Cooperative initiatives: Can they become agents of social change?

It is no coincidence that, in Greece, discussions around social innovation came to the fore during the years of the memoranda. In times of crisis, initiatives that emerge from within society itself tend to flourish, as a response to the inability of the system of governance to function in a fair manner.

Looking at the theory1, different understandings of social innovation can be identified. Social innovation refers to the creation of new products, services and models in response to the needs of a society, by collectives, cooperatives, Social Solidarity Economy (SSE) initiatives or other actors. It can also refer to the combination and/or reconfiguration of social practices. Finally, social innovation entails the transformation of social relations and the revival of social values. 

Social innovation is not merely a product or consequence of crisis. Pressures, changes and crises are continuous –milder and perhaps more “ordinary”– but always present, constantly reminding us of the social divide.

These individual characteristics and core needs are also recognised as real by the dominant system, which has incorporated the concept of social innovation into its texts and policies, while establishing mechanisms and funding instruments for the implementation of bottom-up solutions and approaches. 

The challenge of positive social impact

At its core, social innovation seeks to highlight the need to transform social relations at a structural level and to reshape the practices that are applied. In essence, it places the human being at its centre.

Of course, this last phrase can easily evoke the slogans of large corporations seeking to project a more “human” image, or simply to fulfil what is so broadly and vaguely referred to as “corporate social responsibility.” However, anthropocentrism is neither a commodity nor a marketing slogan. Social innovation emerges from, and is grounded in, social values and positive social impact. It operates for society, together with it, with the aim of meeting its needs.

This is precisely the core of SSE initiatives. Through creative and original ideas, SSE initiatives seek to shape a new community grounded in trust, cooperation, inclusion and equality, while remaining distant from any objective of profit maximisation. They also aim to build social relations which often do not align with the dominant narrative and the relentless market environment.

How easy is it, however, to create and sustain a structure of new social values that is stable and does not begin to crack every time a cooperative initiative is confronted with an interpersonal or institutional crisis? How can an SSE initiative become established and fulfil its objectives? How can the core aim of “positive social impact” become a reality? How can the model of “society in partnership” and “society as leader” be put into practice? And finally, how will a sustainable example of “non-market-driven” innovation be created?

Further questions must also be addressed: Are there social enterprises that follow an ethical production process? How do they fit within the broader framework of the social economy? Is this condition sufficient, or can an enterprise simply be “absolved” in the baptismal font of corporate social responsibility?

Multiple challenges for cooperative initiatives

Cooperative initiatives face numerous challenges, the most significant of which is their sustainability. This is a highly critical and everyday concern, one that can hinder their capacity and their activation within society. This is all the more true when such initiatives operate in already adverse conditions, within an environment characterised by weak institutions, bureaucracy and low levels of trust, as is the case in Greece.

There is also another factor that complicates matters. As Eirini-Erifyli Tzekou, lecturer in the Department of Spatial Planning and Development Engineering at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki2 , notes: “SSE initiatives are directly linked to social movements. When social movements and their demands weaken, it is only natural that the Social Solidarity Economy is also negatively affected.” However, as noted earlier, social needs continue to exist and to demand solutions.

Transformative social innovation

SSE initiatives are, in a sense, called upon to endure and not lose their momentum. They are called to identify those alternative pathways that, at the very least, justify their existence and contribute “to the process of changing social relations, which includes questioning, changing or replacing dominant institutions within a given context,” as noted in the relevant literature, which introduces the concept of “transformative social innovation.”

“Transformative social innovation” constitutes a concept that points to an alternative pathway for the Social Solidarity Economy. The questioning of institutions is something that could be said to occur, to a certain extent, through the way SSE initiatives operate, as they function at a crossroads where community, the state and the private sector meet. This degree of contestation, of course, varies from one initiative to another.

The distance, however, between questioning dominant institutions and achieving social change (let alone, on a global scale, the replacement of institutions) is not small. No transformation of social relations can take place in a fragmented or isolated manner. Collective action is a necessary precondition. The same applies to SSE initiatives. Their continued existence, strengthening and development depend on their participation in a collective process oriented towards sustainable social change. The interconnection and collaboration of local –and not only– networks and “ecosystems” can further empower SSE initiatives. 

The necessity of networking among initiatives

“Today in Greece, an initiative on its own cannot become transformative. It can only do so if it networks with similar or parallel initiatives, with municipalities, with other partner organisations — when it essentially opens up and builds alliances. An initiative that operates on its own may well have a transformative character, but it does not challenge anything substantial at a broader institutional level. It may create a specialised and alternative market, but it remains there… it does not move forward,” notes Ms Tzekou. “It is a matter of scale and dynamics. What can you transform on your own, as an initiative? You may cover a need — that is possible. But how will you transform an institution?”, she adds. Any such effort, moreover, requires human resources and a great deal of work — things that a single initiative cannot sustain.

There is also another dimension to the issue: an initiative on its own cannot overcome the suspicion or reservation that exists within parts of society. Unfortunately, in Greece there are many examples of mismanagement by agricultural cooperatives or non-governmental organisations, which do not facilitate the building of an equal and trusting relationship. There are numerous cases of initiatives that started out, flourished, but later declined. In addition, the so-called third sector “was not as widespread in Greece as in other countries, resulting in a lack of trust”, as Ms Tzekou notes.

SSE initiatives “read” social needs and act accordingly. However, they must also contend with the widespread distrust present in Greek society, and continuously explain or demonstrate their intentions to promote values and develop alternative proposals and models. This is an inevitable part of the process of networking with the community itself and, ultimately, of strengthening citizen participation.

The degree of participation of civil society is crucial for SSE initiatives. The more society becomes involved, claiming a role as a co-shaper rather than merely that of the end user, the greater the prospects for change and for the integration of social innovation and sustainable development into the governance system. 

The importance of trust

The key word at every stage of transformative social innovation is “trust.” Trust among initiatives, trust between initiatives and the community, and trust between initiatives and their partners.

Building trust at these levels is not an easy task, as SSE initiatives themselves must overcome certain internal reservations and doubts, stemming both from legitimate differences and from the particularities of their human resources. They must also clarify the framework within which they wish –and are able– to act as agents of social change.

Above all, they need to recognise that horizontal networking and collaboration, both among themselves and with other partners, is not merely a necessity for survival but a political act. Networking does not simply consist of contact, business or other forms of cooperation; it also involves the promotion of shared values, visions and alternative proposals that these initiatives seek to put into practice.

By its very nature, the implementation of transformative social innovation is expected to bring about changes in the structure of cooperative initiatives — changes related to assuming a more active role, restructuring decision-making processes, and developing skills aimed at better mediation and the handling of potential conflicts. And, of course, at ensuring their sustainability.

“Another innovation in practice” could mean, first and foremost, securing this sustainability and allowing an initiative the space to experiment with proposals, applications, trials and even failures, while the fundamental goals of the sustainability of both the initiatives and their members are safeguarded.

It is certainly not an easy process. However, there is a fundamental question that can be posed: does each SSE initiative wish to have a meaningful impact on society? If the answer to this question is the expected one, then the foundation for the future is already in place.