SpringerLink
Log in

Trust, Social Capital, and the Coordination of Relationships Between the Members of Cooperatives: A Comparison Between Member-Focused Cooperatives and Third-Party-Focused Cooperatives

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, nonprofit scholars have increasingly studied the phenomenon of social enterprises which has become a generic term describing a wider reorientation among third sector organizations. The emergence of social enterprises has also led to a dynamic of hybridization and broadening in the cooperative sector, similar to an earlier dynamic of “economization”, but this time on the other end of the organizational spectrum. This paper aims at develo** a fine-grained conceptual understanding of how this organizational dynamic is shaped in terms of member coordination, thus contributing to a more comprehensive theoretical understanding of different organizational forms of cooperatives. Specifically, to highlight the difference to traditional member-focused cooperatives, the paper introduces the term third-party-focused cooperatives for those social enterprises which emphasize economic goals as well as control and ownership by a particular community (typically place-based). The key result of the paper is that with the shift from member- to community-focus in cooperatives, the main coordination mechanism becomes one of norm-based trust on the basis of generalized reciprocity. In contrast to traditional maxim-based trust member coordination on the basis of relation-specific reciprocity, this enables third-party-focused cooperatives to mobilize bridging and linking social capital, facilitating collective action aimed towards the community interest. The findings suggest that this identity shift requires a mutual re-positioning between the cooperative and the nonprofit sector, in terms of umbrellas as well as regulatory and legislative bodies.

Résumé

Ces dernières années, les chercheurs des organisations à but non lucratif ont de plus en plus étudié le phénomène de l’entreprise sociale, qui est devenu un terme générique décrivant une réorientation plus large parmi les organisations du tiers secteur. L’émergence d’entreprises sociales a également conduit à une dynamique d’hybridation et d’élargissement du secteur coopératif, similaire à une dynamique antérieure d’« économisation », mais cette fois à l’opposée des organisations. Cet article vise à développer une compréhension conceptuelle affinée de la façon dont cette dynamique des organisations est déterminée en fonction de la coordination des membres, et à contribuer ainsi à une plus vaste compréhension théorique des différentes formes d’organisation des coopératives. Plus précisément, afin de souligner la différence avec des coopératives traditionnelles orientées vers leurs membres, l’article introduit l’expression de coopératives orientées vers les tiers pour les entreprises sociales qui mettent l’accent sur des objectifs économiques, mais aussi le contrôle et la propriété par une communauté (généralement locale). Le principal résultat de cet article, c’est qu’en passant d’une priorité donnée aux membres à une priorité donnée à la communauté locale dans les coopératives, le mécanisme principal de coordination devient celui d’une confiance normative, sous réserve de réciprocité généralisée. Contrairement à la coordination par les membres d’une confiance basée sur une maxime traditionnelle, qui s’appuie sur une réciprocité propre aux relations, cela permet aux coopératives centrées sur les tiers de mobiliser le capital social d’accointances et le capital social d’attachement afin de faciliter une action collective tournée vers l’intérêt de la communauté. Les résultats montrent que ce changement d’identité nécessite un repositionnement réciproque entre la coopérative et le secteur à but non lucratif, au niveau des organes fédérateurs et des organes de règlementation et législatifs.

Zusammenfassung

In den letzten Jahren haben Wissenschaftler im Nonprofit Sektor vermehrt das Phänomen der Sozialunternehmen untersucht, welches sich zu einem allgemeinen Begriff entwickelt hat, der eine größere Umorientierung von Organisationen des Dritten Sektors beschreibt. Die Entstehung von Sozialunternehmen hat darüber hinaus zu einer Dynamik der Hybridisierung und Erweiterung im Genossenschaftssektor geführt, die der früheren Dynamik der „Ökonomisierung“ ähnelt, nur dass sie dieses Mal am anderen Ende des organisationalen Spektrums stattfindet. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, zu einem differenzierten konzeptuellen Verständnis darüber zu gelangen, wie sich diese Organisationsdynamik mit Bezug auf die Mitgliederkoordination gestaltet. Somit trägt sie zu einem umfassenderen theoretischen Verständnis der unterschiedlichen Organisationsformen von Genossenschaften bei. Um insbesondere den Unterschied zu den traditionellen auf Mitglieder ausgerichteten Genossenschaften hervorzuheben, wird der Begriff „auf Dritte ausgerichtete Genossenschaften“ für diejenigen Sozialunternehmen eingeführt, die sich auf ökonomische Ziele sowie die Steuerung und Mitverantwortung einer bestimmten (in der Regel ortsbezogenen) Gemeinschaft konzentrieren. Der Beitrag kommt zu dem wichtigen Ergebnis, dass zum Unterschied einer auf Mitglieder ausgerichteten Genossenschaft, bei Genossenschaften, die sich auf die Gemeinschaft konzentrieren, der zentrale Koordinationsmechanismus normenbasiertes Vertrauen auf der Grundlage der generalisierten Reziprozität ist. Im Gegensatz zur traditionellen Mitgliederkoordination mittels maximenbasierten Vertrauens auf der Grundlage der beziehungsspezifischen Reziprozität ist es auf Dritte ausgerichteten Genossenschaften möglich, brückenbildendes und verknüpfendes Sozialkapital zu mobilisieren und ein kollektives Handeln zur Förderung des Gemeinschaftsinteresses zu ermöglichen. Die Ergebnisse weisen darauf hin, dass dieser Identitätswandel eine gegenseitige Neupositionierung des genossenschaftlichen und des Nonprofit Sektors hinsichtlich der Dachverbände sowie von Aufsichtsbehörden und gesetzgebenden Körperschaften erfordert.

Resumen

En años recientes, los eruditos de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro han estudiado cada vez más el fenómenos de las empresas sociales que se ha convertido en un término genérico que describe una reorientación más amplia entre las organizaciones del sector terciario. El surgimiento de empresas sociales ha llevado también a una dinámica de hibridación y ampliación del sector cooperativo, similar a una dinámica anterior de “economización”, pero esta vez, en el otro extremo del espectro organizativo. El presente documento tiene como objetivo desarrollar una comprensión conceptual minuciosa de cómo toma forma esta dinámica organizativa en términos de coordinación de los miembros, contribuyendo de este modo a una comprensión teórica más integral de diferentes formas organizativas de las cooperativas. Específicamente, para destacar la diferencia con respecto a las cooperativas tradicionales centradas en los miembros, el presente documento presenta el término cooperativas centradas en terceras partes para aquellas empresas sociales que hacen hincapié en las metas económicas así como también en el control y la apropiación por parte de una comunidad específica (normalmente basadas en el lugar). El resultado clave del documento es que con el cambio de enfoque de los miembros a la comunidad en las cooperativas, el principal mecanismo de coordinación se convierte en un mecanismo de confianza basada en las normas en base a la reciprocidad generalizada. En contraste con la coordinación tradicional de los miembros mediante un mecanismo de confianza basada en máximas en base a la reciprocidad específica de la relación, esto permite movilizarse a las cooperativas enfocadas en terceras partes uniendo y enlazando el capital social, facilitando la acción colectiva dirigida al interés de la comunidad. Los hallazgos sugieren que este cambio de identidad requiere un reposicionamiento mutuo entre las cooperativas y el sector de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro, en términos de paraguas así como también en términos de organismos reguladores y legislativos.

摘要

**年来,公益学者越来越多地研究在第三部门组织中成为描述更广泛重新定位通用词的社会企业现象。社会企业的出现也同样导致在合作领域动态的多样化和扩展,此类似与此前“经济化”的动态,但这次是在组织谱的另一端。本文旨在对组织动态如何在成员协调中形成做出一个细致概念上的理解,从而对不同合作企业组织形式做出更全面的理论理解。具体来说,**调传统合作企业重视成员的区别,本文介绍了对于**调经济目标的社会企业和特定团体(通常是场所型)控制和所有的社会企业来说的重视第三方的术语。本文的一个主要结果是,随着在合作企业中以重视成员到重视团体的改变,主要协调机制变成了在广义互惠基础上的基于规范的信任。不同于基于特有关系互惠的准则信任成员协调,这使得重视第三方的合作企业组织连接和联系社会资本,促进以团体利益为目标的集体行动。研究结果表明:此确定了转变需要合作企业和关于庇护及监管和立法机构的非营利部门的相互重新定位。

ملخص

في السنوات الأخيرة، قام العلماء الذين لا يسعون للربح بدراسة متزايدة لظاهرة المشاريع الإجتماعية التي أصبحت مصطلح عام يصف إعادة توجيه أوسع بين منظمات القطاع الثالث. أدى ظهور المؤسسات الإجتماعية أيضا إلى ديناميكية التهجين والتوسع في القطاع التعاوني، مثل للديناميكية السابقة لممارسة الإقتصاد و التوفير، لكن هذه المرة على الطرف الآخر من الطيف التنظيمي. يهدف هذا البحث إلى تطوير الفهم التصوري الصحيح لكيف تتشكل هذه الديناميكية التنظيمية من حيث تنسيق الأعضاء، مما يسهم إلى التوصل إلى فهم أشمل نظري للأشكال التنظيمية المختلفة للقطاع التعاوني.على وجه التحديد، لتسليط الضوء على إختلافات بين العضو التقليدي- التعاونيات القادرة على الفهم الواضح، البحث يقدم مصطلح الطرف ثالث- التعاونيات القادرة على الفهم الواضح لتلك المشاريع الإجتماعية التي تؤكد على الأهداف الاقتصادية وكذلك السيطرة والتملك من مجتمع معين (عادة على أساس المكان). النتيجة الرئيسية لهذا البحث هي أن مع التحول من عضو- لمجتمع التركيز في التعاونيات، تصبح آلية تنسيق رئيسية واحدة من الثقة على أساس المعيار على أساس المعاملة بالمثل الذي تم تعميمه. على النقيض من تنسيق ثقة الاعضاء القائم على مبدأ تقليدي على أساس المعاملة بالمثل بنسبة محددة، هذا يتيح طرف ثالث - التعاونيات القادرة على الفهم الواضح لتعبئة جسر وربط رأس المال الإجتماعي، تسهيل العمل الجماعي الهادف نحو مصلحة المجتمع. تشير النتائج إلى أن هذا التحول للهوية يتطلب تغيير مواقع مشترك بين القطاع التعاوني والقطاع الغيرالربحي، من حيث وسائل الحماية وكذلك الهيئات التنظيمية والتشريعية.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The view that there are essentially two components of social capital is shared by many authors in the field, although the names for these two elements differ. Thus, Grootaert and Van Bastelaer (2002) distinguish between a structural and a cognitive form, whereas Valentinov (2004), for instance, differentiates between a structural form of social capital and its “content”.

  2. Instead of dividing the argument between social capital (as a network concept) and trust in the following paragraphs, one alternative view and line of argument regarding the relationship between social capital, networks and trust would be that social capital is more of an overarching concept. However, as outlined in the introduction, this paper tries to fill a research gap in the literature (Christoforou and Davis 2014) by integrating these two particular approaches towards conceptualizing cooperatives, as either trust-based or social-capital-based organizations. Hence, a division between these two discourses seems to be appropriate in the first step of our argument.

  3. In contrast to Enjolras (2009, p. 764), we use the term “relation-specific reciprocity” instead of “balanced reciprocity” to underline the distinct nature of the former in referring to direct exchange relations versus “generalized reciprocity” which refers to compensation for the benefits received from the society and thus justifies altruistic behavior towards others.

References

  • Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 12(2), 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R. (2010). Organizational social capital, structure and performance. Human Relations, 63(5), 583–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J.-L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belmi, P., & Pfeffer, J. (2015). How “organization” can weaken the norm of reciprocity: The effects of attributions for favors and a calculative mindset. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(1), 36–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ner, A., & Van Hoomissen, T. (1994). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Law and public policy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 4(4), 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 90, 166–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (Eds.). (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, C., & Sforzi, J. (2014). Social capital, cooperatives and social enterprises. In A. Christoforou & J. B. Davis (Eds.), Social capital and economics: Social values, power, and social identity (pp. 193–214). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2006). Worker motivations, job satisfaction, and loyalty in public and nonprofit social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Social capital and community governance. Economic Journal, 112, 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989). Price, authority and trust: From ideal types to plural forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 97–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Helderman, J. K. (2012). The trade-off between capital and community the conditions for successful co-production in housing. Voluntas, 23(4), 1139–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L. (2008). Reciprocity, altruism and the civil society: In praise of heterogeneity. Oxon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L., & Porta, P. (2007). Handbook on the economics of happiness. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brunie, A. (2009). Meaningful distinctions within a concept: Relational, collective, and generalized social capital. Social Science Research, 38(2), 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christoforou, A., & Davis, J. B. (Eds.). (2014). Social capital and economics: Social values, power, and social identity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social choice theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14, 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J. (2001). Introduction: From third sector to social enterprise. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degli Antoni, G., & Portale, E. (2011). The effect of corporate social responsibility on social capital creation in social cooperatives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 566–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draheim, G. (1952). Die Genossenschaft als Unternehmungstyp. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberl, P. (2004). The development of trust and implications for organizational design: A game- and attribution-theoretical framework. Schmalenbachs Business Review, 56(3), 258–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enjolras, B. (2009). A governance-structure approach to voluntary organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5), 761–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, P. (1997). Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy. In P. Evans (Ed.), State-society synergy: Government and social capital in development (pp. 178–209). University of California Press/University of California International and Area Studies Digital Collection, Edited Volume #94, Retrieved April 03, 2012. Available from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8mp05335.

  • Evers, A. (2001). The significance of social capital in the multiple goal and resource structure of social enterprises. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), Social enterprises in Europe (pp. 296–311). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54, 293–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., & Gaechter, S. (2002). Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Human Nature, 13(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, L., Friis, A., & Nilsson, J. (2015). Social capital among members in grain marketing cooperatives of different sizes. Agribusiness. doi:10.1002/agr.21427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, M., & Kessler, A. (2010). Cooperation, trust and performance: Empirical results from three countries. British Journal of Management, 21(2), 469–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furubotn, E. (2001). The new institutional economics and the theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 45(2), 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachmann, B. A. (1996). Revising the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common group identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3), 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H. (2000). Strong reciprocity and human sociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206, 169–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a development strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, V. (2007). Social enterprises, institutional capacity and social inclusion. In A. Noya & E. Clarence (Eds.), The social economy: Building inclusive economies (pp. 119–153). Paris: OECD.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. cit. after Belmi and Pfeffer 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grootaert, C., & Van Bastelaer, T. (2002). Social capital: From definition to measurement. In C. Grootaert & T. Van Bastelaer (Eds.), Understanding and measuring social capital (pp. 1–16). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hatak, I., Fink, M., & Frank, H. (2015). Business freedom, corruption and the performance of trusting cooperation partners: Empirical findings from six European countries. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3), 523–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatak, I., & Roessl, D. (2011). Correlating relational competence with trust. Journal of Information Processing, 19, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heide, J., & John, G. (1988). The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding transaction-specific assets in conventional channels. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogeland, J. A. (2006). The economic culture of U.S. agricultural cooperatives. Culture and Agriculture, 28(2), 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulgard, L., & Spear, R. (2006). Social entrepreneurship and the mobilization of social capital in European social enterprises. In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social Enterprise at the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert, J., Haines, V., & Beggs, J. (2000). Core networks and tie activation: What kind of routine networks allocate resources in nonroutine situations? American Sociological Review, 65(4), 598–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas, 17(3), 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlin, J. A. (2013). Defining social enterprise across different contexts: A conceptual framework based on institutional factors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 84–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D. (1999). Organizational networks and corporate social capital. In R. T. A. J. Leenders & S. M. Gabbay (Eds.), Corporate social capital and liability (pp. 17–42). Boston: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What do firms do? Coordination, identity and learning. Organizational Science, 7(5), 502–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishna, A., & Uphoff, N. (2002). Map** and measuring social capital. In C. Grootaert & T. van Bastelaer (Eds.), The role of social capital in development: An empirical assessment (pp. 85–124). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, R., & Novy, A. (2014). Cooperative housing and social cohesion: The role of linking social capital. European Planning Studies, 22(8), 1744–1764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, R., & Roessl, D. (2011). Contextualizing the governance of community co-operatives: Evidence from Austria and Germany. Voluntas, 22(4), 706–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laville, J.-L., & Nyssens, M. (2001). The social enterprise: Towards a theoretical socio-economic approach. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 312–332). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J, I. I. I. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehner, O. M. (2011). The phenomenon of social enterprise in Austria: A triangulated descriptive study. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. (1996). Develo** and maintaining trust in work relationships. In T. Tyler & R. Kramer (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorendahl, B. (1996). New cooperatives and local development: A study of six cases in Jaemtland, Sweden. Journal of Rural Studies, 12, 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2000). Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexitaet (Vol. 4). Stuttgart: Lucius and Lucius.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancino, A., & Thomas, A. (2005). An Italian pattern of social enterprise: The social cooperative. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 357–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moellering, G. (2005). The trust/control duality: An integrative perspective on positive expectations of others. International Sociology, 20(3), 283–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moellering, G. (2006). Trust, institutions, agency: Towards a neoinstitutional theory of trust. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of trust research (pp. 355–376). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 403–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulaert, F., & Nussbaumer, J. (2005). Defining the social economy and its governance at the neighbourhood level: A methodological reflection. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2037–2053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, J., & Hendrikse, G. (2011). Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in cooperatives. In M. Tuunanen, J. Windsperger, G. Cliquet, & G. Hendrikse (Eds.), New developments in the theory of networks (pp. 339–352). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, J., Kihlén, A., & Norell, L. (2009). Are traditional cooperatives an endangered species? About shrinking satisfaction, involvement and trust. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 12(4), 101–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noorderhaven, N. (1995). Trust and transaction: Toward transaction cost analysis with differential behavioral assumptions. Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, 40(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behaviour. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 43–72). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2000). Ressourcensteuerung in Netzwerken: Eine Tragoedie der Allmende? In J. Sydow & A. Windeler (Eds.), Steuerung von Netzwerken – Konzepte und Praktiken (pp. 88–106). Wiesbaden: Opladen.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. K. (2003). Foundations of social capital. UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2009). Towards a paradigm of democratic participation: Citizen participation and coproduction of personal social services in Sweden. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poledrini, S. (2015). Unconditional reciprocity and the case of Italian social cooperatives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 457–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purtschert, R. (1990). Zur Oekonomisierung der genossenschaftlich organisierten Wirtschaft. In J. Laurinkari (Ed.), Genossenschaftswesen: Hand- und Lehrbuch (pp. 264–275). Munich: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, E., Lang, R., & Roessl, D. (2014). Citizen-based co-operatives in the field of renewable energy: The case of Solargenossenschaft Rosenheim. In T. Mazzarol, S. Reboud, E. M. Limnios, & D. Clark (Eds.), Research handbook on sustainable co-operative enterprise—case studies of organisational resilience in the co-operative business model (pp. 496–511). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roessl, D. (1996). Selbstverpflichtung als alternative Koordinationsform von komplexen Austauschbeziehungen. Zeitschrift fuer betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 48(4), 311–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roessl, D., & Hatak, I. (2014). Generating value for members: The case of an Austrian co-operative bank. In T. Mazzarol, S. Reboud, E. M. Limnios, & D. Clark (Eds.), Research handbook on sustainable co-operative enterprise: Case studies of organisational resilience in the co-operative business model (pp. 270–284). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutten, R., Westlund, H., & Boekema, F. (2010). The spatial dimension of social capital. European Planning Studies, 18(6), 863–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatini, F., Modena, F., & Tortia, E. (2014). Do cooperative enterprises create social trust? Small Business Economics, 42(3), 621–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuetz, A. (1932). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie. Vienna: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schuetz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: North Western University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1964). The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somerville, P. (2007). Co-operative identity. Journal of Cooperative Studies, 40(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somerville, P., & McElwee, G. (2011). Situating community enterprise: A theoretical exploration. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5–6), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear, R. (2000). The co-operative advantage. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 71(4), 507–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear, R., & Bidet, E. (2005). Social enterprise for work integration in 12 European countries: A descriptive analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 76(2), 195–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spremann, K. (1990). Asymmetrische Information. Zeitschrift fuer Betriebswirtschaft, 60(5/6), 561–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen-Johnsen, K., Eynaud, P., & Wijkstroem, F. (2011). On civil society governance: An emergent research field. Voluntas, 22(4), 555–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M. M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J. (1998). Understanding the constitution of inter-organizational trust. In C. Lane & R. Bachmann (Eds.), Trust within and between organizations (pp. 31–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toennies, F. (1963). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V. (2004). Toward a social capital theory of cooperative organization. Journal of Cooperative Studies, 37(3), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, V. (2013). Economic theories of nonprofits and agricultural cooperatives compared: New perspectives for nonprofit scholars. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanism of governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (2005). The economics of governance. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 95, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. ISUMA Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. R. & Lecy, J. D. (2014). Defining the universe of social enterprise: Competing metaphors. Voluntas, 25(5), 1307–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerche, J., Schmale, I., & Blome-Drees, J. (1998). Einfuehrung in die Genossenschaftslehre: Genossenschaftstheorie und Genossenschaftsmanagement. Muenchen: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, L. (2011). Capital formation in new co-operatives in China: Policy and practice. Euricse Working Papers, No. 015/11.

  • Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 53–111). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Richard Lang’s contribution was supported by an APART-fellowship of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship (IEF) [Project number 622728].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for SME Management and Entrepreneurship, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, Bldg D1, 1020, Vienna, Austria

    Isabella Hatak

  2. Housing and Communities Research Group, School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Richard Lang

  3. Institute for Innovation Management (IFI), Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenbergerstrasse 69, 4040, Linz, Austria

    Isabella Hatak & Richard Lang

  4. RiCC – Research Institute for Co-operation and Co-operatives, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, Bldg D1, 1020, Vienna, Austria

    Dietmar Roessl

  5. Dutch Institute for Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship (NIKOS), University of Twente, PO Box 215, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Isabella Hatak

Authors
  1. Isabella Hatak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dietmar Roessl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Lang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hatak, I., Lang, R. & Roessl, D. Trust, Social Capital, and the Coordination of Relationships Between the Members of Cooperatives: A Comparison Between Member-Focused Cooperatives and Third-Party-Focused Cooperatives. Voluntas 27, 1218–1241 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9663-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9663-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation