Survival Rates: Cooperative vs. Conventional (44/53)

°Worker Cooperatives' Survival Rates Only

°°Community Shop Cooperatives' Survival Rates Only

*Consumer Cooperatives' Survival Rates Only

Alberta: 63% figure retrieved from Canada government website.

Uruguay: LMFs have a 29% lower hazard rate than conventional firms.

Richard Wolff is one of the most prominent advocates for worker cooperatives. He went to Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, learning economics and history. His book Democracy at Work talks about the democratic economy.

Richard D. Wolff Lecture on Worker Coops: Theory and Practice of 21st Century Socialism

Richard Wolff on why he focuses on the transition to worker cooperatives

A Vision for Worker Cooperatives & a New Socialism in Our Democracy - Richard Wolff

Richard Wolff: "Worker Cooperatives: Movements for Social Change and Personal Empowerment" - 1 of 2

Richard Wolff: "Worker Cooperatives: Movements for Social Change and Personal Empowerment" - 2 of 2

Richard Wolff on Worker Cooperatives

Richard Wolff on the Mondragon cooperatives

Richard Wolff -- Marx’s Economics and Worker Cooperatives

Worker Co-Ops: Friedman Debates Marxist Professor

Richard Wolff on some necessary social contexts for worker co-ops' larger success

A Democratic Society Should Have Democratic Workplaces - Richard Wolff

Ask Prof Wolff: Yugoslavia's Experiment with Worker Co-ops

Ask Prof Wolff: How Worker Co-ops Handle Bankruptcy

Ask Prof Wolff: The Transition to Worker Ownership

Ask Prof Wolff: From Capitalism to Co-op

Ask Prof Wolff: Non-profits as Co-ops

Ask Prof Wolff: Politics, Dual Power & Worker Co-ops

Ask Prof Wolff: More Benefits Of Worker Co-ops

Ask Prof Wolff: The Short, Strong Case for Worker Co-ops

Ask Prof Wolff: How Worker Co-ops Can Lead to Revolutionary Transformations

Ask Prof Wolff: ESOPS, WSDE and How to Fund Worker Co-ops

Ask Prof Wolff: Worker Co-op and Stock Markets

Ask Prof Wolff: How Do Socialist Enterprises Raise Funds?

Ask Prof Wolff: How Would A Worker Co-op Based Socialism Handle the Pandemic?

Ask Prof Wolff: Strikes & Worker Co-ops

Ask Prof Wolff: Cooperation Jackson and Humboldt

Ask Prof Wolff: Can Worker Co-ops Be Truly Democratic?

Ask Prof Wolff: Consumer Co-ops vs. Worker Co-ops

Ask Prof Wolff: A Worker Co-op Strategy

Ask Prof Wolff: Automation & Worker Co-ops

Ask Prof Wolff: Financing Worker Coops

Ask Prof Wolff: Is there union support for worker cooperatives?

Ask Prof Wolff: Worker Co-ops and Expansion

Ask Prof Wolff: Worker Co-op Based Economies

Ask Prof Wolff: Union Co-ops and Worker Co-ops

Ask Prof Wolff: How Worker Co-ops Differ from Capitalist Enterprises

Ask Prof Wolff: Why A Worker Co-op Economy Would be Less Unstable

Wolff Responds: Labor Unions and Worker Co-op

Source: Cooperative and Mutual Economy 2023

New York City has been at the forefront of the growing movement within the United States in support of Worker Cooperatives. In 2015, the New York City Council granted $1.2 million in funding and created the Worker Cooperative Business Development Initiative. As a result, New York City became the first city in the United States to receive municipal investment towards worker cooperative development. Since then, the annual fund has grown to over $3 million. The funding not only aids in the creation of WCs, but also the conversion of conventional businesses into WCs, which is especially important in the ensuing wave of business closures due to nearly half of US small business owners being baby boomers. There is support for education and training, including 1-on-1 services, as well.

In January of 2014, a report titled Worker Cooperatives for New York City: A Vision for Addressing Income Inequality was released by the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies arguing for the support of the WC model for the city of New York. It discusses the state of NYC, with more than 1 in 5 New Yorkers living in poverty, and the prevalence of low-wage employment as not being enough to provide adequate social mobility or financial stability. It mentions harmful business hiring trends as exacerbating these issues. Housing prices are costly, contributing to the struggles millions in the city face.

The report discusses the positive effects of the WC model, explaining that this alternative form of business has a wide range of economic and social benefits to workers. They produce less economic disparity due to more equitable distributions of wealth, and they tend to provide higher wages and benefits to its employees. This model offers individuals the opportunity to become business owners and reap greater rewards from their share, not to mention the ability to democratically participate in decision-making that directly affects their lives. In a world where owners are a small minority, WCs offer anyone the opportunity to become one and be able to more effectively create financial returns for themselves and their families. “In a number of cases, low-wage workers have become owners of businesses, accumulated wealth and benefited from significant financial returns or dividends from their membership share.”

The cooperative model has been shown to be just as, if not more, resilient compared to conventional businesses. It is therefore seen as an alternative that can offer stable employment and income to workers. The first batch of created worker cooperatives, thanks to the funds provided by the New York City Council, was 67% over a five year period, compared to the average national survival rate of 50% for small businesses. This resilience seems to be especially apparent during economic recessions, as the model is less vulnerable to price shocks in the market. This is key to providing stable income and keeping local ecomomies above water when the next downturn inevitably hits.

In the 2008 and 2020 recessions, unemployment rose dramatically as business owners fired workers to cut costs. In a WC, laying off workers is not the first thing they do. Instead, they tend to democratically vote to lower wages for a period, and then raise them again once the downturn subsides. This allows businesses to continue without having to lay off workers. This is an effective way of operating within an economy filled with boom and bust cycles. Laying off workers, often ones you had to train, means you now must find and train new ones when the downturn ends. WCs tend to keep their workers, and when financial difficulty concludes, they have retained their trained workers, giving them an advantage verses other businesses who must find, hire, and train again.

Alongside the financial positives of the model comes the social effects. The report mentions that there is a reduction in workplace abuse due to the fact that the enterprise is structured democratically. Bosses who are not held accountable by democratic processes often treat those below them disrespectfully. A large number of people who have ever held a job can attest to this. In a democratic structure, bosses are elected by everyone working there. If the boss is treating people terribly, they can be voted out and replaced. This is incredibly important because it reduces resentment, stress, and conflict. Therefore, productivity inevitably increases, often exceeding that of conventional businesses. Data on WCs corroborates this conclusion. This is a big L for capitalist business.

The democratic structure of WCs can have a positive effect on civic engagement, and the report mentions this. Participating in the decision-making process of your workplace, learning about how to resolve disagreements, and realizing the importance of being represented in the decisions that affect your life carry over into society. Our current political culture is deteriorating. Fostering a better culture of respectful disagreement and effective conflict resolution would improve our politics.

The report effectively advocates for the development of WCs in New York City through policy and legislation as part of a long-term strategy to address income inequality. Within a few months of the release of this paper, the New York City Council granted funding to the WCBDI and other partner organizatioms such as the NYC Network for Worker Cooperatives. As a result, over 130 new WCs have been created, with more in the pipeline, thus offering needed employment and income for working people. The number of WCs in New York City has effectively grown by over 500% since 2014. In 2023, 18 WCs were created with 16 more in the pipeline for the near future. The pandemic has lowered the average yearly creation rate somewhat, but it seems to be recovering. The highest creation year was 2016, with 27 having been established.

New York City isn’t the only place supporting WCs. Madison in Wisconsin, through the Madison Cooperative Development Coalition, has been supporting WC development. Berkley’s (California) City Council unanimously voted to include co-ops in the city’s small-business loan fund, to give preference for city contracts; and to provide ongoing technical assistance to help existing small businesses convert to worker cooperatives. Minneapolis established a fund for coop creation. Cities are realizing that the WC model is effective and useful in addressing economic and social issues. The number of WCs in the United States has grown by 30% in just two years. This movement is present abroad as well, including cities like Barcelona and Montréal.

The model is evidently becoming more common, establishing itself as a strong tool to address several social issues. Rising inequality, unstable employment, economic authoritarianism, and the impending doom of business closures due to the mass retirement of the baby boomer generation, must all be addressed if we are to create a better society for ourselves and our future. It is apparent that organization and legislation helps tremendously, and New York City's efforts are a model for other cities and regions to follow as we move forward in establishing a truly democratic and free society.

If interested, the Working Together report highlights the accomplishments of the Worker Cooperative Business Development Initiative, which helps New Yorkers to build and own businesses together, and gain access to upward mobility and better working conditions.

Donate to support Worker Cooperatives in NYC!

You can support the NYC Network for Worker Cooperatives, which is involved in worker cooperative development in New York City, by donating here.

You can support the Bronx Cooperative Development Initiative, which is involved in worker cooperative development in the Bronx, by donating here.

You can support Green Worker Cooperatives, which is involved in worker cooperative development in the Bronx and NYC, by donating here.

You can support the Democracy at Work Institute, which is involved in worker cooperative development in NYC and nationwide, by donating here.

Cooperatives are businesses owned by “member-owners”. Co-ops are democratically controlled by their member-owners, and unlike a traditional business each member gets a voice in how the business is run.

Note: Cooperative is an umbrella term for several types of cooperatives, such as Consumer, Housing, Worker, or Financial. Umbrellas are useful. Soon we will need iron umbrellas to mitigate the effects of acid rain. Anyway. Learn more about each type here.

"Cooperatives are rare so they are inferior.”

Just because something is more common than the alternative, it does not mean it is superior to that alternative. Capitalist workplaces took centuries to become society’s norm of enterprise. A feature of the demise of feudalism, especially in later medieval England, was the emergence from small-scale peasant farming economies of what some have termed an intermediate stage of agrarian capitalism. Feudalistic workplaces were often the great majority, but we know that capitalist workplaces are superior to them in terms of productivity and fairness. The wikipedia page has more information on the origins of capitalism.

Time exists, and it takes time for things to grow and develop. Everything has growth and decline periods in history and this is no different. Capitalist enterprises had a growth stage of many years to overtake feudalism, and the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries established it as the dominant economic mode of production.

In the same way, cooperative enterprises are currently in their growth stage. A century ago, cooperatives and their movements were nowhere near where they are today. A majority of cooperatives were founded within the past century. Some of the largest cooperatives, such as Seikatsu Club (1965), Mondragon (1956), IFFCO (1967), and Co-op Kobe (1921), were all founded within the last hundred years or so. Today, cooperatives have upwards of 1 billion members worldwide and the largest 300 of them have a total turnover of $2.4 trillion. There are ~3 million cooperatives on earth, so this turnover is even larger when considering all cooperatives. There are more than 40,000 cooperatives of all types in the U.S., supporting jobs that provide more than $25 billion in wages. According to a University of Wisconsin study, cooperatives have an estimated 350 million members.

The UN has compiled information on the prevalence of cooperatives. It found that two-thirds of the countries listed in the top ten most cooperative economies take up 8 of the top 12 spots on the Social Progress Index, which keeps track of things like opportunity, basic human needs, and access to knowledge. New Zealand takes the #1 spot as the most cooperative economy in the world, and it is #1 on the Social Progress Index.

In the U.K., annual co-op turnover increased from $38.1 billion to $41 billion in 2023, and employee-owned businesses grew in number by a staggering 37.7% in just 12 months. Additionally, the nation's cooperative membership has seen an increase of 300,000 in 2023, and is now at over 14 million. Overall, the number of co-ops in the U.K. grew by 1.1% while other companies decreased by 1.7% compared to the year previous. Co-ops are growing in number and membership all over the world. Ownership and control over the businesses that are meant to serve its members is being increasingly seen as a viable, and superior, alternative to the undemocratic economy in the United Kingdom.

Focusing specifically on worker cooperatives, the first legislation explicitly naming worker-owned cooperatives—the Main Street Employee Ownership Act—became United States federal law in 2018. Before then, legislation covering worker coops was rare or non-existent. Since 2018, worker coop provisions have been passed, and progress is being made. When someone says "create a worker coop, no one is stopping you", it is based in ignorance. Most people do not have the capital to start a business. There are barriers in the creation of worker coops, including a substantial lack of legislation and incentives. The U.S. does not have a uniform cooperative code, which makes the creation of a worker cooperative require extensive research in advance. Banks are more wary to give out loans and investors prefer the model that creates the most wealth for themselves. In Italy, the Marcora law, which passed in 1985, created funding for cooperative development. As a result, Italy has one of the strongest cooperative economies on earth, and the Emilia-Romagna region in Italy receives 30% of its GDP from cooperatives.

Because of an increase in funding cooperative organizations in NYC, more worker cooperatives are being created. In 2023, 18 worker coops were created in NYC (with 16 more in the pipeline), and the movement continues to move forward in founding these enterprises to help address inequality and poverty. WCBDI funding from the NY City Council has grown from $1.2 million to over $3 million in 2020, showcasing the positive results and increase in support over time. The number of worker cooperatives in New York has effectively grown by over 500% since 2014, and the number of worker cooperatives in the U.S. grew at least 30% in a two year period between 2018-2021.

Agricultural cooperatives in the U.S. hit record income and asset levels in 2022, showcasing their growth and strength.

The number of cooperatives in places like NYC, the UK, and Italy continues to see growth. This showcases the importance of legislation and education in establishing cooperatives. This is a process that has been gaining steam in parallel to growing inequality that must be addressed through a more humanized economy. There is an intrinsic need for the cooperative model that will only grow stronger as long as the profits over people form of economy continues to affect people's lives and livelihoods.

This explains several of the barriers to entry of worker cooperatives. The dominant culture of capitalistic workplaces and competition, along with a substantial lack of education on the model, contribute to its rarity. This is not talked about in most schools. In short, saying "OwO just make a coop fr" is something a person who skimmed an econ 101 textbook would say.

With that said, looking at the empirical data on cooperatives shows that they are indeed comparable to traditional businesses, and often exceed them in factors such as resilience, productivity, meeting of human needs, equitable wage distribution, and worker satisfaction.

"Worker democracy does not work.”

Many democratic workplaces exist today. They employ millions of workers. Worker cooperatives have resilience rates upwards of 30-40% higher when compared to traditional workplaces. A traditional enterprise has a survival rate of about 45-50% in the first five years of existence, while worker cooperatives stand at around 70-90%, depending on the study you look into. Productivity levels can match or even exceed that of traditional businesses, and worker satisfaction seems to be higher as well. Here is a collection of existing literature on worker cooperatives. There is very little, if any, evidence to suggest the worker cooperative model is unviable.

Not only does it work, but the number of democratic workplaces is growing year on year. "b-b-b-but they're inefficient 😭", they say as they present zero evidence.

“They are inefficient. You need hierarchy.”

Cooperatives are pretty efficient, and they can and do have hierarchies. Members elect managers and boards to centralize certain decision-making powers and increase efficiency. Mondragon, the largest worker cooperative, has a system of managers and bosses. The difference between this kind of hierarchy and that of traditional enterprises is that you can vote out the manager/board if they are abusing their powers, treating members unfairly, or simply not doing a good job. You cannot do this in a traditional enterprise. Many employees have to deal with terrible managers and do what they are told because if they don’t, they will be fired. This often contributes to a feeling of resentment and powerlessness in many workplaces, which affects worker satisfaction, career development, mental health, and productivity. The impact of bad bosses are measured, and if we want to have a productive workforce, we need to be able to elect our leaders. We already do politically. Economic democracy is the next logical step to a freer, more equitable society.

If anything, traditional workplaces are the more inefficient model. Having angry, frustrated, and resentful workers due to bad bosses can have substantial effects on worker productivity and health. In contrast, a democratic enterprise where everyone has a say in who leads them will be less likely to face such issues. The existing literature says that efficiency is not a problem when it comes to worker cooperatives. If they were so inefficient, why do they have a significantly lower failure rate than traditional firms?

“The Free Rider Problem debunks worker democracy.”

The Free Rider Problem states that an individual would choose to slack off work because they can still reap the rewards of the other working members of the cooperative. On paper, this seems like a legitimate concern, but in reality, there is no empirical data to suggest it has any substantial effect on cooperatives. Studies on forms of worker ownership have shown to largely mitigate free riding among employees. Workers are keener to monitor their co-workers, increasing productivity in comparison to firms with lower or no ownership. This makes logical sense because a worker who has more of a stake in the business will tend to be more attentive due to natural self-interest.

In fact, you could equally apply this concern toward traditional workplaces that have fixed wages and don’t offer bonuses for working harder. There is less incentive to be more productive outside of potential promotions, commissions, or tips, which many places have small or no opportunities for, so workers could slack off. Why would you work harder just to enrich the owner? You can just do the bare minimum and still be paid the same. Profits don’t go to workers, they go to the owners. If you put in $200 more in work today than yesterday, you don’t get that $200, your boss does.

One could easily apply the Free Rider Problem to owners themselves. An owner could self-elect to slack off, yet still benefit from the labour of workers. There are many examples of owners and investors who squeezed businesses out of as much profits as possible instead of working to improve, invest, and expand the business, taking the money and leaving their employees without income and communities without jobs.

In contrast, in a cooperative enterprise, you benefit directly from working harder. Since the profits are distributed back to the workers, the harder you work, the more money goes into your pocket. There is a greater incentive to be more productive because you directly benefit, and you also have a stake in the business. This is evident in the data on productivity, which seems to match that of traditional firms, or outright surpass it substantially.

Slacking off could damage profits of your business, causing your wages to lower, or even put at risk the existence of the enterprise as a whole. Why would you put your own employment and income at risk? People are self-interested so they likely would not lower their own pay or put their employment at risk by slacking off. The most prevalent reason why we go to work is to make money, after all.

“I saw a cooperative or two fail, so that must mean they suck."

A sample size that small is inadequate in determining anything substantial about their viability. One could easily say they saw a capitalist workplace fail. In fact, conventional enterprises have a higher failure rate. The resilience of cooperatives are empirically higher than that of capitalist enterprises, both in and out of recessions. The resilience of the cooperative model is apparent during the pandemic. 4 reasons co-ops do better in a crisis. Cooperatives manage well during bank crises and economic recessions.

"If you distributed the pay of [insert rich business owner/board] to all the workers, it would only raise their wages by a few dollars per year."

This is a particularly interesting argument as it assumes the only possible way to use that money is to pay the workers. It is perfectly possible for this money to go into worker healthcare, to build schools and parks in the community, or to improve working conditions. Things that would effectively lower costs for and give benefit to workers. There are many ways to utilise the potential millions coming from the top earners within a business to help the workers.

Walmart, one of the largest and most successful companies worldwide, had a net income of $13.51 billion in 2021. This is the figure after subtracting expenses and taxes from revenue. If that was equally distributed to Walmart's 2.1 million employees, they'd each receive about $64. This isn't that high. But wait, there's more. We have to remember that worker cooperatives have much more equitable wage structures, so if Walmart transitioned into a coop, the wage structure would compress, raising wages for the lowest-paid workers. If we go with the average U.S. wage ratio of 2:1 between the highest and lowest paid workers, worker pay could actually increase by hundreds per year. This would be very helpful for the large number of Walmart employees who are not being paid a living wage and are on food stamps. But wait, there's more. Worker cooperatives are collectively owned by their workers, so Walmart's employees would each have an equal share of Walmart's assets and shares, which are in the billions.

The argument defends the existence of an extreme form of unequal wealth distribution, a primary driver in worsening inequality worldwide. 8 people have as much wealth as the bottom half of humanity. There is no logical way to defend this except for ignorance, and quite possibly, bootlicking. One family making $4 million per hour while their workers make $14 is is not excusable, nor is it sustainable. Not only is this distribution deeply immoral, but it also contributes to economic stagnation. Our for-profit system incentivizes paying lower wages as that is an expense. When workers are being paid subsistence wages, they will have less spending power. Aggregate demand within the economy will decrease. As a result, businesses will make less, leading to layoffs and closures. Enter yet another recession.

"Profit is necessary to provide things and pay people."

No, it is not. Enterprises can operate at cost and do not need to pursue profit. Electric co-ops operate at cost, providing affordable power for 50% of the U.S. landmass and millions of people. They set their rates based on the operational costs, including generating/purchasing of power and worker pay. Non-profit organizations exist, such as Credit Unions or consumer cooperatives. Profit is not necessary to meet community needs.

Tankie Argument: "Workers are not capable of running a business, which is why we need vanguard parties and officials to make the decisions."

Democratic workplaces exist and work in reality. Authoritarianism ain't cool, bro.

Somehow an Argument: "Democracy doesn't work."

Democracy is not perfect, but it is the best way we've found to organize decision-making in society. "Tyranny of the majority" is often said, but is tyranny of the minority any better? How many democratic states have voted with a 50%+1 majority to commit genocide? Compare that to the undemocratic, fascist, and authoritarian states which have committed genocides and mass killings. Democratic rule decreases the likelihood of violating human rights, empirically. An in-depth paper concluded that democracy advances human development, but only when considered as a historical phenomenon. In essence, a democratic regime which is maintained over a longer period will tend to have a positive net effect on the welfare of its citizens.

Democide refers to "the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command." Rudolph Rummel, a political scientist, coined the word democide and, through his years of study, found that democratic regimes had the lowest rates of democide. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimated that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle. One of his main findings was that democracies have much less democide than authoritarian regimes.

Democracy might not work in always making decisions that you agree with, but it does increase human rights protections and representation for the most people possible and therefore works for the greatest number of people. Considering how humans are social creatures by nature, having democratic processes within society that enables indviduals to talk with others about policies contributes to our sense of self in relation to the society we live in. Learning how to effectively participate in democratic decision-making helps us grow into better people.

Inspired by true conversations

The Seikatsu Club cooperative is a remarkable organization that has made significant contributions to communities in Japan. Known as the Seikatsu Club Consumers' Cooperative Union, it was established in 1965 as a response to the growing demand for safe and affordable food products. Since its inception, the cooperative has grown into one of the largest consumer cooperatives in Japan, with a membership base of over 300,000 members, a majority being women. Its annual retail sales awere over $700 million (87 billion yen) by 2017.

Seikatsu Club operates through a decentralized network of local branches, with each branch functioning as an autonomous cooperative. Members actively participate in the decision-making process, including product selection, pricing, and the establishment of cooperative policies. This democratic structure ensures that the interests and needs of the members are prioritized, fostering a sense of ownership and empowerment. In contrast, capitalistic enterprises are controlled by only a small group of people at the top who make decisions, often ignoring the needs of employees and the community.

At its core, the Seikatsu Club cooperative aims to provide its members with access to high-quality, locally sourced, and organic food products at reasonable prices. The cooperative operates on a direct-to-consumer model, cutting out middlemen and ensuring fair prices for both producers and consumers. Pre-orders for products are placed by consumers through a collective purchase system. This system allows farmers and producers to plan in advance, ensuring that overproduction is cut to a minimum and guaranteeing that everyone receives the fresh products they need. By eliminating unnecessary distribution expenses, Seikatsu Club is able to offer products that are often cheaper than those found in conventional retail stores. When a capitalist talks about efficiency, they are not referring to cutting expenses for consumers or reducing waste. They are talking about how quickly the money jumps into the pockets of a small group of owners. The 8 richest people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion. This must be addressed through a more human-based economy.

One of the key benefits of the Seikatsu Club cooperative is its commitment to supporting local farmers and producers. By establishing direct relationships with these suppliers, the cooperative ensures fair compensation for their products and encourages sustainable farming practices. Transparency is an important value that allows consumers to know exactly what they are purchasing and eating. There is much emphasis on direct contact between consumers and producers. Consumers regularly visit farms and observe production methods, or to even help out. This not only helps to strengthen local economies but also promotes environmentally friendly agriculture.

Seikatsu Club prioritizes the empowerment of women within its organization and the wider community. In Japan, women have historically faced challenges in terms of employment opportunities and gender equality. The cooperative model embraced by Seikatsu Club provides a platform for women to actively participate in decision-making processes and take on leadership roles. This has been instrumental in promoting gender equality and fostering a sense of agency among women.

The cooperative began in 1965 when one housewife in Tokyo organized 200 women to purchase 300 milk bottles to reduce the price. In 1968, Seikatsu Club was incorporated as Seikatsu Club Consumers’ Cooperative (SCCC). Since then, the cooperative has expanded itself to include activities in politics, social services, environment, disposal, production, and distribution under the motto “autonomous control of our lives”. A century earlier, as imperialism and the global economy clawed its way into Japan, the subjugation of Japan through exploitative trade deals imposed by western powers made the nation semi-dependent in the global system. Cooperatives rose out of this reality as a strategy to lower prices and reject the mass-produced food of the industrialized west which was often unhealthy and contained chemicals. There was a health crisis in Japan during this period, but consumer cooperatives addressed this societal problem head on.

Seikatsu Club goes beyond its core mission of providing quality food products. It actively engages in various social and environmental initiatives, including advocating for fair trade, supporting renewable energy projects, and promoting waste reduction and recycling. SCCC has helped to reduce CO2 emissions by using reusable and returnable items such as containers and bottles. About 4,300 tons of containers and bottles were retrieved in 2017, reducing approximately 2,400 tons of CO2. It supports the installation of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. These efforts demonstrate the cooperative's commitment to holistic community development and its recognition of the interconnectedness between social, economic, and environmental issues.

Not only does Seikatsu Club participate in environmental activities, but it also provides long-term nursing and childcare programs rooted locally, serving people who need it most. Hundreds of worker cooperatives were created by the Club since the 1980s, creating tens of thousands of resilient jobs. In 2018, there were 100 members in local municipal government positions, showcasing the growing reach of the cooperative’s ideas and its popularity.

The success of the Seikatsu Club cooperative lies in its ability to showcase the cooperative model as a viable alternative to traditional business structures. By prioritizing the needs and aspirations of its members over profit, the cooperative demonstrates that it is possible to create an inclusive and sustainable economy. Through its emphasis on democratic decision-making, equitable distribution of resources, and community engagement, Seikatsu Club serves as a living example of how cooperatives can address societal challenges and foster a sense of solidarity among its members.

The Seikatsu Club cooperative has a rich history of promoting access to safe and affordable food, supporting local producers, empowering women, and championing sustainable practices. Its commitment to the cooperative model and its holistic approach to community development make it a shining example of how cooperatives can create positive change in society. By prioritizing the well-being of its members and the broader community, Seikatsu Club has not only transformed the way people consume but also contributed to the empowerment and resilience of communities in Japan.

https://seikatsuclub.coop/en/about.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikatsu_Club_Consumers%27_Co-operative_Union

https://rightlivelihood.org/the-change-makers/find-a-laureate/seikatsu-club-consumers-cooperative/

https://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Economy-Co-operatives-Age-Capital/dp/086571651X

Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited, also known as IFFCO, is a multi-state cooperative society engaged in the manufacture and marketing of fertilizers. IFFCO is headquartered in New Delhi, India. Started in 1967 with 57 member cooperatives, it is today the biggest co-operative in the world by turnover on GDP per capita (as per World Cooperative Monitor 2021), with around 35,000 member cooperatives reaching over 50 million Indian farmers.

Co-op Kobe (Japanese: コープこうべ), officially known as Consumer Co-operative Kobe, is a consumers' cooperative based in Kobe, Japan. It was founded in 1921 by Toyohiko Kagawa, and was later merged with Nada Consumer Co-operative. Now, with over 1.2 million members, it is the largest consumers' cooperative in the world.

The Seikatsu Club Consumers’ Co-operative Union (SCCCU; Japanese: 生活クラブ事業連合生活協同組合連合会, romanized: Seikatsu kurabu jigyō rengō Seikatsukyōdōkumiai rengō-kai) is a Japanese federation of consumer co-operatives headquartered in Tokyo. It was formed in 1965 and has 307,000 members, most of whom are women.

Amul is an acronym (Anand Milk Union Limited) of the Indian Multinational cooperative society named Gujarat Milk Marketing Federation based in Anand, Gujarat. It is under the ownership of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, Department of Cooperation, Government of Gujarat. It is controlled by 3.6 million milk producers.

Coop amba, formerly FDB, is a cooperative based in Denmark. The coop has 1.9 million members and three subsidiaries. The Coop Danmark subsidiary operates the retail store chains of Kvickly, Brugsen, SuperBrugsen, Dagli'Brugsen and 365discount as well as the furniture company FDB Møbler. They previously ran the now discontinued chains Irma, Fakta & LokalBrugsen. The last two subsidiaries comprise Coop Bank and Coop Invest.

The Edeka Group is the largest German supermarket corporation as of 2017, holding a market share of 20.3% Founded in 1907, it currently consists of several co-operatives of independent supermarkets, all operating under the umbrella organisation Edeka Zentrale AG & Co KG, with headquarters in Hamburg. There are approximately 4,100 stores with the Edeka nameplate, ranging from small corner stores to hypermarkets. On 16 November 2007, Edeka reached an agreement with Tengelmann to purchase a 70% majority stake in Tengelmann's Plus discounter store division, which was then merged into Edeka's Netto brand, resulting in around 4,200 stores by 2018. Across all brands, the company operated a total of 13,646 stores at the end of 2017.

Coop is a system of Italian consumers' cooperatives which operates one of the largest supermarket chains in Italy. Its headquarters are located in Casalecchio di Reno, Province of Bologna.

Dairygold Co-Operative Society Limited is an Irish dairy co-operative based in Mitchelstown, County Cork, Ireland. With its catchment area mostly in the Golden Vale, Dairygold processes an annual volume of approximately 1.43 billion liters of grass fed pastureland milk, making it Ireland's second largest dairy co-operative and the island's third largest milk supplier. Formed after the 1989 merger of the Mitchelstown and Ballyclough co-ops, by 2020 it had 7000 shareholder members and reported an operating profit of €26 million from a turnover of €1.02 billion.

Ornua, from the Irish "Ór Nua" meaning "new gold" (known as The Irish Dairy Board from 1961 until 2015), is an Irish agricultural cooperative, which markets and sells dairy products on behalf of its members: Irish dairy processors and Irish dairy farmers. The co-operative is Ireland’s largest exporter of Irish dairy products and owns the Kerrygold butter and cheese brand as well as Kerrygold Irish Cream Liqueur. In addition to the Kerrygold brand, its brand portfolio includes Pilgrims Choice, Dubliner, Shannongold, and BEO milk powder.

PSS Społem is a Polish consumers' co-operative of local grocery stores founded in 1868. It has 2,400 locations.

Arla Foods is a Danish-Swedish multinational cooperative based in Viby, Denmark. It is the fifth biggest dairy company in the world and the largest producer of dairy products in Scandinavia and United Kingdom.

The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. It is the seventh-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country.

Sunkist Growers, Incorporated is an American citrus growers' non-stock membership cooperative composed of 6,000 members from California and Arizona headquartered in Valencia, California. Through 31 offices in the United States and Canada and four offices outside North America, its sales in 1991 totaled $956 million. It is the largest fresh produce shipper in the United States, the most diversified citrus processing and marketing operation in the world, and one of California's largest landowners.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives

A collection of sources and data surrounding the Worker Cooperative (WC) model, which is founded upon worker ownership and democratic control. (91)

• WCs are significantly more resilient than conventional firms, especially during economic crises
• WCs have significantly greater job stability than conventional firms, especially during economic crises
• Regions with high concentrations of WCs tend to have lower unemployment rates than national averages
• Free riding and shirking tend to be mitigated in WCs due to internal structures and incentives
• On average, WCs employ more people than conventional firms, challenging the perception that they are small
• WCs are present in most industries, indicating their viability beyond specific sectors
• WCs align interests to their communities, often offering discounts or resources to meet community needs
• The compressed wage structures and collective ownership of WCs lead to a higher median wage compared to similarly sized conventional firms
• Compressed wage structures may contribute to a brain drain of highly skilled workers as they search for higher pay elsewhere
• Although, there is evidence that skilled workers are less likely to leave WCs than conventional firms
• When including surplus dividends and bonuses, workers may receive competitive or higher pay than locally prevalent
• Compressed wage structures form more equitable wage distributions, reducing inequality and decreasing the need for additional wealth redistribution policies
• Wage ratios between the highest and lowest paid worker-member is ~5:1 in Mondragon (largest WC), and ~2:1 for U.S. WCs, which is in stark contrast to the largest conventional businesses that have ratios ranging from 200:1 to 600:1
• WCs appear to match or exceed productivity levels of conventional firms, dependent on the sector
• Profit-sharing is associated with higher productivity, sometimes to significant levels
• Strikes are less common in WCs than in conventional firms, limiting losses in productivity
• Worker input in WCs can enhance organizational efficiency compared to traditional workplaces
• Worker satisfaction and wellbeing appear to be higher in WCs than in similar conventional firms
• WCs feature less managerial supervision compared to conventional businesses
• Workers are capable of self-management and self-monitoring, increasing cost efficiencies
• Worker participation may be linked to higher civic participation in society as a spillover effect
• When WCs fail, it is often due to outside factors, while internal factors such as worker conflicts that lead to failure are relatively uncommon
• Cooperative leagues and organizations enhance WC benefits and help mitigate startup costs, innovation limitations, and brain drain
• France, Italy, and Spain are nations with well-established and successful WC sectors thanks to legislation and incentives
• Economic recessions and downturns boost WC creation rates significantly
• Data on the viability of WCs concluded that their scarcity in the U.S. was due to obstacles to their creation, not to their survival
• Lack of education, investment, loan opportunities, and the dominant culture of traditional enterprises play a role in this scarcity, among other factors
• Some banks will not loan to WCs (or are more reluctant to), and some lack knowledge on the model, which affect creation rates
• Presence of Credit Unions (cooperative banks) can help to mitigate lack of access to capital for WCs
• Democracy at work is correlated to higher productivity, increased job satisfaction, greater sustainability, less inequality, greater innovation, and lower unemployment
• Worker-owned businesses seem to match or exceed conventional firms in categories such as productivity, profitability, pay, employment stability, and resiliency
• Italy's Marcora Law that supports worker buyouts of failed businesses into WCs is widely successful, generating $576 million in tax revenue within an eight year period
• Emilia-Romagna, one of the densest worker cooperative regions in the world, is also one of the most prosperous and socially cohesive regions in the world and boasts some of the lowest unemployment rates in all of Europe
• Spain's Basque region managed to weather the 2008 recession much better than the rest of Spain, having an unemployment rate that was close to half of the national average throughout
• Firm conversion is one of the most effective ways to create WCs, mitigating severity of limitations such as startup costs and lack of investment avenues
• Firm conversions into WCs can address the wave of mass retirement of baby boomer business owners (silver tsunami)
• The number of WCs in the U.S. has effectively doubled since 2008, and countries like Spain, Argentina, and Italy have seen increases in a similar period

Cooperatives are often created during times of disillusionment with capitalism and unemployment. Democratically controlled firms have lower hazard ratios and survive better in market economies than regular capitalist firms during a five-year period. Worker participation, profit sharing, and ownership is generally positively correlated with productivity. Incentives for working harder due to the profit sharing aspect are strengthened.

Studies of worker cooperatives in a variety of national settings indicate their failure rate is lower than conventional firms at least in the short and medium term. The implication of this research is that theories explaining the rarity of WCs by assuming they must suffer from some inefficiency should be discounted.

This study examines data on French producer cooperatives for the years 1970-79 to test the widely accepted theoretical prediction that employee-owned firms either will fail as commercial undertakings or degenerate into capitalist firms as the proportion of hired workers who are not members of the cooperative firm increases. Contrary to this prediction, the authors find a high rate of survival among the producer cooperatives studied, with many cooperatives still healthy after fifty years of operation, and they find no evidence of degeneration. Between 1970 and 1977, only four cooperatives failed.

Examines business conversions into worker cooperatives in France and finds that they exhibit a three-year survival rate of 80%-90%, which surpasses the overall survival rate of 66% for all French enterprises. They were found to have significantly lower bankruptcy rates and displayed superior resilience in the beginning of the 2008 recession.

In Italy, worker-owned cooperatives that have been established by workers purchasing a business facing closure or being put up for sale exhibit a 3-year survival rate of 87%, which stands in stark contrast to the 48% survival rate of all Italian businesses. The majority were the result of workers’ buyouts.

Over 400 ERTs (empresas recuperadas por sus trabajadores) have existed at some point in Argentina between the early 1990s to the first months of 2016. Showing a survival rate of almost 90 percent, only 43 firms that became fully operational as ERT worker cooperatives had closed as of the first quarter of 2016. Of the ~330 ERTs active in the 2010 to 2013 period, only three shut down in the 2014 to 2015 period (a 99% rate of survival). Major factors for ERT closures include: inheriting difficult micro-economic circumstances, successful evictions, auctioning of a firm’s assets by bankruptcy courts, and sundry legal or market difficulties. Just one ERT firm was found to have closed due to internal worker conflicts.

Mondragon displays a long-term resiliency and therefore refutes the claim that worker cooperatives cannot be contained for long. Of the 103 cooperatives created from 1956 to 1986, only three were shut down, and they were small firms involving relatively few workers. This survival rate of 97% over three decades is in stark contrast to US businesses which have around a 20% survival rate in a 5-year period.

In Italy, France, and the UK (and probably also other countries) it is not uncommon for worker cooperatives to survive for well over a century. The evidence clearly implies that worker co-operatives preserve jobs better in deteriorating market conditions when other firms are more likely to cut jobs. Recessions tend to boost worker co-operative creation as workers pursue alternatives to mitigate the unpredictable boom and bust cycles of the market system.

This report provides comprehensive data on worker buyouts of manufacturing firms into cooperatives in Italy. From 1985 to 1991, the 6-year survival rate of these enterprises was 96.3%, with a 10-year survival rate of 88.89%. This compares to the 62.7% 5-year survival rate of all manufacturing businesses. Other cohorts were also measured to have high survival rates. Between 2010-2014, WBO creation outpaced the net creation of new firms in manufacturing sector “employer enterprises” in the OECD countries and in Italy by several percentage points, while also falling well under the average dissolution rates of manufacturing firms in OECD countries, including Italy.

The paper explores the pattern of early closure risks for worker cooperatives and whether this pattern involves a “liability of newness” or a “liability of adolescence”. It found that after four years of their creation (i.e. in the fifth year following creation) nearly 75% of the SCOPS (WCs) were still surviving, whereas the proportion was under 60% for French firms overall.

After examining all businesses in Uruguay from 1997 to 2009, it was found that worker-managed firms have a 29% reduced likelihood of closure when considering factors such as industry. The higher survival rates of worker-managed firms seem to be associated with their greater employment stability.

Report shows that worker co-ops have a higher than average success rate. Those that are 6-10 years old have a 25.6% success rate while those over 26 years old have a 14.7% success rate. By comparison, US small businesses that are 6-10 years old have an 18.7% success rate while those older than 26 years have an 11.9% success rate. Notably, the report reveals that female workers and workers of colour make up the majority of the workforce in worker co-ops.

The Regional Union of SCOP in France has placed corporate takeover and recovery by employees (CTRE) at the heart of its development policy since 2006. There are 106 CTRE projects in all, which have saved 1,186 jobs with a survival rate of nearly 70% after five years, compared with 50% for traditional private businesses.

Employee-owned companies are often more productive, profitable, and successful at creating jobs than other firms. It was found that of worker buyouts of failing conventional firms between 1971 and 1984, 80% survived by the end of 1984. Factors such as employee participation and work culture play a role in the success of worker-owned businesses.

This study uses data on all U.S. public companies as of 1988, following them through 2001 to examine how employee ownership is related to survival. Estimations show that companies with employee ownership stakes of 5% or more were only 76% as likely as firms without employee ownership to disappear in this period, compared both to all other public companies and to a closely matched sample without employee ownership. These results indicate that employee ownership may have an important role to play in increasing job and income security, and decreasing levels of unemployment.

Existing research does not support the proposition that worker cooperatives, once formed, are at a competitive disadvantage to conventional firms. In 2013, WAGES had created five green housecleaning businesses, providing high-quality employment to over 100 women and generating $3.2 million per year. All five of the co-ops experienced steady growth even during the financial downturn, despite the fact that the national small business failure rate increased by 40 percent during the 2009-2011 period.

Compares worker cooperatives and conventional enterprises surrounding the 2008 recession. Finds that the number of cooperatives’ growth rate seemed to recover at a faster pace and that they are more resilient. In France in 2008, worker-owned cooperatives saw a 4.2% workforce increase while conventional firms saw a 0.7% decline. Between 2006-2011, France saw a negative growth rate of the number of cooperatives in 2009 only, and it was just -0.06%.

The paper analyzes the available quantitative information on worker-owned and capitalist firms in a few industrialized countries in an attempt to draw a comparative profile of their respective sectors. It found that worker-owned firms have a significant lower hazard rate than conventional ones at all recorded yearly points. The worker-owned firm sectors analyzed grew remarkably since the 1970s. In the same period, conventional firms grew slowly or even declined.

Following the 2008 recession, cooperatives had survival rates similar to or better than mainstream businesses. In Spain, the number of worker cooperatives decreased by 2.5%, whereas the number of mainstream businesses decreased by nearly 15%. Co-op survival rates exceeded that of other businesses by 77% compared to 65%. Employment in worker cooperatives was reduced by 6.4% vs 11.9% in mainstream businesses.

In countries where there are strong worker cooperatives, these have tended to increase in number during recessions, both as new start-ups and takeovers of ailing businesses. The worker co-operative sector in France grew by more than 263 cooperatives in 2013 (an increase of 17% since 2009). In addition, the level of indebtedness of worker co-ops was lower than that of comparable enterprises, and the job losses were less significant. In the United States, in the decade after the 2008 financial crisis, the sheer number of worker-owned cooperatives almost doubled.

During the pandemic, worker co-ops prioritized supporting their community & other cooperatives. While all types of small businesses suffered during the pandemic, only 20% of worker cooperatives surveyed lost over half of their revenue, compared to 28% of all small businesses who lost over half of their revenue in 2021.

Pandemic crash shows worker co-ops are more resilient than traditional business. Worker-owners are able to share the burden during a downturn and redirect their skills toward emerging needs. Some co-ops cooperate to help one another through crises.

Worker cooperatives are more likely to keep jobs secure rather than be laid off. Reporting worker co-ops were more likely to redistribute business funds to pay workers, reduce wages, or temporarily furlough wages rather than lay off workers.

Worker co-ops are larger than conventional firms and they survive at least as long. They have more stable employment due to dropping wages rather than reducing workforce during downturns. When a downturn ends, they make up for lost pay as profits are shared. They are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working "better and smarter" and production organised more efficiently, and they retain a larger share of their profits than other business models.

This work aims at a critical assessment of the survival potential of the Associated Labor Cooperatives (Cooperativas de Trabajo Asociado-CTA) in Columbia. It finds that there is a strong relation between the worker and the company, that there is more intense effort at work and therefore productivity, and that there is stable employment and permanence in workers. It is observed that CTAs present slightly higher survival rates.

Examines worker participation and productivity levels in French cooperatives (SCOPs). Corporate productivity was found to be generally positively associated with worker participation. Cooperatives, at the very minimum, seem to be technically efficient, more so than their capitalist couterparts. Productivity enhancement is more pronounced in cooperatives transformed from other enterprise types than those created from scratch. Productivity effects from participation is typically around 5%, though it varies between -2% to 26%. Once established, cooperatives survive at least as long as their capitalist counterparts.

Solid, consistent evidence across countries, systems, and time periods shows that worker cooperatives are at least as productive as conventional firms, and more productive in some areas. The more participatory cooperatives are, the more productive they tend to be. They are more resilient in job preservation and firm survival in part due to flexibility in wage structures, and therefore more adaptable to price shocks.

An analysis of empirical economic literature on SCOPS (WCs), and compares them to other French firms. SCOPs are distributed across a wide range of industries; are larger than conventional firms, as capital intensive, more productive and survive better. Despite this good performance their number remains modest, perhaps because of information barriers.

Investigates productivity in the plywood industry. It found that worker co-ops seem to be more efficient than conventional firms by between 6 to 14 percent, and that worker participation does not have any significant efficiency losses. When workers share similar values, disputes within the producing unit are less likely to occur, monitoring costs tend to be lower, and social sanctions are probably more effective in deterring malfeasance.

Giving workers a stake and a voice promotes business success as studies demonstrate. A survey on California worker cooperative workers found that the majority agree or strongly agree that being in a cooperative business enhances productivity of the business. A Democracy at Work survey found that worker cooperatives across all industries had an average profit margin that was almost 8.5% higher than the average for private firms (6.4% vs. 5.9%). Employee turnover seems to be substantially lower than industry peers.

This meta-analysis examines the relationship between group-based profit sharing and productivity. Profit sharing is positively related to productivity on average, with a stronger relationship where there is higher unionisation and in countries where honesty is less highly valued and there are higher levels of individualism. The positive effect of profit sharing on productivity is larger in cooperative firms and in transition economies.

Given consistent evidence of its social benefits but questions about its market viability, this paper examines the conditions under which workplace democracy can be under-stood as a “real utopia”; a viable form of organization that is both economically productive and socially welfare enhancing. It argues that democratic firms operate more productively in knowledge intensive industries and that they are likely to limit mechanisms of inequality. These hypotheses are tested with longitudinal linked employer-employee data from French cooperatives and conventional firms.

In several experiments, compared to traditional firms, subjects in employee-owned firms exhibited higher productivity, perceived greater fairness in the pay they received and the method used to pay them, reported higher levels of involvement in their tasks, had more positive evaluations of their supervisors, and showed a greater propensity to interact with and provide assistance to their co-workers.

This experiment confirms that worker performance is sensitive to the process used to select the compensation contract. Groups of workers that voted to determine their compensation scheme provided significantly more effort than groups that had no say in how they would be compensated. Despite the dampening elements of the design, it remains estimated that output increased by approximately one unit which compared to the mean constitutes an increase in effort of 7% and an increase in effective effort of 9%.

This paper measures the productivity impact of shop-floor employee involvement. On the basis of a representative German establishment data set, the study finds that the introduction of teamwork and autonomous work groups, and a reduction of hierarchies in 1996/1997 significantly increased average establishment productivity in 1997–2000. It significantly increased the average total factor productivity of establishments in Germany by 28% in 1997–2000.

This paper presents econometric estimates of productivity of various forms of worker participation. The overall effect is found to be positive. The positive effects are found most uniformly with respect to profit sharing and, to a slightly lesser extent, individual capital (share) ownership and participation in decision-making by workers.

The empirical literature has shown that labor-managed firms are similarly or more productive than conventional firms. This suggests that theoretical objections to the labor-managed firm based on collective choice problems or inefficiencies in firm production are at least insufficient in explaining the observed rarity of labor-managed firms. Further empirical observations of firm survival and exit rate also suggest that labor-managed firms do not die or get converted into conventional firms at high rates.

A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership.

A comparative analysis of labor-managed cooperatives and private firms in the Italian regions of Emilia-Romagna and Toscana. The cooperatives have higher productivity, more labor-intensive production methods, lower income differentials, and a more tranquil industrial relations environment than private firms. Both value added per head and value added per hour were about one third higher in the cooperative firms than in the private firms. Co-ops and private firms experienced falling employment levels between 1981 and 1984, but whereas the cooperatives managed to maintain and then increase employment toward the end of the period, in the private firms job losses continued throughout. No evidence was found for free-riding affecting efficiency, even with the lesser reliance on managers, and skilled workers were found to be less likely to leave compared to private firms. The co-ops were found to have few or no strikes while private firms had substantial amounts.

A meta-analysis of 102 samples representing 56,984 firms aimed at studying the effects of employee ownership on productivity. The analysis found that Employee ownership has a small, but positive and statistically significant relation to firm performance.

Investigates the relationship between efficiency and cooperativism, finding that there was a positive relationship ie efficiency is marginally increased. Threats to efficiency such as shirking or high transaction costs are mitigatable by common principles fostering consensus and a participatory environment.

43 studies (meta-analysis) comparing various forms of worker participation in business. Worker ownership, worker participation, and profit sharing found to be positively associated with productivity. All the observed correlations are stronger among labor-managed firms (firms owned and controlled by workers) than among participatory capitalist firms (firms adopting one or more participation schemes involving employees, such as ESOPs or quality circles).

Examines practical experience and empirical evidence of democratic workplaces in the form of worker cooperatives. The evidence shows that cooperatives operate with levels of economic efficiency that are comparable, if not superior, to normal capitalist firms. They are viable economic organizations. Moreover, they are socially superior in certain ways. There are, however, a number of important obstacles that keep co-ops rare, which will need to be overcome to enact any transition to an economy with widespread workplace democracy.

The paper compares the productivity of labour-managed and conventional firms using two new panel data sets covering several thousand firms from France, including representative samples of conventional firms and all worker cooperatives with 20 employees or more in manufacturing and services. It finds worker cooperatives to be as productive or possibly more productive overall than conventional firms in most industries. These findings suggest that the way in which worker cooperatives organise production is probably more productive overall than conventional firms.

New research suggests the fast-growing UK employee ownership sector is markedly outperforming the UK’s national productivity trend whilst simultaneously contributing to employee wellbeing, fair pay, community resilience and commitment to net zero. A survey of UK businesses found that employee-owned businesses are 8-12% more productive based on Gross Value Added (GVA) per employee. They tend to pay higher minimum annual wage, among several other positives.

The relationship between productivity and profit sharing is examined using a panel dataset drawn from 2,976 publicly-held companies over the 1971-85 period. Alternatively using firm-intercept and first-difference specifications, the regression results indicate that the adoption of profit sharing is associated with a 2.5-4.2 percent increase in productivity. In addition, the size of the effect increases with the proportion of employees participating in profit sharing.

This paper measures the comparative behaviour of worker cooperatives (WCs) and capitalist firms (CFs) in regards to wages and employment responses in Uruguay. The 2002 crisis negatively affected both wages and employment, although the employment adjustment was larger in CFs than in WCs. CFs would produce a socially inefficient level of lay-offs due to their inability to establish credible commitments between owners and workers. By contrast, because of their unique control structure, WCs would have more egalitarian adjustment mechanisms at their disposal.

Examines two possible ways that worker cooperatives guarantee employment insurance: letting wages fluctuate, and accumulating reinvested profits into an income stabilization fund that copes with recessions without having to lay off workers or reduce wages. There is evidence that worker cooperatives provide a greater stabilization of employment compared to capital-managed firms.

Studies the effect of employee ownership on company culture and function. The analysis of the data set finds that shared ownership forms of pay are associated with high-trust supervision, participation in decisions, and information sharing, and with a variety of positive perceptions of company culture. It is also associated with lower voluntary turnover and higher return on equity.

In mature worker cooperatives supported by WAGES, members’ family incomes increased by 70-80% on average, and many have health insurance and paid time off for the first time in their lives. The model provides workers control over their conditions and asset building through profit sharing. Employee ownership increases growth, sales, and productivity. 100% employee-owned businesses are roughly one third as likely to fail as all public companies.

A study by the Democracy at Work Institute documents information on U.S. worker cooperatives. It found that the median pay ratio was 1.5 to 1. A majority of workers said they earn more than their previous job, and the report suggests there may be a cooperative wage boost of $3.52 per hour (mean) and $2 (median) for workers. Patronage payments add to these wages, increasing pay further. Workers also have internal capital accounts worth up to $10,000 or more. Workers benefit materially and psychologically from workplace democracy, and firms benefit in terms of recruitment, retention, and reduced shirking.

Worker cooperatives and other employee owned enterprises generally pay wages that are competitive or better than locally prevailing wages when profit-sharing, bonuses and dividends are included. Coops are less likely to lay off workers during economic downturns, prefering to share work. They tend to offer better fringe benefits than conventional companies in their field. There is no great accumulation of evidence to suggest that cooperatives and employee-owned enterprises are less productive than conventional firms, and substantial evidence that they at least equal, and probably exceed, the productivity of their conventional counterparts. In addition, they create collateral benefits for their communities and societies.

One of the most important indicators for the overall level of worker happiness is job satisfaction. And many academic studies have discovered that co-operatives produce much happier workers compared to conventional (stockholder) companies. Co-operatives have been found to have much lower quit rates among member-workers within co-operatives. With a much longer commitment in a single place of work, this in turn increases skills and learning, which can improve productivity and profitability and thus translates to higher earnings for worker-owners.

This paper examines job satisfaction and participation in decision making in three home health aide facilities. Home health aides at the worker-owned, participative decision making organisation were significantly more satisfied with their jobs.

This study attempts to show that the principles promoted by social economy organizations and especially by worker-owned cooperatives have a positive effect on workers’ job satisfaction. This positive effect lied in workers’ adherence to these principles, regardless of whether they were entitled «social economy» or not: social usefulness and sustainability rather than profits, autonomy inside and outside the company, democratic decision-making, and a reduction in the gap between the conception and execution of tasks.

A study on the “alignment thesis”, which states that democratic and ownership structure will align the interests of the enterprise with that of the workers and the community beyond. It finds that the impact on workers is generally positive, mostly because of the establishment of democratic control and better working conditions and job security, but it is limited where social inequalities are replicated.

Italy’s Marcora Law provides legal and financial assistance to worker buyouts of failing businesses. It has allowed workers to invest their unemployment benefit and severance indemnity in recovering the firm in which they had been employed and converting it into a cooperative. In a period that ranges from 2007 and 2015, Cooperazione Finanza Impresa invested 84 million euro in Italian worker buyouts. A parliamentary-commission report issued in 2017 documented that this 84-million-euro investment generated over 576 million euro in tax revenues, 6.8 times the invested capital.

Emilia-Romagna, the most co-op-heavy region in the world with 7,500 co-ops (2/3 being worker-owned), sees some of the lowest unemployment rates in all of Europe. In 2006, it was 3%, while the EU’s was 9.1%. It was one of the most devastated regions in Europe after WWII, but is now among the most prosperous in the world. Its per capita GDP is 36% higher than the EU average. It has one of the lowest rates of inequality in Europe. The region has one of the highest indexes of social capital/cohesion in the world.

In Italy, worker cooperatives are present in all regions and in most economic sectors, employing about 506,000 workers and generating a turnover of $22bn. Italian worker cooperatives are, on average, four times larger than all other companies. Emilia-Romagna has the most value generated by all WCs in Italy, at 28% of the total. Older smaller and medium sized WCs perform best economically. WCs are widespread in northern Italian regions, but recent trends display the growth of the model in the south due to favourable legislation and education.

An array of theoretical, normative, and empirical arguments has been developed in different areas of the social sciences, legitimising and intellectually supporting demands for more democracy at work. Democracy at work contributes to our societies in terms of job quality, political/economic prosperity, equality, human rights, and more. Countries with high levels of democracy at work are associated with higher worker productivity, better occupational health and safety protections, less inequality, lower unemployment, greater sustainability, and better worker pay and life satisfaction.

Credit to Elton H., Laura, and Miles M. for sources and information.

A worker cooperative is an enterprise which the workers themselves collectively own. In contrast to the traditional capitalist workplace, a coop gives every employee a vote in how the business operates. The heirarchy of the employer/employee relationship is done away with so that no one individual has the power to impact the lives of workers without democratic process. In some democratic firms, the workers elect management for a time period, similarly to how representatives in government are elected to represent their citizens. In any case, a cooperative is the democratic form of the workplace where everyone can participate in decision-making.

Why is democracy important in the workplace? Democracy is important in general. It allows individuals to have their voices heard and to have their interests represented in a group. In the age of monarchies, the people did not have political democracy and the decisions were made by some unelected small group of individuals, such as kings, queens, and other unelected individuals. The wants and needs of the people were often ignored, which led to many unjust events throughout history. Specific to the workplace, democracy is important because enterprises affect people's lives. Why should an unelected group of individuals make decisions that affect others, often in very harmful ways? People spend a third of their lives at work, and commuting, and preparing for work. It is logical that the worker has democratic ability there.

Many places saw movements and revolutions in order to topple undemocratic systems. Political democracy was born out of the struggle. Many monarchists of the past often claimed that the people are not smart or logical enough to govern themselves, and that only a small group of people should make the decisions. Their argument didn't hold up. In today's age, we now have a new, parallel argument: People are not smart or logical enough to govern their workplace and that workplace decisions should be made by a small group of people. This, also, does not hold up. Workplace democracy is widespread in society today, and the data is clear. They are viable forms of enterprise, and are even superior to capitalist firms in several ways, such as survivability rates and productivity.

A great example of a worker cooperative is the Mondragon Corporation, an enterprise located in the Basque region of Spain. As the largest coop in the world, it employs over eighty thousand workers and is worth tens of billions. The internal structure operates in a way that is democratic, enabling each worker to participate in the decision-making processes of the enterprise. For example, wage ratios between the lowesy and highest paid workers are voted uppn periodically, with the average ratio being 5:1. This means that, typically, the highest paid worker can not be paid more than five times that of the lowest paid worker. This is vital in distributing wealth and profits in a more equitable manner, benefitting society greatly. In contrast, capitalist firms often distribute wealth very unequally. The Walton family of Walmart makes about four million in a given hour while many of their workers are paid under fifteen an hour. This is a common occurence under traditional workplaces. The value that is created by workers is appropriated by the owners and they decide what to pay their employees, while keeping the rest. Worsening wealth inequality can be attributed to this fact.

Worker cooperatives offer a powerful alternative to the traditional and undemocratic workplace. It gives individuals a voice in the economy and shifts focus away from profit-seeking to community building. A cooperative which is run by people who live in the surrounding community will naturally vote to support it. We have seen all too often how businesses pollute and damage communities, and then leave once it is deemed no longer profitable, taking their jobs with them. A coop rids communities of this problem. It is there to stay and to be the lighthouse for struggling neighborhoods, to offer stable jobs with good benefits and help communities grow. This is especially needed for those forgotten neigh orhoods that are predominantly black, spanish, or other minority groups. Racist policies such as redlining have perpetuated inequality and poverty in these communities. A worker cooperative can work with local hospitals and schools to improve the community and the people.

Democracy is important in a society that represents its people and their interests. Political democracy in many countries gives people the ability to vote for representatives in government. And yet, the interests of the people may still be ignored because the economy as a whole is undemocratic. A small group of individuals have the power to make decisions that affect the entire society, and no one elected them. They can pollute a river and make a community sick or lay off a large number of workers because they want to save costs that they could have afforded to pay. A democratic workplace changes all of that. People should be given the ability to govern themselves, and if we as a society claim to support democracy, then that should not magically exclude the economic realm.