Governance Implications from a Re-Hybridizing Agricultural Co-Operative

  • Stefan EinarssonEmail author
  • Filip Wijkström


Co-operatives are constitutional hybrids where the hybridity is laid down in structural components such as rules and regulations and is visible in ownership arrangements and organizational mission. We seek to advance the current scholarly debate on organizational governance by applying a structural and processual analytical framework on empirical data consisting of interviews with members and elected officials in a sizeable Swedish forestry co-operative.

We argue that market imperatives of economies of scale in the agricultural industry have led to increasingly larger farms and also to increasingly larger and more centralized agricultural businesses. This has in turn diminished the number of members which are to govern the businesses in these co-operatives, and also increased the size and complexity of the governance task. We will thus argue that this development indicates an ongoing re-balancing of the hybrid character of the co-operative studied, with clear governance implications.


Institutional logics Hybridity Governance Co-operatives Membership 


  1. Alexius, Susanna, Martin Gustavsson, and Tiziana Sardiello. 2017. Profit-Making for Mutual Benefit: The Case of Folksam 1945–2015. Score Working Paper Series, 2017: 2.Google Scholar
  2. Berry, Jeffrey. 1989. The Interest Group Society. 2nd ed. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Co.Google Scholar
  3. Bijman, Jos, and Markus Hanisch. 2012. Support for Farmers’ Cooperatives, Developing a Typology of Cooperatives and Producer Organisations in the EU. Wageningen UR: Wageningen.Google Scholar
  4. Birchall, Johnston. 2014. The Governance of Large Co-Operative Businesses. A Research Study for Co-Operatives UK. Manchester: Co-operatives UK.Google Scholar
  5. Bjärstig, Therese, and Anna Sténs. 2018. Social Values of Forests and Production of New Goods and Services: The Views of Swedish Family Forest Owners. Small-scale Forestry 17: 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandsen, Taco, Wim van de Donk, and Kim Putters. 2005. Griffins or Chameleons? Hybridity as a Permanent and Inevitable Characteristic of the Third Sector. International Journal of Public Administration 28: 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornforth, Chris. 2004. The Governance of Co-Operatives and Mutual Associations: A Paradox Perspective. Annals of Public and Co-Operative Economics 75 (1): 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2011. Nonprofit Governance Research: Limitations of the Focus on Boards and Suggestions for New Directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41 (6): 1–20.Google Scholar
  9. Cornforth, Chris, and William Brown, eds. 2013. Nonprofit Governance: Innovative Perspectives and Approaches. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Drori, Gili, Giuseppe Delmestri, and Achim Oberg. 2013. Branding the University: Relational Strategy of Identity Construction in a Competitive Field. In Trust in Higher Education Institutions, ed. Lars Engwall and Peter Scott, 134–147. London: Portland Press.Google Scholar
  11. Einarsson, Torbjörn. 2008. Medlemskapet i den svenska idrottsrörelsen. En studie av medlemmar i fyra idrottsföreningar. Stockholm: EFI, The Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  12. Einarsson, Stefan. 2011. The Revitalization of a Popular Movement: Case Study Research from Sweden. Voluntas 22 (4): 658–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2012a. Ideology Being Governed: Strategy Formation in Civil Society. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  14. Einarsson, Torbjörn. 2012b. Membership and Organizational Governance. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  15. Einarsson, Stefan, and Filip Wijkström. 2015. The Role of Members in the Governance of Large Producer Co-Operatives. Conference paper presented at the 31st EGOS Colloquium, Athens, Greece, July 2–4.Google Scholar
  16. Gustavsson, Martin, Stefan Einarsson, Torbjörn Einarsson, and Filip Wijkström. 2016. Cooperatives in Motion: Member Governance in two Swedish Farmer Co-ops, 1990–2011. Conference paper presented at the 32nd EGOS Colloquium, Naples, Italy, July 7–9.Google Scholar
  17. Hvenmark, Johan. 2008. Reconsidering Membership: A Study of Individual Members’ Formal Affiliation with Democratically Governed Federations. Stockholm: Economic Research Institute (EFI), Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  18. Kronholm, Thomas. 2015. Forest Owners’ Associations in a Changing Society. Umeå: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
  19. Maier, Florentine, Michael Meyer, and Martin Steinbereitner. 2014. Nonprofit Organizations Becoming Business-Like: A Systematic Review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45 (1): 64–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mair, Johanna. 2015. Navigating Institutional Plurality: Organizational Governance in Hybrid Organizations. Organization Studies 36 (6): 713–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meyer, Michael, and Florentine Maier. 2015. The Future of Civil Society Organization Governance. In Civil Society, the Third Sector and Social Enterprise. Governance and Democracy, ed. Jean-Louis Laville, Dennis Young, and Philippe Eynaud. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Nilsson, Jerker. 2018. Governance Costs and the Problems of Large Traditional Co-Operatives. Outlook on Agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture. First Published Online February 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Österberg, Peter, and Jerker Nilsson. 2009. Members’ Perception of Their Participation in the Governance of Cooperatives: The Key to Trust and Commitment in Agricultural Cooperatives. Agribusiness 23 (2): 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Skelcher, Chris, and Steven Rathgeb Smith. 2015. Theorizing Hybridity: Institutional Logics, Complex Organizations, and Actor Identities: The Case of Nonprofits. Public Administration 93 (2): 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  26. Staal Wästerholm, Dianne, and Thomas Kronholm. 2017. Family Forest Owners’ Commitment to Service Providers and the Effect of Association Membership on Loyalty. Small-scale Forestry 16: 275–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steen-Johnsen, Kari, Philippe Eynaud, and Filip Wijkström. 2011. On Civil Society Governance: An Emergent Research Field. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 22 (4): 555–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thornton, Patricia, William Ocasio, and Michael Lounsbury. 2012. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Widmer, Candace, and Susan Houchin. 1999. Governance of National Federated Organizations. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Wijkström, Filip. 2011. Charity Speak’ and ‘Business Talk’. The On-Going (Re)Hybridization of Civil Society. In Nordic Civil Society at a Cross-Roads. Transforming the Popular Movement Tradition, ed. Filip Wijkström and Annette Zimmer. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 2012. Civilsamhället i samhällskontraktet. En antologi om vad som står på spel. Stockholm: European Civil Society Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management & OrganizationStockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations