Cooperatives:
Principles and practices
in the 21st century
A1457
Kimberly A. Zeuli and Robert Cropp
C O O P E R A T I V E S :
ABOUT THE COVER IMAGE: The “twin pines” is a familiar symbol for cooperatives
in the United States. The Cooperative League of the USA, which eventually
became the National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA), adopted it as
their logo in 1922. The pine tree is an ancient symbol of endurance and immor-
tality. The two pines represent mutual cooperation—people helping people.
Contents
Publication notes ii
Chapter 1 1
An introduction to cooperatives
Chapter 2 5
Historical development of cooperatives
throughout the world
Chapter 3 15
Cooperative history, trends, and laws
in the United States
Chapter 4 27
Cooperative classification
Chapter 5 39
Alternative business models
in the United States
Chapter 6 49
Cooperative roles, responsibilities,
and communication
Chapter 7 59
Cooperative financial management
Chapter 8 69
Procedures for organizing a cooperative
Chapter 9 77
A summary of cooperative benefits
and limitations
Notes 81
Glossary 85
Cooperative resources 89
P R I N C I P L E S & P R A C T I C E S I N T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U R Y i
Publication notes
This publication is the fourth and most extensive
revision of the Marvin A. Schaars’ text, Cooperatives,
Principles and Practices, University of Wisconsin
Extension—Madison, Publication A1457, July 1980.
What has come to be known simply as “the
Schaars book,” was originally written in 1936 by
Chris L. Christensen, Asher Hobson, Henry Bakken,
R.K. Froker, and Marvin Schaars, all faculty in the
Department of Agricultural Economics, University
of Wisconsin—Madison. Since its first publication,
the Schaars book has served as a basic reference
for cooperative members and leaders, cooperative
instructors and development specialists, and
students of cooperatives throughout the United
States and world. It has been translated into
several languages.
Although the Schaars book has been out of print
for some time, the University of Wisconsin Center
for Cooperatives (UWCC) continues to receive
regular requests for copies. Its straightforward,
basic information on the organization, structure,
financing, and management of cooperatives is as
needed and relevant today as ever. The revisions in
this version, which reflect over two decades of
learning about cooperative development as well
as new cooperative laws and ways of doing
business, will hopefully make it even more useful.
Although we focus on cooperative businesses in
the United States, and draw most of our references
from the agricultural sector, most of the book’s
content is pertinent to cooperatives anywhere, in
any sector. Readers are encouraged to seek out
other publications that deal more extensively with
cooperative laws in their own states and countries,
and provide more detailed information on
consumer, service and worker-owned cooperatives
and credit unions.
Kimberly Zeuli and Robert Cropp, Assistant
Professor and Professor Emeritus in the
Department of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, University of Wisconsin—Madison,
are responsible for all of the editing and most
of the revised text. The following individuals
also contributed to various chapters:
David Erickson, Director of Member Relations,
Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives
E.G. Nadeau, Director of Research, Planning and
Development, Cooperative Development
Services
David Trechter, Professor, University of Wisconsin—
River Falls
Richard Vilstrup, Professor Emeritus,
Department of Animal Science and
Agricultural and Applied Economics,
University of Wisconsin—Madison
This revision would not have been possible
without generous funding from The Cooperative
Foundation, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.
C O O P E R A T I V E S :ii
Groups of individuals around the world andthroughout time have worked together inpursuit of common goals. Examples of coop-
eration, or collective action, can be traced back to
our prehistoric predecessors who recognized the
advantages of hunting, gathering, and living in
groups rather than on their own.
Although the word “coopera-
tive” can be applied to many
different types of group
activities, in this publication
the term is used to reference
a formal business model,
which has relatively recent
origins. The earliest coopera-
tive associations were
created in Europe and North
America during the 17th and
18th centuries. These associ-
ations were precursors to
cooperatives. The pioneers
of the Rochdale Society in
19th-century England are
celebrated for launching the
modern cooperative
movement. The unique con-
tribution of early cooperative organizers in
England was codifying a guiding set of principles
and instigating the creation of new laws that
helped foster cooperative business development.
Today, cooperatives are found in nearly all coun-
tries. Chapters 2 and 3 trace the remarkable history
of cooperative development internationally and in
the United States.
What is a cooperative?
The cooperative model has been adapted to
numerous and varied businesses. In 1942 Ivan
Emelianoff, a respected cooperative scholar,
remarked that “the diversity of cooperatives is kalei-
doscopic and their variability is literally infinite.”1 As
a consequence of this diversity, no universally
accepted definition of a cooperative exists.Two defi-
nitions, however, are commonly used.
According to the International Co-operative
Alliance (ICA): a cooperative is an autonomous asso-
ciation of persons united voluntarily to meet their
common economic, social, and cultural needs and
aspirations through a jointly owned and democrati-
cally controlled enterprise. Cooperative leaders
around the world recognize the ICA, a non-govern-
mental organization with over 230 member organ-
izations from over 100 countries, as a leading
authority on cooperative definition and values.2
The ICA definition recognizes the essential
element of cooperatives: membership is voluntary.
Coercion is the antithesis of cooperation. Persons
compelled to act contrary to their wishes are not
truly cooperating. True cooperation with others
arises from a belief in mutual help; it can’t be
dictated. In authentic cooperatives, persons join
voluntarily and have the freedom to quit the coop-
erative at any time.3 The forced collectives preva-
lent in the former Soviet Union, for example, were
not true cooperatives.
Another widely accepted cooperative definition is
the one adopted by the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) in 1987: A cooperative is a
user-owned, user-controlled business that distributes
benefits on the basis of use. This definition captures
what are generally considered the three primary
cooperative principles: user ownership, user
control, and proportional distribution of benefits.
The “user-owner” principle implies that the people
who use the co-op (members) help finance the co-
op and therefore, own the co-op. Members are
responsible for providing at least some of the
cooperative’s capital. The equity capital contribu-
tion of each member should be in equal propor-
tion to that member’s use (patronage) of the co-
op. This shared financing creates joint ownership
(part of the ICA cooperative definition).
The “user-control” concept means that members of
the co-op govern the business directly by voting
on significant and long-term business decisions
and indirectly through their representatives on the
board of directors. Cooperative statutes and
bylaws usually dictate that only active co-op
members (those who use the co-op) can become
voting directors, although non-members some-
times serve on boards in a non-voting, advisory
P R I N C I P L E S & P R A C T I C E S I N T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U R Y 1
An introduction to cooperatives
1
C H A P T E R
The first signs of
organized hunting
activity based around
communities are
associated with
Homo erectus,
modern human
ancestors who lived
between 500,000 and
1.5 million years ago
in Africa.
capacity. Advisory directors are becoming more
common in large agricultural cooperatives in the
United States, where complex financial and
business operations require the expertise of finan-
cial and industry experts. Only co-op members can
vote to elect their board of directors and on other
cooperative actions.
Voting rights are generally tied to membership
status—usually one-member, one-vote—and not
to the level of investment in or patronage of the
cooperative. Cooperative law in a number of states
in the United States and in other countries,
however, also permits proportional voting. Instead
of one vote per member, voting rights are based
on the volume of business the member transacted
the previous year with the cooperative. Generally,
however, there is also a maximum number of votes
any member may cast to prevent control by a
minority of members. For example, a grain cooper-
ative might permit one vote to be cast for each
1,000 bushels of grain marketed the year before,
but any single member would be limited to a
maximum of ten votes. Democratic control is main-
tained by tying voting rights to patronage.
Equitable voting rights, or democratic control (as
written in the ICA definition), are a hallmark of
cooperatives.
“Distribution of benefits on the basis of use,”
describes the principle of proportionality, another
key foundation for cooperatives. Members should
share the benefits, costs, and risks of doing
business in equal proportion to their patronage.
The proportional basis is fair, easily explained
(transparent), and entirely feasible from an opera-
tional standpoint. To do otherwise distorts the
individual contributions of members and dimin-
ishes their incentives to join and patronize the
cooperative.
Co-op benefits may include better prices for goods
and services, improved services, and dependable
sources of inputs and markets for outputs. Most
cooperatives also realize annual net profits, all or
part of which are returned to members in propor-
tion to their patronage (thus, they are aptly called
patronage refunds). Cooperatives can also return a
portion of their profits as dividends on investment.
In the United States, however, federal and most
state statutes set an 8 percent maximum on
annual dividend payments. The purpose of these
limits is to assure that the benefits of a cooperative
accrue to those who use it most rather than to
those who may have the most invested; the impor-
tance of capital is subordinated.
Today, some co-op leaders and scholars consider
this dividend restriction arbitrary and harmful to
cooperatives. From their perspective, the 8 percent
maximum makes investing in cooperatives less
attractive than investing in other forms of
business. It makes cooperatives less competitive as
well, especially in the agricultural processing
sector, which requires a lot of capital for start-up
and growth. An overview of the federal laws that
govern cooperatives in the United States is
included in chapter 3.
Why cooperate?
People who organize and belong to cooperatives
do so for a variety of economic, social, and even
political reasons. Cooperating with others has
often proven to be a satisfactory way of achieving
one’s own objectives while at the same time assist-
ing others in achieving theirs.
Farmers create farm supply and marketing cooper-
atives to help them maximize their net profits. This
requires both effective marketing of their products
for better prices as well as keeping input costs as
low as possible. The farmers recognize that they
are usually more efficient and knowledgeable as
producers than as marketers or purchasers. By
selling and buying in larger volumes they can also
usually achieve better prices.
C O O P E R A T I V E S :2
Consumer cooperatives are established to sell the
products a group of consumers want but cannot
find elsewhere at affordable prices. The consumer
members are primarily interested in improving
their purchasing power—the quantity of goods
and services they can buy with their income. They
naturally wish to get as much as possible for their
money in terms of quantity and quality. As owners,
the members have a say in what products their
stores carry.
Employees organize bargaining associations and
labor unions to negotiate collectively with man-
agement and owners. In some cases, employees
form worker-owned cooperatives. As the name
suggests, a worker-owned cooperative is owned
and controlled by its employees.4 Employees
establish bargaining units and cooperatives in the
hopes of increasing their wages and fringe
benefits, improving their general working condi-
tions, and ensuring job security.
Cooperatives do not, as is sometimes assumed,
contradict the goals of capitalism. If that were the
case, cooperatives would not play such an impor-
tant role in the American economy. About 48,000
cooperatives, operating in nearly every business
sector imaginable, serve 120 million members, or
roughly 4 out of 10 Americans.5 The top 100 coop-
eratives in the United States, ranked by revenue,
individually generated at least $346 million in
revenue during 2002 and in the aggregate, $119
billion.6 They represent agriculture, finance,
grocery, hardware, healthcare, recreation, and
energy industries (figure 1.1).
Cooperatives are especially important to agricul-
ture. In 2002, 3,140 agricultural cooperatives
provided roughly 3.1 million farmers (many
farmers are members of more than one coopera-
tive) with agricultural marketing, farm supplies,
and other farm-related services. They captured 28
percent of the market share.7
P R I N C I P L E S & P R A C T I C E S I N T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U R Y 3
An introduction to cooperatives
1
C H A P T E R
Figure 1.1. Top 100 revenue generating cooperatives in the U.S. by sector, 2002
In terms of non-agricultural cooperatives, 84
million Americans are members of 9,569 credit
unions, 865 electric co-ops serve 37 million people
in 47 states, over 1.5 million families live in housing
cooperatives, and over 3 million people are
members of 5,000 food cooperatives.8
The involvement of so many people in coopera-
tives in such a highly competitive economy reflects
the general satisfaction of members toward their
companies and the apparent efficiency and solid
financial performance of these businesses. Chapter
4 provides a more comprehensive discussion of
the various types of cooperatives and the extent of
their economic success in the United States.
In short, cooperatives are organized to serve
member needs and are focused on generating
member benefits rather than returns to investors.
This member-driven orientation makes them fun-
damentally different from other corporations.
Additional cooperative structural characteristics
and guiding principles further distinguish them
from other business models. In most countries, the
cooperative model represents only one of several
different ways a business can choose to legally
organize. Chapter 5 presents a comparison of the
six major alternative business models in the United
States.
Cooperative management
and development
To prosper, cooperatives must be well organized,
well financed, well managed, and governed well by
a committed membership. They must be progres-
sive, adapting to changing business climates, and
responsive to their members’ changing needs.
Members, the board of directors, and management
each have responsibilities within the cooperative.
Strong, viable cooperatives require all three groups
to do their share. Chapter 6 describes each group’s
unique and important role.
Although capital, employees,
business volume, and good man-
agement practices are all very
important for successful opera-
tions, a co-op’s members are its
most important asset.
Cooperative success also hinges on effective
member education and communication. Indeed,
providing education, training, and information to
members is one of the seven cooperative princi-
ples adopted by the ICA. The unique education
needs of cooperatives and the essential elements
for a successful education and communication
program are also discussed in chapter 6.
Cooperative financing is also critical and in today’s
complex cooperative organizations it can be quite
complicated. Adequate capital is one of the funda-
mental principles of sound business operation and
at the same time one of the biggest challenges
facing cooperatives today. Financing options must
be consistent with principles of cooperation as
well as with federal and state laws. Chapter 7 lays
out the main concepts behind cooperative financ-
ing, including alternative sources of capital and
equity redemption plans.
As with other business forms, cooperatives should
be established only to meet a well-defined need in
the market. Before cooperatives are created,
advance research should be done by a steering
committee to ensure sufficient support by other
potential members in the community. Chapter 8
discusses in greater detail the procedure for organ-
izing cooperatives. A good feasibility study, strong
membership drives, and a comprehensive business
plan are essential ingredients.
A final analysis of the cooperative model’s benefits
and limitations, to members and the broader com-
munity, is presented in chapter 9.
C O O P E R A T I V E S :4
P R I N C I P L E S & P R A C T I C E S I N T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U R Y 5
Historical developm
ent of cooperatives
throughout the w
orld
2
C H A P T E R
The historical development of cooperative busi-nesses cannot be disconnected from thesocial and economic forces that shaped them.
Co-ops then, as now, were created in times and
places of economic stress and social upheaval.9
Ancient records and archeological discoveries
point to the existence of cooperative organizations
created by early civilizations in diverse parts of the
world (China, Greece, Egypt, etc.). But it is the
founders of the Rochdale Society in 19th century
England who are celebrated for launching the
modern cooperative movement. The Rochdale
pioneers, and the early European cooperative
thinkers and organizers who laid the foundation
for their success, are responsible for codifying a
guiding set of principles that helped guide the
development of cooperatives across the world.
Revolutionary roots
in England
The first cooperative businesses created in Europe
arose during periods of great social upheaval and
distress caused by dramatic shifts in agricultural
and industrial production practices. Prior to the
Industrial Revolution (about 1750-1850), most
families in England and other parts of Europe were
largely self-sufficient, creating enough food and
goods for their subsistence and small amounts for
trading. The Industrial Revolution introduced the
factory system of production and was marked by a
rapid succession of remarkable inventions that
accelerated the industrialization of business.
Examples of inventions during this period include
smelting iron with coal instead of charcoal, the
cotton gin and power loom, and the steam engine.
The writings of Adam Smith at the time, especially
his advocacy of the laissez faire principle (no gov-
ernment intervention in the economy), further
spurred the revolution.
The industrial system gradually replaced cottage
industries and home-based production. Workers
were required to move into cities to find work.
Away from land, their families were increasingly
integrated into a market economy; instead of pro-
ducing most of their household requirements,
especially food, they had no other choice but to
purchase them. Advances in production were not,
unfortunately, accompanied by fair labor stan-
dards. Workers were typically paid very low wages
and were subjected to harsh working conditions.10
People remaining in rural areas were not much
better off. An agricultural revolution was already
well underway in the 18th century. The introduc-
tion of new cultivation methods and crop varieties
supported a dramatic change in land tenure
patterns. Scattered, small plots of farmland were
aggregated into large, enclosed estates, primarily
for the purpose of grazing sheep and other live-
stock. Between 1760 and 1843, nearly seven
million acres of agricultural land in England were
enclosed in estates. As a result, large numbers of
small farmers were driven from their land into
neighboring towns and villages with few remain-
ing jobs.
A movement towards greater freedom of expres-
sion was another hallmark of this revolutionary
period. The citizens of England began to publicly
dissent with government policies, taking issue with
the status quo and demanding more personal
rights. Therefore, the widespread poverty, unem-
ployment, and general social deterioration that
were left in the wake of the industrial and agricul-
tural revolutions were met with a public outcry to
the government for improved working and living
conditions.
The historical development of
cooperative businesses cannot be
disconnected from the social and
economic forces that shaped
them. Co-ops then, as now, were
created in times and places of
economic stress and social
upheaval.9
Early cooperative societies
In the absence of public assistance, the people of
Europe established various types of self-help
organizations. Mutual fire insurance companies
existed in London and Paris as early as 1530,
although the first highly successful and well-
known example was organized in England in 1696,
the Amicable Contributionship.11 The people of
England also created Mutual Aid Societies (they
eventually became known as Friendly Societies)
that offered financial payments and assistance to
members in times of sickness, unemployment, or
death.12 By the mid-18th century many well-estab-
lished societies were already in operation. They
were legalized with the passing of the first Friendly
Society Act (also called the Rose Act) in 1793. A
number of bills were introduced in the 19th
century to encourage Friendly Societies since they
lessened the public burden.13 Workers organized
labor unions to bargain with employers for more
favorable working conditions and to lobby the
government for improved labor legislation.
Cooperative or quasi-cooperative industrial busi-
nesses were in operation in England by 1760. Most
were consumer-controlled organizations focused
on flour milling and baking industries. Cooperative
corn mills for grinding flour appeared in a number
of cities shortly after the turn of the 19th century
to cut the cost of flour and prevent tampering by
greedy millers. Purchasing cooperatives already
existed in most Western European countries by the
18th century. The Weaver’s Society in Fenwick,
Scotland (often referred to as “penny capitalists”)
began to purchase supplies as a group in 1769.14
The precursors to mutuals and unions were guilds,
the associations of merchants, artisans, and crafts-
men that date back to Medieval times. Guilds had
binding rules for production and business prac-
tices. Although guilds were created partially in an
attempt to establish local trade monopolies, they
incorporated socialist practices: member control,
equitable treatment of all members, and financial
support of members who were ill or faced family
crises.
Robert Owen and
Charles Fourier—
Cooperative visionaries
“Often men wish to escape the
realities of life, and when they do,
they dream of Utopias.” 15
The first cooperative
movement, that is, the estab-
lishment of a coherent
argument for the cooperative
form of organization, gained
momentum in the early 19th
century with the writings and
advocacy efforts of Robert
Owen and William King in
England and Charles Fourier in
France. Robert Owen and
Charles Fourier were both well-known Utopian
Socialists; not only did they envision ideal soci-
eties, they tried to create them in Europe and the
United States.16
Robert Owen (1771-1858) was a prominent indus-
trialist who began to advocate the establishment
of a new type of community to alleviate the
poverty and suffering caused by the Industrial
Revolution. Charles Fourier (1772-1837) was a
bourgeois, famous French social philosopher
whose plans for self-reliant communities were
motivated by the French Revolution and his view
that the working class was being dehumanized
and repressed.
They both envisioned rural villages composed of
farms and small-scale industry, all operated coop-
eratively by the citizens who would also live
together communally. Owen originally conceived
of these communities as a solution for unemploy-
ment, but later believed (like Fourier) that they
were a better alternative to private capitalism and
competition, providing self-employment opportu-
nities and other conditions that would provide
universal happiness. Fourier called his planned
communal cities “phalanxes.”
C O O P E R A T I V E S :6
Robert Owen (1771-
1858):“The Father
of Cooperation.”
P R I N C I P L E S & P R A C T I C E S I N T H E 2 1 S T C E N T U R Y 7
Historical developm
ent of cooperatives
throughout the w
orld
2
C H A P T E R
Owen and Fourier were not abstract thinkers; they
laid out very specific details for their communities.
For instance, they believed that the communities
should contain 1,000-1,800 people living on a rela-
tively small tract of land. Fourier was more explicit:
the area should be three square miles.17 Wealthy
supporters of Owen’s ideas were willing to finance
the creation of such communities. Four were even-
tually created: New Harmony, Indiana (USA);
Orbiston, Scotland; Ralahine, Ireland; and
Queenswood, England. All ultimately failed.
Fourier never found philanthropists willing to fund
the creation of a phalanx. After his death, several
were attempted in France and more than thirty
organized in the United States.18 The most notable
in the United States were Brook Farm, near
Cambridge, Massachusetts (1842-1846), and one in
Fond du Lac County (now the city of Ripon),
Wisconsin (1845-1850). The phalanxes suffered
from a conflict between treating everyone equally
and rewarding those who provided more capital
and labor. The phalanx model, however, influenced
the successful kibbutzim in Israel (discussed later).
Owen was a visionary idealist, not a realistic coop-
erative developer. He was not at all interested,
therefore, in helping the early consumer coopera-
tives in England:“Joint stock retailing is not the
Social System which we contemplate…and will
not form any part of the arrangements in the New
Moral World.”19 In 1839 he did not even bother to
respond to an urgent request by Charles Howarth
to visit Rochdale, England to discuss organizational
plans for a new retail cooperative.
Owen’s attack upon individualism, the family, com-
petition, private property, the market economy, and
organized religion, alienated many people from
cooperation and provoked condemnation of coop-
eratives from various religious groups. Even so,
Owen is often called the “father of cooperation.”
Despite his failures, Owen continued preaching
that cooperative production and living were the
best medicines for the ills of society. His advocacy
stimulated the creation of cooperative societies,
labor exchanges (where handicrafts were traded
based on the amount of labor involved in their
making), and trade unions. Although most of the
organizations he started lasted only a short time,
they provided the groundwork for another genera-
tion of cooperative development in Europe and
North America.
William King—
A cooperative developer
and pragmatist
Dr. William King (1786-1865), another social
reformer in England, was in many respects more
responsible than Robert Owen for spreading the
cooperative idea and for the actual organization of
cooperatives. Although he accepted much of
Owen’s social philosophy, he disagreed on how to
reach those goals. King was more realistic about
cooperatives, advocating and inspiring the devel-
opment of consumer cooperatives across England.
As a physician, King became interested in improv-
ing the welfare of the working people of Brighton,
England. He was involved in organizing numerous
social and educational institutions, including an
infants’ school, a mechanics’ institute, and a library.
Between 1828 and 1830, King published (at his
own expense) a small magazine called “The
Cooperator” that was widely distributed through-
out England. Its 28 issues were a source of inspira-
tion, information, and instruction on cooperation
in theory as well as in practice. The magazine advo-
cated a more realistic type of cooperation within
reach of the working class.
King believed that cooperatives should start small
with the original capital supplied by members, a
significant deviation from Owen and Fourier’s
large-scale operations funded by wealthy
investors. King did not necessarily object to Owen’s
self-sustaining cooperative communities, as long
as they were funded with the members’ own
capital and were restricted to Christians. King was
a religious fundamentalist who believed that
…