Participation in Participatory Governance: Cooperatives in a Swiss Context

Abstract

Swiss cooperatives are currently in focus: while a number of legal framework amendments are on the way, still little research is done on this form of corporate governance. In the current urgency of addressing grand challenges, cooperatives have regained importance in the economic and societal landscapes. Comprehensive data-driven studies would support legislative modernization. Participatory governance is a conspicuous characteristic of cooperatives. The type and levels of participation are idiosyncratic to a given cooperative and hence exist in various forms. Our anthropological interview-based research yields three tensions. First, participation does not imply inclusion; second, cooperatives can be perceived as outdated, yet they evolve and experiment with forms; third, both idealist and pragmatic approaches are required to sustain the business and address any mission drift. The above enhances the comprehension of the cooperative form, challenging the perceived outdatedness of this hybrid-missioned entrepreneurship.

1 Introduction

Cooperatives are hybrid enterprises with defined societal or environmental and economic goals:

A cooperative enterprise is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise (International Cooperative Alliance, 2018).

Within this broad definition lie a broad variety of cooperatives. There are, among others, worker, producer, consumer, service, social, and housing cooperatives in domains such as energy production, journalism, car sharing, delivery, agriculture, insurance, banking, and music labels (see Chap. 2 for a discussion of the diversity of Swiss cooperatives / see Chap. 3 for a discussion of legal distinctions of different types of cooperatives). The goals or mission of cooperatives are part of their raison d’être and a strong aspect of their identity. The concept of cooperative entails different models influenced by the mindset of the founders and members, by-laws, and the legal settings. While this definition can characterize any private company, the difference lies in a legal imperative for cooperatives to inscribe their goals in the statutes. Therefore, the mindset must be defined at the founding of a company, contrarily to other private companies that can work on establishing and adapting the goal on the way. Concrete forms of cooperatives can vary from one country to another. The main models are the sociological focused on the community interest, the mutualistic focused on the interests of the members, the socio-mutualistic combining both interests, and the almost public cooperative model (Galera, 2004). Large cooperatives (specifically in the Swiss context) are rooted in the past. They adapted to their environment and to the market economy, and have transformed while keeping a cooperative core.

With all their models, cooperatives have the potential to bring change to the community they serve combining diverse goals and activating common action. Cooperatives are distinguished by two main elements from other organizational forms: participation and sustainability (Gould, 2017). Looking at the challenges of participation is a first step toward better comprehending the cooperative specificity.

Entrepreneurs have the potential for agency-driven social change (Pfeilstetter, 2022) and cooperators are therefore particularly interesting in this context as they can support the tackling of grand challenges. Grand challenges are significant and often global as, for example, climate change, lack of fair access to education, and access to clean water (see Foray et al., 2012). The inclusive and collaborative cooperative form can enable community-driven solution finding. While cooperatives are an old form of entrepreneurship, they represent an opportunity for people to unite professionally for common economic projects as they are the most participatory organizational form (Gould, 2017).

Cooperatives are not only shaped by their mission or the people who form them but also by the legal framework in which they are embedded. The Swiss legal framework is currently very open (see Chap. 3). Recent discussions and motions in the Parliament to update the cooperative law reflect the interest and urgency to rethink and the wish of some actors to further frame and upgrade this hybrid form of business. In Switzerland, the legal definition of cooperatives¹ is broad and allows for a unique diversity with from 7 to over 2.5 million members including the largest Swiss retail companies (Gerber, 2003; Purtschert, 2005; Taisch et al., 2017). The openness (or vagueness) of the legal framework yields different cooperatives unique in their organization, which is country-dependent—some stricter and focused on social entrepreneurship, some more open (see Cooperative Europe 2015 report). Levels of engagement of the respective members then get decided. Such levels depend on the size of the company, stakeholder role (member, delegate member, board member, etc.), the participatory strategy of the organization and the individual members who frequently have several roles (Taisch et al., 2017). The mission of a cooperative and the level and importance of participation can evolve over time. For some of the biggest and oldest cooperatives, the employee role is similar to that in other private enterprises. This does not limit the possibility of “cooperators” to be part of the cooperative and have a voice at the assemblies but differentiates them from the employees who are not necessarily involved in the decision-making of the enterprise they work for. Here, I discuss the tensions that arise in the Swiss cooperative context: participation, outdatedness, and idealism.

2 Background and Methodology

While cooperatives are not unique to Switzerland, their embeddedness into a democratic political culture dependent on popular participation and the liberal formulation of the legal framework brought diverse types of cooperatives about. The Swiss law governing cooperatives was last updated in 1936. Between 2020 and 2022, several motions were proposed and discussed in the Swiss Parliament, calling for legal modernizations and more transparency (Swiss Parliament, 2022). While several were not pursued, the Swiss Federal Council is now appraising the parliamentary “postulate” to modernize the cooperative law (Swiss Parliament, 2021). Development and mutual economic assistance characterize the legal framework that requests three administrative bodies: General Assembly, Board (at least three members), and Statutory Auditor (SME Portal of the Swiss Government, 2021). The request for modifications of the cooperative law is being revised by the Parliament and will impact Swiss cooperatives in a yet unpredictable way. Some fear a homogenization of the law applied to other types of private companies which would reduce cooperative freedom while others strongly encourage more transparency, a reduction of number of founders requested (which is seven people currently) or a sharper definition of the form of enterprise type.

My approach was to assemble a network of 60 informants working in the management and boards of 25 cooperatives, as well as specialists working in the cooperative environment. Half of the informants were interviewed, while the other half have shared information in more informally at events or for shorter meetings. I have conducted 30 semi-structured interviews in-person and online (depending on epidemiological requirements) inscribed in social anthropological methodologies (see de Sardan, 2008; Schatzman & Strauss, 1972; Yin, 2017). In addition to an anthropological framework, an interdisciplinary mindset was needed. Working for a polytechnical university and interacting with researchers from various fields, and connecting with a large variety of topics, I could enrich my approach and aim to share some findings in this chapter. As Barth wrote: “[…] entrepreneurs are clearly agents of change: they make innovations that affect the community in which they are active” (Barth, 1967: 664). Looking at the “cooperators” and their way of getting organized and including their community is an opportunity to look at the challenges of participation.

Here, the types of interactions with the informants were complementary as some information can be grasped more readily in a less formal setting. The goal was not to collect data exclusively through formal semi-structured interviews but also during conferences, meetings, and their coffee breaks as well as short more informal meetings. In this context, the “places” of research or the “ethnographic place” can be described “as a way of knowing” in which “different types, qualities and temporalities of things and people come together as part of the process of the making of ethnographic knowledge or ways of knowing” (Pink & Morgan, 2013). Spending time in one or several cooperatives was not possible in this period as most of the working places where information could have been shared also informally, for example, at the coffee machine, were transformed into home offices inaccessible but through online meetings. The multi-local approach to fieldwork (Marcus, 1995, 2016) was adapted to the online situation and when possible offline meetings with the aim of collecting a broader spectrum of inputs. I have hence also participated in events (gathering 10–150 people) that enabled shorter exchanges with informants and learning about current topics in cooperatives.

3 Participation and Participatory Governance

Cooperatives, often perceived as a path to economic democracy, are governed in various ways. Participation and “ownership” of members and workers are applied on different levels. Participation has been examined in detail by political philosophers, starting with Habermas’ conception of “deliberative democracy” that underlines the importance of consensus (Habermas, 1996), there is a need to elaborate this thought and adapt it to current economics in which the idealism of democracy needs to be adjusted to the “realities of power asymmetries and conflict” (Dawkins, 2015). Some even propose to replace the concept of deliberative democracy with “agonistic pluralism” (Mouffe, 1999) which considers that conflicts between adversaries (not enemies) and the recognition of these divisions is the only path to political thinking. Nevertheless, in the case of cooperatives, the concept of deliberative democracy seems appropriate. Indeed, it is more likely that founders or members join the cooperative in a like-minded state attitude or aligned goals. In cooperatives, the deliberative democracy of stakeholders—that can also be called “stakeholder democracy” in stakeholder theories (Moriarty, 2014)—seems natural yet is in fact a complex interweaving of dynamics between the participants and the organization. Focusing on one theory or framing would limit the understanding, therefore, I use in this paper a “multi-paradigm paradox perspective,” which allows the creation of a new conceptual framework, specifically in looking at the role and tensions that the boards face in cooperatives and mutual associations (Cornforth, 2004). This paradox perspective used by Cornforth to analyze the three types of challenges serves in this paper to frame the tensions of the discussion. Namely, the three types of challenges are: (1) “between board members acting as representatives for particular membership groups and ‘experts’ charged with driving the performance of the organization forward,” (2) “between the board roles of driving forward organizational performance and ensuring conformance i.e. that the organization behaves in an accountable and prudent manner,” and, (3) “between the contrasting board roles of controlling and supporting management” (Cornforth, 2004). The tensions along the impact levels of individual stakeholders exist despite the democratic participation ideal as a part of cooperative entrepreneurship. The risk of pseudo-participation (Pateman, 1970) can only be prevented through a clear definition of participation in each individual enterprise. “Participation” can be interpreted in various ways. Agarwal proposes a typology of participation in the context of a research on community projects that can be related to: nominal participation, passive participation, consultative participation, activity-specific participation, active participation, and interactive participation (Agarwal, 2001). All these levels exist in cooperatives, to which I add the category of shadow participation where a person is a member but fully absent, therefore considered as a nominal participant but concretely invisible. This one is important in the sizes of cooperatives and the most apparent in the largest ones (such as Coop or Migros in Switzerland). They are also affected by the type of enterprise, its organization, and its size (Fig. 4.1).

Fig. 4.1

(a, b) 1 Forms of Swiss cooperatives and examples (author, 2022)

In my interviews, democracy was often a discussion topic, namely, how to implement informed participation and how to keep the potential participants interested. These tensions are managed to have constructive and more strategic dialogues. Larger cooperatives have delegates or regional assemblies for their members to be part of the dialogue. The structure of larger cooperatives in Switzerland often entails an overarching cooperative (umbrella organization) with several “public limited companies” (Aktiengesellschaft, AG in German) under it. This allows us to keep a dialogue and maintain the goals while being part of the market. Some have all their employees as members of the cooperative, others have most employees in the public limited companies, and others have only a cooperative. The first part of the table below shows four most usual forms of Swiss cooperatives, the second part gives examples for each form. The form chosen for a cooperative is not defining the type of participation, while the size and the mindset of the board and management are more decisive.

Some also test the form as an experiment to professionally collaborate in a group of consultants that prioritize horizontally and exchange such as Now.New.Next. Some informants have decided to transform their cooperative into a joint-stock company while others learn, adapt, and figure out their own cooperative (dis)balance, many of them have transformed the company from an association into a cooperative (Red Brick Chapel), from an AG to a cooperative (Veloblitz), from an AG to a cooperative federation (Migros) from a cooperative federation to a cooperative (Coop), from a cooperative to an AG (Intercomestibles) and more.

The second part of the table shows non-exhaustive examples for each of the forms schematized. The size and the number of members are variable and influence the type of participation. Cooperatives with millions of members, who are often consumers mostly absent from participative processes of the cooperative, have a different role and impact than the smaller ones where the members are more present Being interested in a project can make a person join a cooperative without the interest in influencing decisions while for others such joining has an aim of participating. Participation is a challenge, also of having smart dialogues in which knowledge and power balance are respected. The one person—one voice rule is an essential element of cooperatives but also limiting when members without knowledge or regular involvement in the topic have the same voting right as members-experts (for more on this see Chap. 3). This challenge asks for constant communication, openness, and patience. Participatory approaches are believed to be capable of bringing more horizontality without necessarily reducing efficiency (Blaug, 2009).

Common resources are best managed by communities that benefit from them (Ostrom, 1993). Bottom-up and non-centralized decision-making are at the heart of cooperative governance specifically regarding participatory governance. Governance is a general term referring “to all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through laws, norms, or language” (Bevir, 2012). It comprises two main roles, the “monitoring between social and commercial activities” and “monitoring the performance of agents” (Ebrahim et al., 2014) in which stakeholders are involved. There is a difference between engagement and participation. In the context of cooperatives and in a structured participation of stakeholders, participatory governance is more specifically addressing and underlining the importance of a bottom-up governance dynamic.

Engagement includes conducting meetings with representatives and holding public meetings, while participation is a more active involvement of stakeholders in the strategic decision-making of an organization (Low & Cowton, 2004). Participation depends on the proactivity of the stakeholders. Participation strategy in a multistakeholder environment such as cooperatives can be interpreted differently and applied on different levels.

Cooperatives as other forms of companies have organs of control and General Assemblies (GAs). Nevertheless, by the (Swiss) law, they only have three required administrative bodies. This makes the organs that depend on member participation more important. Such participation, and therefore, discussions and negotiations, occur during the whole year, not only at GAs. The topics discussed at the GA have often already been debated or partly digested.

4 Tensions in Participating

My research has revealed several tensions that need to be considered by legislators in order to develop a Swiss cooperative law adapted to the current grand challenges. Entrepreneurs, being agents of change, have an impact through their business, mission, and form. The three issues that appear in the context of the broad Swiss cooperative landscape are: participation vs. inclusion, experimentation vs. outdatedness, and idealism vs. pragmatism.

4.1 Participation Versus Inclusion

4.1.1 Does the Structure-Given Participation in Cooperatives Promise Participation?

As mentioned earlier, the legal form of cooperatives requests participation. Direct democracy is guaranteed through a “one person, one vote” rule that is not influenced by the “investment” in the membership. While more democratic on the one hand, it is also a source of disagreements on the other. For example, members who devote more time and energy, or also financial means, for a cooperative to grow and exist, do not see this this greater engagement translating into greater influence. However, participation does not necessarily mean inclusion. Inclusion, rather than participation, builds communities (Quick & Feldman, 2011). While participation is given by the legal structure of a cooperative, it does not mean that an active inclusion of all participants is wished or will take place. Participation is a very broad concept that gives freedom to be active or passive. The tension between participation and inclusion lies in the largeness of the scope, with participation you may have fewer active members but with inclusion you may have uninformed or unwanted activity. The presence of divergent voices can be enriching or slowing down the work, sometimes even blocking it. Sharing a common vision is often what connects members of a cooperative but the way the work is done or communicated can show diversity. Intergenerational challenges have been underlined by several informants, e.g., as older members tend to want more power, modernization through technology and digitalization tends to brake, reducing the presence of active young members in General Assemblies.

An important aspect of modernization of cooperatives is the digitization of their processes (Jovanović & Voigt, 2016; Peter & Jungmeister, 2017) which was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It influences the participation modes and the involvement of younger generations. Except in the new cooperatives, older cooperators often hold the power and presence in cooperatives, holding on to founding ideas and values that younger generations would be willing to see changing or adapting to the new settings. Online settings have encouraged youth to be more engaged. A wider range of people partake, and the audience is larger online than in-person, increasing up to three times the number of participants at the GA. Hence, the cooperative stakeholders consider the increase in connectivity and the democratization of communication through digitalization impactful but not always wanted as more participation does not mean more informed action.

The social and commercial values are characteristic of the hybridity of cooperatives (Battilana et al., 2012). Not only is the company hybrid, but the stakeholders also have hybrid roles, what is called in the legal jargon multiple identities (Taisch et al., 2017). Cooperators often have multiple roles—they can, e.g., be founders and members; founders, employees, and members; employees and members; employees, board members, and members; benefactors, clients, etc. Also, employees are not necessarily members or founders but possibly benefactors. The possibility of participating does not make it a request, nor is it necessarily wanted. In some larger cooperatives, employees are far from the cooperative framework of their company and choose employment for its benefits and security without having an interest in its form.

Stakeholders’ identities are also given through the image of the company (Gioia et al., 2000). The process of identification of a cause, project, or values is essential to the community creation and thus the cooperative. Having multiple roles and interests in an organization makes cooperators more involved. Board members and managers in smaller and larger cooperatives describe their constant effort to invite members to “get onboard.” Members have the power to vote off board members and there is therefore the need to maintain a channel of communication. The dialogues take place in what could be called “spaces of negotiations” (Battilana et al., 2015). Cooperatives lead regular meetings in different formats in addition to the yearly General Assembly that allows all members to vote for or against propositions. While the General Assembly is often the most visible event, discussions happen in the format of thematic discussion groups, regional groups (for larger cooperatives), and employee meetings. Cooperators being stakeholders does not imply them wanting to invest the time and effort to contribute to the cooperative equally to others, e.g., in the co-decision process. Most informants reported that provided there are no problems, many stakeholders remain passive.

By growing, cooperatives are challenged to maintain participation and bottom-up inputs in a market-oriented competitive environment demanding agility (Ebrahim et al. 2014; Cheney et al., 2014). While voices from inside these organizations consider that participation allows their organizations to remain agile and innovative, externals criticize large cooperatives for having lost the sense of cooperatives. This can be seen as slow and more sustainable innovation continuously considering the needs of members and clients. The cooperative depends on its community—some groups call themselves “collective”—and often grows out of one. Maintaining the meaning and fulfilling the cooperative’s purpose is also a way to keep the community together. Larger cooperatives mentioned the constant work of engaging with their stakeholders, and here more specifically their members. The processes governing participation in these cooperatives are clearly articulated in the company’s statutes and are distributed regionally and thematically that promotes the gradual build-up of the dialogue. Ideas are first discussed in such a distributed fashion before getting to the Board. Such processes allow cooperatives to filter ideas and hinder uninformed participation. Membership, participation, and inclusion are different levels of presence in cooperatives that can be combined. A person can be a member to support the cooperative but not interested in participating, be a member and participate sporadically or be an included member actively part in the dialogue. This freedom of participation is important in the life of cooperatives.

In addition to the notion of community, history is often referred to in Swiss cooperatives regarding the cooperative form and values as being part of the DNA of their organizations (see Chap. 5) (Fabrizio, 2022; Peter & Jungmeister, 2017; Taisch et al., 2017). Large cooperatives could be transformed into other forms of private companies (e.g., private Ltd.) or associations but would then lose their historical continuity while growing and having adapted to a more competitive context. This historicity is also important for the identity and branding of the larger cooperatives. The position on this specific aspect varies from one cooperative to another. Some question their form that has lost its initial mission and in which a free choice of reinvestment of its gain is not given, while others strongly identify themselves with the cooperative and express their wish to maintain the form and share this image with their members, clients, and employees.

Multistakeholderism seems natural in cooperatives, it can also be discussed in the light of cooperators with multi-identities. Participation does not erase the notion of power in the presence of dominant and charismatic stakeholders. Individual presence and proactivity tend to create visibility and impact.

4.2 Experimentation Versus Outdatedness

Some smaller cooperatives in Switzerland experiment with the legal form. They are created across all domains: from consultancies, collectives, music labels, restaurants to retails, insurance companies, and banks. These cooperators also reflect the challenges of growing and managing a cooperative in a competitive and purposeful way. Some have transformed from a non-profit association or a collective that professionalizes into a cooperative. The main challenges for the new and some older cooperatives are to establish the processes of participation and communication, and the need for more professionalism with skilled board members. It is also due to the lack of existing process definition for Swiss cooperatives. Crises are often catalysts to establish the processes unique to each of them. The visibility of smaller cooperatives is limited where the media attention is mainly focused on the larger ones. As these companies declare the simultaneous pursuit of profit and purpose, they are criticized for the possible mission drift. The vision of a cooperative is to be based on the values, mission, and basic principles of a cooperative (Forcadell, 2005) and is at constant risk of drifting. Interviewees have confirmed this by suggesting a regular adaptation of their implementation of their goals and mission through internal dialogue.

The demands submitted in 2020 and 2021 in the Swiss parliament ask for the improvement of framework conditions for cooperative start-ups (Motion 20.3563), more transparency (Motion 21.3418), careful modernization of the cooperative law (Motion 21.3652), a contemporary and sustainable cooperative law (Postulate 21.3783), and a contemporary cooperative law (Parliamentary Initiative 21.479). These initiatives show that the cooperative law is perceived as outdated, yet the cooperative form retains the timely potential for mitigating current societal, economic, and ecological challenges. The integration of the purpose of the business and the reinvestment of the benefits into societal or ecological projects gives the cooperative business model an opportunity to help tackle grand challenges. Communication between cooperatives is important to exchange knowledge and experience, and reflect on current opportunities and eventual legal changes.

There are two main cooperative networks in Switzerland supporting these exchanges, one for the cooperatives linked through their legal form (idée coopérative), one for the social entrepreneurs (SENS) with one-third of its members being cooperatives. Social entrepreneurship is not a condition for being a cooperative, it depends on the link between purpose and self-definition. The difference between social and commercial entrepreneurship is the dimension of “opportunity”: “Commercial entrepreneurship focuses strictly on markets that can provide profitable opportunities, while social entrepreneurship is attracted by an unmet need, demand, or market failure, i.e., the opportunity for social change” (Pestoff & Hulgård, 2016). Here, while part of Swiss cooperatives adheres to the social entrepreneurship definition, others aim at the hybrid pursuit of market- and purpose-oriented strategies. Their purpose can be fulfilled by the corresponding growth, e.g., for car sharing (gaining a maximum of clients would reduce the number of individual cars), housing cooperatives (having more houses would provide more access to fairly priced apartments), or services (more clients also means more jobs for the working members of the enterprise). Members, clients, and employees benefit differently depending on the type of cooperative: they are interdependent. The statutes of cooperatives define who is allowed or not to become a member and that members can be refused without justification.

Several informants reported that the long-term dialogue does not reduce debates but scatters them over time and partly makes the final decision-making process easier. The decision is perceived as more sustainable as the effort of convincing and bringing stakeholders on board has started early on.

4.3 Idealism Versus Pragmatism

Cooperatives have both idealist and pragmatic natures with integrated purposes and competitive strategies. This idealist-pragmatic dual nature assembles interdependent social, environmental, and commercial logic (Bauwens et al., 2020; Blome-Drees, 2020; Langmead, 2017). This duality (Ashforth & Reingen, 2014) considered dilemmatic (Puusa et al., 2013) or contradictory (Borzaga et al., 2009), is described by my informants as complementary and sustainable. Nevertheless, ignoring the challenges of these “paradoxical” goals can lead to a mission drift (Jay, 2013) if economic viability as well as societal and environmental goals lose their balance. Solidarity, responsibility, primacy of people over money, and democratic participation are the elements that make cooperatives distinctive (Saz-Gil et al., 2021). Focusing on the common good is not exclusive of being for profit. This balance between both concepts is also to be taken into account.

Further than values and strategies, the cooperative culture, lifestyle, or “vibe” is appreciated by its members. In smaller cooperatives, the wish for more horizontality of power is often formulated by the employees and member-employees. Power is not necessarily defined by the position but by the proactivity or charisma of members. For this reason, the definition of the roles is important as idealist perspectives from members can clash with more pragmatic perspectives from the management of cooperatives. The composition of smaller cooperative boards undergoes professionalization resulting from generational expectation conflicts.

The process of change in older cooperatives, especially in the housing cooperative sector, often happens through new generations joining and sometimes triggering a crisis in the system. Younger generations are less accepting of the nepotism that inner circles of board members or management would benefit from, for example, access to cooperative apartments. With a saturated apartment rental market in many Swiss cities, the power given in choosing the incoming inhabitants can grant important privileges. Some cooperative boards only have members living in the housing cooperative, while others are open to external members who then would be informed about apartments. This changes the composition of the boards, too. While some of the positions are going through an external hiring process, others are filled in internally by the cooperative members. The professionalization of boards is also manifested in their openness to employ external specialists in addition to the members.

The historicity of cooperatives is also a factor in the pragmatic/idealistic vision—on different levels—one is the organization type, and the other is the business itself. Idealistic and pragmatic goals are both targeted, sometimes one type is prioritized over the other. Idealism is always in tension with efficiency and can be limiting in the democratic organization of an enterprise. As mentioned above, having an official power is not necessary to have a certain power through charisma and coalition.

5 Discussion

This research broadens the understanding of the challenges of cooperatives in the Swiss context. One characteristic of this form of business is the centrality and essentiality of people’s voices. The opportunity to participate in decision-making shapes a democratic organization. Once the ideal concept is defined, we see that there are many shapes and colors of such organizations, and that the idea of participation asks for a careful and serious effort of framing. The choices made in the organizational statutes and the continuous adaptations in the daily business make a dynamic frame in which some develop, for example, inclusive leadership while others strive for horizontality. The choices in the balance of power influence the means and weight of participation.

5.1 Multidimensionality and Dynamism

The multidimensionality of this research and the dynamism of cooperatives are challenging and interesting. There are risks and benefits for all actors of cooperatives with an opportunity to be more inclusive and sustainable but this is on individual, group, societal, and legal levels. While participation can be described as tyrannic (see Cooke & Kothari, 2001), its inclusion in the statute of a cooperative renders it more natural. If participation is not wanted, another form of business model can be chosen. Nevertheless, participation in a cooperative can also be challenging when each member’s voice has the same weight while the engagement and work levels are very different. It gives members who are not at all involved in the work of the cooperative an opportunity to disrupt the decisions and processes in place giving another twist to the ideal of the power horizontality.

Challenges of my informants are to constantly “take aboard” their members by communicating about important moves in order to have their buy-in in the final decision-making or approval of decisions; the cross-generational participation and its tools with a digitalization and a large representation; shadow participation in big cooperatives with the image and historicity of the business model as a part of the company’s marketing strategy; the start-up capital; the democratic vs. efficiency question, etc.

5.2 Conclusion

There is little academic research about current Swiss cooperatives and the 2021 impulse in the Swiss parliament for a modernization of the cooperative legal framework shows an interest in the business model and the request for more clarity. This lack of clarity has been until now an opportunity for diversification and experimentation for cooperatives. Indeed, there is no model of cooperatives in this context. The experimental aspect is especially lived in smaller and younger cooperatives. Digitalization and a sense of new technologies are also important in the updating of what cooperatives are and how they function.

The expected participation of members—founders, employees, benefactors—in cooperatives depends on the inclusivity of the participation process in place but also on the wish to participate actively and the size of the company. Often if everything runs smoothly, participation is less wanted and needed from both sides. At the same time, scaling participation does not mean scaling action or impact.

The engagement horizon of the board and the management working with the members is long-term. The settings for dialogue and negotiations are structured. Informants consider that the dialogue takes place continuously and decision-making can be slower than in other private companies, but the decision is more sustainable and long-lasting as it is taken in agreement with a majority of proactive members. As in other democratic processes, a majority does not mean everybody. In general, young cooperatives need time and often smaller crises (forming-storming-norming) to establish clear mechanisms as there is no clear model for decision-making of cooperatives.

The balance between idealist and pragmatic views is essential in the cooperative context. They are interdependent. While some describe too much idealism as a threat to survival, others see it as essential to last. Creation of stable jobs or benefiting from reasonably priced products is seen as pragmatic while a focus on sustainability, social support of less advantaged people will be seen as idealist. The balance between the two is essential to remain viable economically and avoid mission drift. Internally to cooperatives, there are also misunderstandings such as working in a cooperative means less work or every personal wish is to be realized. There are also groups of people experimenting with the cooperative model often transitioning from a collective to a professional group, some of them do decide to not pursue with that form of corporate governance and change to other types of private companies. There are also cooperatives that are not satisfied with their business model and consider transforming into other forms of enterprises. The alignment of goals, mission, people involved, legal framework, efficiency, and output is key to a successful cooperative.

The equilibrium that Swiss cooperatives have in the different tensions is colorful and fragile. The Parliament’s reading of the situation and the update of the law for modernization is not predictable yet but it seems that the established cooperatives wish for stability rather than change in the legal framework. The risks in changes of law could entail the following non-exhaustive elements: (1) a sharpening of the definition and conditions to be a cooperative could force existing cooperatives to change their legal form which has also a repercussion on the image of these companies, (2) such could split Swiss cooperatives into different sub-groups of cooperatives (large-small, domains, etc.), (3) a clarification of processes could force cooperatives to change functioning modes, and (4) a standardization of mechanisms in alignment with other types of companies such as joint-stock companies could kill the cooperative uniqueness, diversity, and freedom. On the other hand, more transparency and modernization could: (1) Guide start-up cooperatives to establish their processes, (2) Facilitate the founding of new cooperatives by reducing, for example, the number of co-founders needed, (3) Push for a digitalization and allow more digital management and meetings, (4) Support the development of social entrepreneurship if cooperatives are defined as social enterprises only. For now, in 2022, the positioning of most Swiss cooperatives is careful and they seem to be hoping for a modernization with as little change as possible so that pragmatism and freedom are maintained.