Multiple entrepreneurial ecosystems? Worker cooperative development in Toronto and Montréal

The emergence in practice of worker cooperative ecosystems, which draws on the entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) concept, has been largely ignored in academic research. Contrasting worker cooperative development efforts in Toronto with Montréal, we affirm there are multiple and multiscalar EEs in each region, including both a dominant capitalist and a worker cooperative EE. Productive enterprises like worker cooperatives, operating with a different logic than investor-owned firms, not only construct their own EE, but the relational connectedness of the worker cooperative EE to other EEs also plays a role in outcomes. Worker cooperatives have been less successful in navigating these dynamics in Toronto than in Montréal. Future research might seek to more fully specify the relational and multiscalar configuration of regions’ multiple EEs.

COOPERATIVE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AS THE BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP

The subject of the foregoing study is the characteristics of the cooperative employment contract, which is the basic form of employment of worker cooperatives members, and, in principle, is used only there. The legislator requires that, in addition to the cases laid down in the provisions of the Cooperative Law, the cooperative member is employed for the entire duration of the membership on the basis of a cooperative employment contract, which has a significant impact on the way in which the contract is concluded and its content. Pursuant to Article 182 of Cooperative Law, as soon as a person joins a worker cooperative, both the cooperative and its member are obliged to enter into and remain in a cooperative employment relationship with each other. Importantly, if the employment relationship is not established through the fault of the cooperative, the member may claim, for the entire duration of the membership, the conclusion of a cooperative employment contract, and apart from that, he may, within one year from the date of becoming a member, claim compensation under the provisions of civil law. These claims are subject to the cognition of the labour court.

Associated work in a cooperative is neither dependent work nor selfemployed work

The celebration of the 100th anniversary of the ILO’s Cooperatives Unit sparked interest in reviewing the progress made by this institution in relation to the recognition and promotion of worker cooperatives. To this end, the Promotion of Cooperatives Recommendation (2002) and the Guidelines concerning statistics of Cooperatives (2018) were taken as the focus of study. From the analysis of both documents, the conclusion was drawn that although the former calls for the recognition of cooperatives in the terms established by the ICA, and for their promotion by States, establishing a legal framework favourable to them and compatible with their nature as self-managed enterprises, the fact is that associated work is still not recognised as a mode of work distinct from dependent work (wage-based) and self-employed(individual) work. This lack of recognition does not correspond to the recommendations of the ICA (2005) claiming that “the relationship of the worker-member with their cooperative should be considered as distinct from that of conventional wage-based dependent work and self-employed work”. The lack of recognition is often attributed to the modest size of these cooperatives and their possible use to circumvent the application of labour law. However, as we have shown, the former cannot be proven, and the latter is not sufficient reason to ignore or prohibit them, since there are other means to combat fake cooperatives. The lack of a contractual relationship between the worker-member and the cooperative is not a weakness but a strength and is the result of having a specific legal type for the cooperative, as opposed to other countries such as France or Italy which, because they lack such a type, are incorporated as Public Limited Companies or Limited Liability Companies, and subsequently hire their members so that they can work in their company.

When workers matter most: a study of worker cooperatives and the prioritization of workers through COVID-19

PurposeAs a part of the authors’ continued efforts to understand the experience and trends related to small business cooperatives, the US Federation of Worker Cooperatives (USFWC) and the Democracy at Work Institute (DAWI) explored themes around the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on worker cooperatives and democratic workplaces.Design/methodology/approachThe USFWC and DAWI conduct a biannual Economic Census of worker cooperatives and democratic workplaces. Survey themes this year included questions around the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on individual firms.FindingsGeneral findings indicate that worker cooperatives experienced financial losses similar to conventional small businesses, but that this varied widely by industry. Although it has been found that BIPOC-owned conventional small businesses have been some of the hardest hit during the pandemic, the authors find that there may be some mitigating protective effects of the worker cooperative form when the authors explore the impacts on worker cooperatives with a majority BIPOC workforce. Additionally, the authors find that worker cooperatives and democratic workplaces strive to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their workers even when facing significant financial challenges throughout the pandemic.Research limitations/implicationsThis research utilizes non-random convenience sampling in data collection. The outreach for our biannual Economic Census is concentrated on a highly connected worker cooperative and democratic workplace network, the experiences of which may not generalize to the larger worker cooperative and democratic workplace landscape. Additionally, outreach efforts were hindered by challenges presented by the pandemic that were not present in prior census years, as was firm bandwidth to respond, which likely affected the sample composition in comparison to prior years.Originality/valueWorker cooperatives have been proven to be a resilient crisis response form of business, but little is known about how the worker cooperative ecosystem in the United States is faring in the face of the continuing COVID-19 crisis.

Like principal, like agent? Managerial preferences in employee-owned firms

The relationship between firms’ owners and managers is a quintessential example of costly principal–agent interaction. Optimal design of monetary incentives and supervision mechanisms are the two traditional ways of reducing agency costs in this relationship. In this paper, we show evidence which is consistent with a third mechanism: firms have managers whose economic preferences are aligned with owners' interests. We uncover differences in economic preferences between managers employed in firms controlled by two distinct classes of ‘patrons’: employee-owned firms (worker cooperatives) and conventional investor-owned firms. In a high-stakes lab-in-the-field experiment, we find that co-op managers are less risk-loving and more altruistic than their conventional counterparts. We do not observe differences between the two groups in terms of time preferences, reciprocity, and trust. Our findings are consistent with existing evidence on worker cooperatives, such as their tendency to self-select into less risky industries and their compressed compensation structures.

Re-Imagining Localism and Food Justice: Co-Op Cincy and the Union Cooperative Movement

Co-op Cincy is an incubator of worker- and community-owned cooperatives, including the farm and food hub Our Harvest. The incubator is part of the innovative 1worker1vote.org network of unionized worker cooperatives stemming from a partnership between the Spanish Mondragon Cooperatives and the United States Steelworkers. This Community Case Study examines Co-Op Cincy’s food sector organizing as an example of resistance to the industrial, corporate food system. Their hybrid and experimental approach creatively re-imagines both cooperative ownership and localist food systems. Whereas some local efforts fail to address questions of social justice or drift from social justice missions, this essay describes how Co-Op Cincy and Our Harvest 1) define their social justice goals in pursuit of locally rooted ownership, 2) raise consciousness about the connections among food systems and racial and class disparities as well as the need for sustainability, solidarity, and democratic ownership, and 3) embody these commitments in everyday organizing. Their experimentation lends insights into potential paths to create a more equitable food system and a more just economy.

Drivers and barriers for employee ownership – why is the United States in a positive circle while Denmark is not?

PurposeDrivers and barriers for employee ownership vary between countries because of differences in Politics, Institutions and the Economy (PIE). By analyzing this variation, the purpose of this study is to answer why employee ownership has developed fast in the United States and not in Denmark.Design/methodology/approachThe drivers and barriers for employee ownership are identified from the scientific literature, and the main societal dynamics are identified through the PIE model covering the dynamics between politics, institutional change and the economy. Politics focuses on different social groups influencing the development of institutions driving or hindering employee ownership in the economy.FindingsUnited States has followed a self-enforcing circle with broad political support of “shared capitalism,” including the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) type of employee ownership. In Denmark, the labor movement rejected worker cooperatives as a main strategy and focused on building up the welfare state. Center-right parties favored employee stocks, but the institutional framework never overcame the barriers for employee ownership.Originality/valueThis is the first study to perform an analysis of politics, institutional change and economic development to explain drivers and barriers for employee ownership and to make a comparison between the development of employee ownership in the United States and Denmark.