Keywords

1 Introduction

Crises and their impacts on the economy are often culmination points that show whether existing structures can prove themselves and emerge from the crisis in a stronger position or whether changes and modifications to the existing structures are necessary. The Corona crisis can be perceived as such a point. It is said that the ever-increasing globalisation may halt (Economist, 2020; WEF, 2020; Abel-Koch & Ullrich, 2020). This is reinforced by the European Union, which urges to increase Europe’s independence in the supply of system-relevant goods and services. This will lead to a stronger focus on resilience, subsidiaries, and reinforced regional supply chains (EU, 2020). A look at the development of cooperatives reveals that they often serve as a tool within the regional economy and act on a subsidiary basis (Blome-Drees, 2012). Moreover, cooperatives are based on mutual support and aim to promote their members’ businesses. Thus, cooperatives can often underline their advantages in times of crisis (Hettlage, 1998; Voß, 2002; Birchall & Hammond Ketilson, 2009; Allgeier, 2011). These moments of crisis even had a decisive impulse on their development and evolution. For example, industrialisation and the problems it caused led to the establishment of the first cooperative in the industrial era in Rochdale in 1844 (Fairbairn, 1994). Also, credit cooperatives in the German-speaking area emerging in the mid-nineteenth century can be traced back to moments of crises (Faust, 1977; Brendel, 2011).

To analyse whether this perception holds and whether cooperatives were able to demonstrate their advantages in the Corona crisis, we conducted two studies between May and August 2020. Thus, just within or shortly after the first wave of the Corona crisis.

In a first step, we conducted a Delphi survey in which we consulted cooperative experts; second, a quantitative survey among cooperative members has been conducted. The common objective of these two studies was to assess the behaviour of cooperatives during the crisis and to use the momentum for a deeper analysis of their current situation. This allows us not only to describe the current moment but also enables us to draw inferences about future developments. The survey reflects the developments and perceptions in Austria. As cooperative developments are comparable within the German-speaking region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) (Faust, 1977), the findings can be transferred to a certain extent to these countries as well.

The sections of this chapter are structured as follows: Section 7.2 describes the methods used; Sect. 7.3 gives a general overview of the perception of cooperatives during the crisis. Section 7.4 focuses on competitiveness. Section 7.5 presents the findings on cooperatives and digitalization. Section 7.6 focuses on the findings on cooperatives and sustainability. Section 7.7 presents the main outcomes of participation. Section 7.8 provides an outlook, and Sect. 7.9 concludes.Footnote 1

2 Methods

2.1 Approach and Study Design

For our research, we chose a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative elements, in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the topic examined. First, we conducted a Delphi study to gather the opinions of cooperative experts from practice, academia, and public administration. Second, based on the results of the Delphi study, an online-based questionnaire was sent to the members of Austrian cooperatives. To reach these members, we cooperated with the four major cooperative revision associations (Österreichischer Raiffeisenverband, Österreichischer Genossenschaftsverband, Österreichischer Verband gemeinnütziger Bauvereinigungen—Revisionsverband, and CoopVerband Revisionsverband österreichischer Genossenschaften), which distributed the questionnaire to their members. Methodologically, the two surveys stand independently and can be interpreted separately. However, since the results of the Delphi survey are used as the basis of the member questionnaire, a joint reflection provides more comprehensive insights into the perception of cooperatives in and beyond the Corona crisis.

2.2 Delphi Study

The Delphi methodFootnote 2 is described by the circumstance that specific questions are sent out several times to the same anonymous experts. In each round, these experts receive the aggregated answers of all experts from the previous round and can comment on them. Within our setup, we applied a two-stage Delphi survey between 12th May and 27th May 2020. To do so, in a first round, the experts could express their opinions through open and closed questions and comments. These individual statements were then summarised and paraphrased. In the second round, the experts were confronted with the aggregated overall statements and could express their opinions regarding the aggregated outcomes. The Delphi survey contained 17 questions and was sent to a total of 44 experts, 28 of whom had been nominated by the four large Austrian revision associations and 16 experts by the research team. 84.1% or 37 of all contacted experts responded to the web-based questionnaire in the first round. In the second round, three experts dropped out, resulting in a response rate of 77.3% or 34 respondents. Due to the anonymous nature of the survey, it is not possible to identify who of the invited experts participated.

2.3 Member Survey

The structure of the member survey is primarily based on the results of the Delphi study. This means that appropriate questions were taken over or new questions and statements were created that resulted from the experts’ answers. For the mainly closed questions, a five-point Likert scale was used. Statistical and socio-demographic questions were added to analyse the statements in more detail and to identify differences within the respondents’ structure. In total, the questionnaire contained 35 questions.

Overall, 784 people took part in the survey, of which 487 completed the questionnaire in full. The average time to complete the survey was around 20 minutes. The survey was conducted between 29th June and 31st August 2020.

Regarding respondents’ background, the major part (69.8%) of all participants were members of cooperative banks and other financial service facilities, 13.4% were members of an agricultural cooperative, 5.4% said their cooperative was in the housing and construction sector. The remaining 11.4% of all participants were members of cooperatives in the following sectors: trade/distribution; consumption; services; commerce, production, and craft; social, arts, and culture; and energy. Due to the small number of participants from these sectors, they are subsequently summarised as “others”. With 24.2% of all participants aged between 18 and 45 years and 75.8% aged over 45 years, the majority of participants were in the second half of their life. This corresponds to an overrepresentation of older people compared to the Austrian population as a whole.Footnote 3 Whether this is representative of the age distribution within Austrian cooperatives cannot be conclusively determined, but according to Gros (2009) and Theurl et al. (2012), older people are more likely than average to be members of a cooperative.

With regards to the position within the cooperative, 71% of all respondents classified themselves as functionary, this means they were holding an official position. Twenty-nine percent had no official position. Consequently, the share of functionaries is overrepresented. Regarding gender, 77.5% of all respondents were male, 22.1% female, 0.4% self-classified as diverse. For the geographical representation, we grouped the nine Austrian provinces into three NUTS 1 regions: Eastern (68.3%), Western (27.4%), and Southern Austria (3.9%). Of all participants, 61.4% were active in one cooperative, 21.6% in two, and 17% in three or more. Eighty-five percent stated that they perceive themselves as an active member within their cooperative. In relation to the Austrian educational distribution,Footnote 4 a disproportionately large number indicated a secondary or tertiary degree as their highest school-leaving qualification (37.1% and 29.1%, respectively). 23.2% indicated an apprenticeship or a degree lower than a secondary school degree as their highest formal educational qualification. Nine percent of all persons were active in a small cooperative (<50 members/5 employees (Emp.)), 22.7% in a medium-sized cooperative (<1000 members/40 Emp.), and 68.4% in a large cooperative (>1000 members/40 Emp.). In summary, the respondents’ socio-economic background indicates that the survey is not representative of the Austrian population. Consequently, the results must always be seen in relation to the specific structure of the respondents.

3 Perception of Cooperatives During COVID-19

Before specialising in competitiveness, digitalization, sustainability, and participation, we give a short overview of general topics regarding the perception of cooperatives in times of the Corona crisis and beyond.

3.1 What Is the Perception of Austrian Cooperatives During the Corona Crisis and Beyond?

Table 7.1 Cooperative characteristics
Full size table

Looking at the characteristics of Austrian cooperatives depicted in Table 7.1, above all, the “long-term perspective” of cooperatives is seen as most prominent. This means the long-term orientation and a business model that does not follow a short-sighted perspective are attributes seen as characteristic of cooperatives. This is followed by the perception of a “traditional” but “economically successful” and “trustworthy” type of enterprise. Attributes that can be derived from these findings, such as trust and reliability are central values for a successful economic outlook. The high proportion of members’ approval of these key attributes therefore allows a generally optimistic outlook on the future development of cooperatives.

Features that are not unrestrained attributed to cooperatives are “contemporary”, “transparent”, “competition-oriented”, and “political”. Politicisation is seen as the least characteristic feature of Austrian cooperatives. This means that cooperative members do not perceive their own cooperative as political. With regards to the still high but less pronounced attribute “competition-oriented” the image of a cooperative as an organisation that promotes the business of its members can be depicted. Hence, the main focus of cooperatives is to support their members and not to compete in the market themselves. Another explanation for the perceived less pronounced “competition orientation” can be based on the good market positioning of cooperatives, e.g., in the banking, housing, or agricultural sector where cooperatives dispose about significant market power (Brazda, 2020). The fact that cooperatives are not highly perceived as “transparent” and “contemporary” are issues cooperatives should be aware of. Especially the less perceived “transparency” should be a motivation for cooperatives to strengthen the democratic participation of the members further. In Sect. 7.7, this topic is discussed in more detail.

The importance of the reliable business model and the long-term orientation of cooperatives is confirmed when asking the members about the advantages of cooperatives during the Corona crisis. The highest approval is given to the points “solid business model and the legal form which conveys reliability and stability” to their members. This is underlined by the second most important advantage: the “long-term orientation and its focus on sustainability”. The least important advantage (still with a median answer at “advantageous” on a five-point Likert scale but with a lower mean) is seen in the cooperative role as a “self-help association which offers vital cooperation”. However, the members underline the reliability of the services of cooperatives which was an appreciated support during the crisis. This is also highlighted in the generally strong approval by the majority of the members to the sentence, “I feel supported by the cooperative, and my problems are taken into account”. The main support of cooperatives during the crisis is seen in their rapid and unbureaucratic help in “credit granting/forbearances” as well as with regards to “tender offers, funding applications and legal assistance”. The “comprehensive and regularly updated information and communication” during the Corona crisis was also highly valued by the members.

Since every crisis bears opportunities, the cooperative experts were asked about cooperative advantages emerging out of the Corona crisis. Most experts see the customer focus, the emphasis on regional structures, and the reachability/reliability of cooperatives as their key advantages confirmed during the crisis. If these positive attributes are maintained and strengthened, they are seen as tools reinforcing the cooperative way of doing business not only during the Corona crisis but also beyond. Broken down to the different sector backgrounds of the experts, for 57% of the experts focused on banking the customer focus was seen as the crucial factor that distinguished cooperatives from other banks during the crisis. For 29% it became evident that cooperative banks’ main advantage is their reliability and the fact that the bank actually belongs to the people in the region. This enabled the cooperative to address the emerging problems of its members in a timely and accurate manner. For experts with backgrounds in housing, the key advantages are seen in the reliability and affordability of cooperative housing (59% mentioned these two advantages in the second Delphi round). Eighteen percent see the protection of real estate against privatisation and the social function within cooperative housing as a main advantage that was evident during the crisis. These are factors strengthening cooperative housing further on. Among the experts in the field of agricultural cooperatives, more than 76% emphasised the regionality and the locally produced goods as key advantages of cooperatives that are also likely to promote agricultural cooperatives in the future.

4 Competitiveness

4.1 Cooperatives and the Competitiveness of Their Traditional Values

Based on the findings of the Delphi study the experts see significant competitive advantages for cooperative businesses. However, apart from the regional focus, other key competitive advantages specific to cooperatives are not communicated to a broader public satisfactorily. These peculiarities include, among others, that cooperatives serve to promote the business of their members, self-governance, and voluntary membership. Yet, precisely these factors are capable of distinguishing cooperatives substantially from other legal forms and underlining their unique selling proposition. Therefore, the experts call for a strategy to communicate these cooperatives’ values comprehensively and to emphasise their strong but subsidiary position, which is meant to support their members. This is seen as necessary because the knowledge of the legal form among the broader public is seen as expandable. If the cooperative is to compete more strongly with other legal forms, it is, therefore, necessary to communicate its specific advantages and characteristics.

This necessity is underlined by the perceived generally positive zeitgeist, which shifts towards cooperative features. According to the experts, this change leads towards a stronger and enduring focus on regional structures, reliability, a long-term approach, and business behaviour that is not only oriented towards profit maximisation. If properly communicated, the zeitgeist can therefore help to put cooperatives more in the spotlight.

Next to promoting cooperative advantages, the experts urge that these cooperative values are properly implemented within the cooperatives. According to the experts, this is seen to be not always the case. For example, the decision-making process is often criticised as being too centralised.

4.2 What Cooperative Sectors Are Likely to Gain, Lose, or Remain the Same?

However, how well the individual cooperative can use this positive zeitgeist does not only depend on the management of the single cooperative but also on the sector the cooperative is operating in. To know more about the sectors that are profiting from the actual trend we asked the members which cooperative sectors they think will gain, lose, or remain the same in the course of the crisis.

In total, 552 members answered the question. The results are as follows: The greatest increase in importance is seen in the sectors agriculture (66.1% see an increase, 4.8% a decrease, 26.2% no change); energy (50.1% increase, 6.2% decrease, 36.5% no change); banking and financial services, (49.1% increase, 8.8% decrease, 39.4% no change), and housing (43.5% increase, 9.2% decrease, 41.5% no change). Interestingly, agriculture is seen as the sector where all members, also controlled for various backgrounds such as age, gender, size of the cooperative the members are active, function within the cooperative etc., perceive the highest increase in importance. A typical quote from the Delphi study regarding the future development in agriculture is: “I see great opportunities for cooperatives in basic services (agriculture, food, etc.)”. The high share of members who see the banking and financial services sector as increasingly important can be traced back to the large number of participants from this sector. Members from other cooperative sectors agree with this generally positive outlook but do not rate it as high as the members from this sector.

Cooperative sectors in which no major change is seen are services (32.7% increase, 13% decrease, 46% no change), trade, production, and crafts (38.3% increase, 9.4% decrease, 44.9% no change), and consumer cooperatives (24.6% increase, 21.3% decrease, 43.4% no change).

The results regarding the future development of the cooperative sector trade and distribution are less clear: An equal share of members see both an increase as well as a constant development (38.5% of all members each, 16.7% see a decrease).

The areas in which the importance of cooperatives is likely to decrease during/beyond the Corona crisis are the social and cultural sectors. Twenty-one percent see an increase in importance, 30.3% a decrease, and 35.1% no change.

To sum up, the findings indicate a generally positive outlook for the cooperative sector. This is all the more the case as the general values move towards characteristics cooperatives already represent. However, to benefit from this change, a better communication of cooperative characteristics is seen as necessary. In terms of specific sectors, members see an increasing importance for cooperatives, especially in the agricultural and energy sectors.

5 Digitalization

Among the experts, digitalization was identified as one of the main factors with a significant impact on cooperatives, next to climate change mitigation and regionalisation (for further details see Sect. 7.6). While the experts see substantial opportunities for cooperatives when it comes to climate change and regionalisation, the results concerning digitalization are ambiguous:

5.1 What Is the Standpoint Towards Digital General Meetings and Decision Processes?

During the Corona crisis, the opportunity to hold digital general meetings was made possible due to temporary legal acts in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.Footnote 5 In the Delphi study, we asked the experts whether they favour the maintenance of digital meetings and voting procedures beyond the COVID-19 crisis. Around three-fourth of all experts want to keep the legal possibility to conduct digital general meetings, only one-fourth are hesitant and favours the maintenance of digital meetings in parts or “rather not”. In the second Delphi round, none of the experts was strictly against a maintenance.

Interestingly, this high percentage of approval is not shared by the members. Overall, 49.6% of them do not agree to maintain the option of digital meetings and decision processes once the crisis is over. 44.1% are in favour, 6.3% are indecisive. Broken down into different cooperative sectors, see Table 7.2, the rejection is particularly strong among members of agricultural cooperatives. Here, more than 63% are against a maintenance, only 33.8% are in favour, 3.1% are indecisive. The picture is quite different within the housing cooperatives. Fifty-five percent of all members welcome maintaining digital meetings and decision processes, only 30% refuse them, 15% are indecisive. The responses of members from banking cooperatives are comparable to the overall outcome. Since the response rates of members from agricultural and especially from housing cooperatives are low, it is difficult to infer a general outcome. Despite this, it is possible to indicate that not all cooperative sectors tend to be prone to keeping the possibility of digital meetings and voting procedures.

Table 7.2 Maintenance of digital meetings after the Corona crisis
Full size table

Looking at the results in further detail, we see—as expected—that age has a considerable influence on the approval of digital meetings: 54.6% of cooperative members younger than 45 years are in favour (38% against), compared to 41.3% of those over 45 years (52.4% against). A differentiation by gender leads to similar results: Female members are more prone towards digital processes (58.6% in favour, 35.4% against) than male members (40.3% in favour, 53.1% against). Interestingly, the majority of functionaries reject the maintenance of digital meetings (52.9% answered with “no”, 40.7% with “yes”), while members without an official function in the cooperative appreciate the possibility of maintaining digital meetings and decision-making processes (53.9% are in favour, only 40% refuse the possibility). Education plays an important role in the outcomes as well: Members with lower school degrees are by majority against the maintenance of digital meetings and voting procedures (68.9% against, 22.3% in favour), while members with higher formal school degrees are by majority in favour (56.3% in favour, 35.4% against). Regarding the size of the cooperative the outcomes are not clear. Members of smaller and medium-sized cooperatives tend to be rather against maintaining digital meetings and voting processes (54.1% against, 39.2% in favour) while members of larger cooperatives tend to be indecisive (47.5% against, 46.3% in favour). Reasons why an analogue general meeting is favoured can be subsumed in the following answers: “The general meeting is also an important networking event. This is completely lost digitally”; “A regular general meeting strengthens the feeling of togetherness among the members”; “Personal is simply personal, and the pre- and postmeetings and small talks are also something that make up a regular general meeting”.

Asked whether the members would generally be willing to participate in digital general meetings, the confirming responses are high. In the overall evaluation, 63.8% are willing to participate in a digital general meeting, 22.4% will not do so, 13.7% are indecisive. This suggests that while not all members are in favour of digital general meetings, there is no general refusal. These inferences can be drawn for all sectors and differentiation criteria. Although there is one exemption: Within members from agricultural cooperatives only a slight majority would be willing to participate in digital general meetings (51.6% “yes”, 29.7% “no”, 18.8% “don’t know”).

This means that the steering committee of cooperatives should be aware of the concerns of the members when introducing digital general meetings and voting procedures even if it is legally possible and members are in principle willing to participate. Members do not see the same level of involvement in an online meeting as in a physical meeting. Next to this, the special nature of cooperatives as a jointly owned and democratically controlled company is perceived to be less communicated and lived in a pure online assembly.

Despite their general acceptance of online meetings, the experts share these concerns. The number of experts who see digital tools more as a supplement to analogue processes increased significantly in the second Delphi round. While in the first round, 28% of all experts mentioned that digital processes should be used as a supplement only, this perception was shared by 64% of all experts in the second round. Thus, more experts became aware of the limitations of digital processes. The main concern is that—similar to the findings in the member survey—direct communication among members and functionaries is feared to decrease if digital communication increases. Another argument is that not all members have sufficient digital skills to participate in the digital decision-making processes. These arguments should be taken into account when introducing digital processes.

5.2 What Are Advantages and Disadvantages of an Enforced Digitalization?

Based on the Delphi study as well as on the results of the member studies, one can concede that digital tools are not uncritically seen as a suitable tool for cooperatives. To know more about where the members see potential emerging from digital tools and where they perceive disadvantages, we asked them to indicate the five most important advantages and disadvantages of digitalization for their cooperative. The respective answer options are based on the answers given by the experts in the Delphi study. The results are presented in Tables 7.3 and 7.4.

The main arguments speaking in favour of digitalization are efficiency gains. The statement “faster communication and information exchange” received a near unanimous approval. 91.6% of all members mentioned this statement as one of the five most important advantages. This is followed by other statements that relate to efficiency gains: 80.6% saw “cost and time savings through more efficient internal processes, flexibility and administrative facilitation” as one of the five most important benefits. An “improved service quality” is mentioned by 75% as a major benefit. 63.7% mentioned “responsiveness, especially when it comes to solving problems”. In contrast, “possibility of job cuts” or a “more democratic and transparent decision-making” are not seen as a major benefit of digitalization.

Table 7.3 General view—5 most important advantages of digitalization for cooperatives
Full size table

Based on these findings shown in Table 7.3 one can concede that wherever digital tools facilitate the administration, business, and more effective business communication within the cooperative and with the cooperative and its members, digital tools are widely accepted and seen as a major advantage. The need for the integration of digital tools can be subsumed by the following quote from the Delphi study: “Cooperatives have to follow the trend towards digitalization, digitalization is essential for the future, and it also helps to motivate young people to participate at the cooperative”. However, digital tools are not generally perceived as an instrument to increase the democratic and transparent decision-making. The reasons why this is the case have been already discussed in Sect. 7.5.1 and are further presented in Table 7.4, where the main disadvantages of digitalization for cooperatives are depicted.

Table 7.4 shows the main reasons against digitalization. For 79.1% of all members the “decrease of personal relationships within the cooperative” is one of the main arguments against an enforced digitalization. 68.4% mention “the lack of communication and personal proximity to customers and suppliers” as one of the five most important disadvantages. These two results corroborate the findings in 5.1 where the importance of direct relationships as well the cooperative as an economic as well as social entity has been stressed as main arguments against the implementation of digital general assemblies.

59.3% see the “general low affinity of the cooperative members to digital processes; lack of IT skills and/or equipment” as one of the main disadvantages, as it excludes those from participation and decision-making processes who do not possess the required skills and equipment. The fact that a “general low affinity of cooperative members to digital processes” receives such a high approval among the members may prevent the cooperative from implementing digital tools for an improved business environment and business communication. Consequently, possible efficiency gains may not be taken which lowers the overall competitiveness of the cooperative. To avoid these possible negative outcomes, the cooperative might be motivated to increase the general digital literacy of its members.

Next to the low affinity, an almost equally important disadvantage (58.8%) is seen in the thread of an “external influence (e.g., hackers) and data protection problems”. Increased centrality in the decision-making process by the steering committee or a “decrease in the quality of the strategic processes and decisions” are only rarely seen as a major disadvantage of digital processes.

Table 7.4 General View—5 most important disadvantages of digitalization for cooperatives
Full size table

The general scepticism about digital tools in decision-making processes which has been depicted in the previous findings, can be confirmed in Tables 7.3 and 7.4. While digital tools are appreciated in a business setting, members fear that they reduce personal relations and the quality of communication. The perceived low affinity of members towards digital processes could prevent the cooperative from implementing tools in the cooperative’s core business. This might come with a loss of efficiency compared to competitors. To avoid such a drawback cooperatives should encourage their members to increase their “digital literacy”. The low level of agreement that an increased digitalization could lead to “increased centrality in decision-making” needs further research. This is because it conflicts with the findings in Sect. 7.4, where experts see an increased central decision-making process, and the results of Sect. 7.3, where members see participation in the decision-making process as partly given only.

6 Sustainability

The experts as well as the members assume a general change in values and behavioural patterns coming with the Corona crisis. This shift includes not only the increasing use of digital tools but also an increase in the importance of regional structures as well as topics related to climate change mitigation, issues that can be subsumed under the term sustainability.Footnote 6

6.1 Do Cooperatives Benefit from a Shift Towards Sustainability and if so, in What Areas?

When it comes to an increased reliance on regional structures, the experts are almost unanimously certain that cooperatives can profit from this change. A typical answer regarding regional structure is: “Regionality will become more important—dependence on international supply chains has been challenged in the context of the crisis. The principle of focusing on the common good rather than short-term profit will also become more important. Companies that take the long view are more resilient”. Moreover, members and experts alike expect that this change in values towards more regional structures will continue beyond the Corona crisis. Expressed in figures, 73.4% of the members perceive a continuing trend towards regionality, 14.6% do not believe so, 12.1% are undecided. Members from financial cooperatives, older members as well as female members are especially optimistic (with approval rates of 77.5%, 75.6%, and 79.2%). The estimation of members from agricultural cooperatives is less optimistic, 58.2% perceive an ongoing trend towards regionalisation.

Asked in which cooperative sectors experts and members see increasing importance, the answers are quite clear. A majority identified energy and agricultural cooperatives (for details, see Sect. 7.4.2). This underlines the good position of cooperatives when it comes to sustainability issues. To foster this good position of cooperatives in general and especially of agricultural and energy cooperatives in terms of sustainability it might be advisable to promote their positive impact more strongly.

The positive outlook for agricultural and energy cooperatives might have increased even further since the beginning of the war in Ukraine. This is mainly because they can ensure a reliable supply of energy and food that comes from decentral facilities which are deeply embedded in the region.

As shown in Sect. 7.7.3, cooperatives are perceived by the members to follow a “long-term orientation”, are “trustworthy”, “economically successful”, and oriented “[…] towards common/social interests”. As these characteristics correspond to a high degree with sustainability issues, cooperatives could use this trend to position themselves more strongly as a sustainable form of doing business. To achieve this, however, it is necessary to communicate these cooperative characteristics more strongly to the general public.

6.2 Do Cooperatives Combine Economic and Social Objectives?

Since the incorporation of social objectives plays a decisive role in the understanding of cooperatives (ICA, 2023), next to economic ones, and is also expressed in the so-called dual nature of cooperatives by Draheim (1952), we asked the members whether they agree with the sentence that the cooperative in which they are mainly active combines economic and social objectives.

Overall, a general accordance of the members to the sentence can be found: 66.3% of all members agree that their cooperative combines economic and social objectives, only 4.9% answer with “no”, 2.9% have no specific opinion. Next to these “yes” and “no” classifications, we added the answer option “partly”. This option has been taken by 25.9% of members. The high proportion of 66.3% of all members who think that their cooperative combines social and economic objectives can be seen as a sign of a strong implementation of the social dimension into the day-to-day business of cooperatives. However, the fact that 25.9% of all members see the combination as “partly” given only needs further research. Subsequently, we will illustrate these findings in more detail, however, an examination of what lies behind this “partly” is beyond the scope of this study.

Breaking the results down to the different cooperative sectors gives a better image on who agrees and who does not (see Table 7.5). The majority of the members of housing cooperatives see the combination of these two objectives as very well implemented (87.1% of approval, only 12.9% perceive a combination as partly given). This is underlined by the quote of one of the experts saying: “A housing cooperative is more likely to act in a socially responsible way than a private housing developer (objective: affordable housing)”. This picture changes when looking at the answers of members of banking cooperatives. While 63.9% agree that a combination is given, 5.2% disagree. 28.2% see the implementation of social and economic values as partly given. The opinion of members of agricultural cooperatives reflects the overall picture.

Table 7.5 Sector—combination of economic and social objectives
Full size table

Looking at the results from an age perspective in Table 7.6, the differentiation shows that younger cooperative members are particularly sceptical when it comes to a combination of social and economic goals. 59.9% see a combination between these two aims as given, 9.4% deny it, 28% partially agree. The difference becomes evident when looking at the response structure of older cooperative members: Here, more than 71% see a combination between social and economic objectives as given, only 2.7% answer with “no”, 24.6% see the combination as partly given.

Table 7.6 Age—combination of economic and social objectives
Full size table

If we differentiate further between functionaries and cooperative members without an official position which has been done in Table 7.7, we see that non-functionaries are more sceptical when it comes to a combination of social and economic objectives. 55.2% agree, 6.9% disagree, and 31.6% see a partial combination. Functionaries are much more optimistic: 70.8% agree, 4% disagree, while 23.7% answer with “partly”.

Table 7.7 Functionary—combination of economic and social objectives
Full size table

The exact reason why the perceptions vary to such a large extent between these differentiation criteria cannot be conclusively answered based on the available data. So far, it can be said descriptively that despite the assumed double nature of cooperatives and the triple bottom line, the combination of social and economic objectives in cooperatives is not unanimously seen by the members.

In terms of sustainability, this means that cooperatives are generally well placed to contribute to a deepened sustainability due to their cooperative characteristics and their presence in future-oriented markets. However, to say more about the combination of social and economic objectives, to what extent it can strengthen cooperatives, and to explore the reasons why this combination is only partially seen among the members, requires further research.

7 Participation

7.1 Who Is Active in the Cooperative?

Among the members who participated in the survey, a very high share of 85.7% indicated that they perceive themselves as an active member of their cooperative. 4.6% see themselves as non-active, 9.1% as partly active. 0.5% did not know whether they are an active member or not. Divided into different sectors, it becomes evident that members of housing cooperatives rank themselves most often as non-active (12.5% “non-active” compared to 4% within the banking and financial service cooperatives and 0% within participants from agricultural cooperatives). Since the total number of participants in housing cooperatives is low the general validity remains open. Compared by age one can notice that older people perceive themselves more often as active members than younger ones (89.3% active above 45 years, compared to 79.6% among members younger than 45 years). The shares are similar by looking at the gender distribution. 89.8% of male members classify themselves as active members, whereas among female members 79.2% do so. 9.9% of female participants perceive themselves as non-active, compared to 2% of male members. The response rate of a “partly” active membership differs slightly. 10.9% of female members and 8.2% of male members see themselves as partly active. The higher the number of memberships in a cooperative, the higher the activity of the respective member. Interestingly, not all members who classified themselves as functionaries perceive themselves as an active member. Only 92.7% do so, while 1.3% see themselves as non-active, 5.8% as partly. Among the members without an official position 67.6% see themselves as active, 13.6% as not active and 17.6% as partly active.

The high share of active members who participated at the member survey is not surprising, since it is likely that especially those members who have a strong affinity to their cooperative were more inclined to respond to the questionnaire. Despite this bias, it is striking that female and younger members perceive themselves as less active in their cooperative than male and older members. If cooperatives want to incorporate the views and perceptions of younger and/or female members, it is necessary to be more open and prone towards their needs, especially when it comes to increasing their willingness to actively participate and take responsibility in their cooperative. A more heterogenous structure within the active parts of the cooperative members might increase the performance (and lead to a better-equipped enterprise to face future challenges (Herring, 2009). Therefore, increasing the share of active young and/or female members would—at least theoretically—be in the very own interest of the cooperative.

7.2 Is the Corona Crisis Seen as a Cause for a Stronger Involvement?

The reason why we analysed whether the crisis was a reason for the members to get more involved in their cooperative is twofold: (1) to investigate whether the cooperative model has proven itself in the crisis. As an indirect effect this could lead to a higher involvement; (2) to analyse if there are differences in the general willingness of the members to get involved in their cooperative.

In an overall view, 34.5% of the members answered that the current situation is a reason for them to get more involved in their cooperative, 36.3% disagree, 24.1% answered with partly, 5.1% are unsure. Broken down into different cooperative sectors, the answers of members of the banking and agricultural cooperatives differ only slightly from the overall view with the exemption of the housing sector. The share of members who want to get more involved as well as those who do not want to do so is much higher: 46.7% want to get more involved, 43.3% deny a steeper involvement. It would be interesting to analyse whether this deviation is of general nature or not. Unfortunately, the sample size is too low to make general statements. A further survey with more participants could provide more accurate results.

Age is meaningful for a reinforced engagement as well. For 26% of members younger than 45, the current situation is a reason to get more involved (54.2% answered with “no”, 20.2% with “partly”, 8.6% with “don’t know”). 40.3% of members above 45 want to get more involved (31.8% do not want to get more involved, 26.1% partly and 1.9% answered with “don’t know”). A similar picture can be found by comparing gender: 29.5% of the female members want to get more involved, compared to 36.8% of the male members who intend to do so. Interestingly, functionaries want to get involved even more. 38.2% of functionaries want to play a larger part within their cooperative (32% do not want to get more involved, 24.9% partly, 4.8% do not know), whereas only 24.9% of non-functionaries intend to do so (47.3% do not want to get more involved, 21.9% partly, 5.9% do not know). The approval of the members to get more involved in their cooperative is motivating. However, due to the one-off nature of the survey, we cannot verify the level of motivation before the Corona crisis. However, members seem to value the services of their cooperative in times of crisis and want to get more involved: 58.6% of all respondents intend to be more or partly more involved in their cooperative. The cooperative should take up this momentum and motivate their members not only to intend to get more involved but do so. The fact that mainly male and/or older members intend to get more involved in their cooperative can further exacerbate the asymmetric distribution of active members. To prevent such a reinforcing trend and to promote a more heterogenous structure, more research is necessary about the actual reasons why young and/or female members do not intend to get more involved in their cooperatives. Further on, cooperatives could develop strategies to motivate younger and/or female members to take a more active role.

7.3 Do Cooperatives Offer Sufficient Opportunities to Get Involved?

If it comes to the question of whether cooperatives offer sufficient opportunities for the members to get involved the general overview shows that the members see enough opportunities to get involved: 64.6% of all respondents answered with “yes”, only 7.8% with “no”. Nevertheless, the share of members who see engagement opportunities as only partly given is high, 25.5% answered with “partly”. A closer look reveals further dissatisfaction with the opportunities to get involved: The share of young members and/or non-functionaries who see opportunities to get involved as only partially given is especially high: 30.8% and 32.9% answered the question with “partly”. The comparable high share of younger (9.4%) and/or female (8.1%) members and/or non-functionaries (16.8%) who do not see sufficient engagement opportunities further underlines the necessity to offer more opportunities to get involved. This is especially the case as younger and/or female members perceive themselves as non-active members to a much higher share than others.

7.4 Is There a Need to Change the Current Structure of Cooperatives?

The necessity to change something in the cooperative setup is reflected in the outcomes of the statement: “There is a need to change the current structure of cooperatives”. In the overall picture 59.8% of all members fully (12.1%) or partly (47.7%) agree that the current structure needs some amendments. 35.1% do not see a need to change the current structure of cooperatives. A typical quote from experts regarding this statement is that cooperatives need to appear more modern/contemporary and “old braids must be cut off”. The agreement is especially large in the agricultural sector, among them 17.9% of the members fully agree with the statement, 37.3% partly, 35.8% disagree. The shares of the housing and banking sectors are similar to the overall picture.

Broken down into further differentiation criteria male members indicate a stronger need to change the current cooperative structure than females. Among the male members, 11.3% strongly agree with the sentence, 49.9% agree partly. 34.8% do not agree. Among female members 7.9% fully agree, 41.6% agree partly, 41.6% refuse the statement.

Differentiated with regards to the position within the cooperative (see Table 7.8), it is interesting that functionaries as well as non-functionaries agree in majority to the statement that the current cooperative structure needs to be changed. Eleven percent of the functionaries fully agree, 49.4% partially, 35.1% disagree. Among non-functionaries 14.9% fully agree, 43% partly. 35.5% deny the need for a change.

Table 7.8 Functionary—The cooperative structure needs to change
Full size table

The size of the cooperative has a considerable impact on the outcome as well. 25.8% of all members from small cooperatives disagree with the sentence. 34.8% of members of medium-sized cooperatives disagree and 35.9% of those participants from large cooperatives. Thus, agreement with the statement rises the smaller the cooperative.

The large share of members who fully or partially agree with the need for changes in the cooperative structure should be an incentive for academia, cooperative associations, policymakers as well as the steering committees of cooperatives to analyse what changes the members favour. The surprisingly high share among the differentiation criteria but especially the high percentage of functionaries who affirm the need for change in the cooperative structure shows that this question should be investigated further. Whether the survey reflects the specific situation in Austria or whether these results are transferable to other countries should be also the subject of further research.

8 Future Developments

In a concluding question, we asked the members which areas their cooperative should focus on after the crisis. Due to the limited sector-specific response rates, we focus on three sectors: banking and financial services, housing, and agriculture. For members of banking and financial services cooperatives, the main areas are a better communication, the development of sustainable financial products, and initiatives to directly support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as support programs for their specific region. Housing cooperatives should concentrate on affordable and sustainable housing, new forms of living and the use of vacant houses. Larger construction projects are not unanimously seen as a main focus. Agricultural cooperatives should more target on improving the image of agriculture in general. In addition, they should lobby for better prices. Food security should be a main focus as well. Members also tend to see the expansion of supply capacities and self-sufficiency, new concepts of land use, and more direct selling and marketing activities as a supplement focus.

New areas for cooperatives emerging in or out of the Corona crisis are seen in the cooperation between one-person businesses or SMEs (57.2%) as well as in the areas of medical care and nursing (51.3%), and energy (45.2%). Next to these predefined areas, based on the findings of the Delphi study, the members could mention their individual ideas for new areas for cooperatives. Among others they mentioned concepts for local supply in rural areas, citizens’ cooperatives, or tourism cooperatives in which hotels, farmers, and tourist associations work together. Other members mentioned the area of digitalization, which cooperatives should use for themselves, and which could lead to de development of new cooperative concepts. For banking cooperatives, members mentioned the financing of projects where lenders could participate directly rather than indirectly. Apart from the members who mentioned these new areas, a large share mentioned the need “focus first on repairing the damage caused by crisis” before starting new projects.

9 Conclusion

In general, the results indicate that most participants agree that cooperatives are coping well with the challenges of the Corona crisis. Especially their long-term orientation, their regionality, and the high degree of trustworthiness that members attribute to their cooperatives seem to reinforce the position of cooperatives. These characteristics are a good starting point for facing future challenges and seizing new opportunities, but they must be better communicated among the broader public. This is particularly true for the unique feature of cooperatives: the promotion of their members’ businesses. Areas that are considered important but as less implemented in cooperatives are transparency and participation. Here, cooperatives need to make further efforts. This is especially true when it comes to motivating younger and/or female members to participate actively in the cooperative.

When it gets to an increased digitalization, members are ambivalent. On the one hand, they welcome digital tools if they contribute to efficiency gains by facilitating administration and business relations. However, on the other hand, this should not be at the expense of personal relations within the cooperative as well as with outsiders. The findings on digital general meetings and decision processes underline this cautious attitude. Here, the members are very cautious, fearing that the uniqueness of the cooperative and the contact between members could be reduced. Therefore, they insist that digital tools should only be used as a supplement.

In terms of sustainability, members and experts almost unanimously agree that cooperatives will benefit. However, this requires better communication of the benefits in terms of participation, governance, and more generally, the characteristics of cooperatives. The integration of social and economic objectives within the cooperative is seen by the majority of members. Nevertheless, a significant proportion indicated that these two objectives are only partially taken into account. To use this momentum, the steering committee is motivated to create more opportunities for participation.

To take advantage of the current zeitgeist, which corresponds to many values attributed to cooperatives as well as to sectors cooperatives are active, members recognise a general need to alter the current structure of cooperatives. This perception is shared not only by non-active members but also by functionaries. The exact direction of these changes cannot be given within the scope of this study. In general, however, it can be concluded that the members are pushing to incorporate the traditional cooperative values in a more distinctive way. If this is implemented, an overall positive outlook for cooperatives in terms of overcoming future crises and taking advantage of future opportunities can be drawn.