trumped everybody else’s. And I know of one farmer co-op that helps to fund other local co-ops (as opposed to turning their backs on them). So the ideology of the participants may be more important than the organizational form.
“in practice, I’ve experienced a couple of them where one of the multiple stakeholders either took over or was so dominant that their wishes trumped everybody else’s”
Properly structured that shouldn’t be able to happen. In multistakeholder co-op model rules here in the UK (at least those supported by Co-opsUK), all user groups must have at least 25% of the overall say in order that they can protect their interests.
In practice most multistakeholder co-ops I’m aware of are similarly structured and many work amazingly well.
“There are now over 14,000 of these Co-ops across Italy providing services to 5 million”
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/pat-conaty-on-the-history-and-the-rediscovery-of-the-cooperative-commonwealth/2013/12/01
The multi-stakeholder co-ops I referenced were properly structured. It did not matter. In one, the biggest customer dominated the group because if they did not get their way, they would leave, and the co-op would suffer. In another, the president of the board dominated the group.
Just to be clear, I am not opposed to multi-stakeholder co-ops. I am for them.
I’m just saying the ideology of the participants matters a lot. And by ideology, I do not mean left or right wing, I mean are you for “me” or “we”. The farmer co-op I mentioned was definitely for “we”, and they included their whole community in the we. They were multi-stakeholder in practice, even if not in structure.