With limited potential to add value to commodities, some farm producers form or join organizations to collectively manufacture food and drink products. Several farm producer organizations seek differentiation by using the farmer-owned label, but research on the topic is scarce. We therefore conducted an online survey with 457 random food consumers in the United States to inform awareness, knowledge, consumption, and perception farmer-owned brands in ten product categories. Per the results, consumer awareness is normally distributed with equal proportions of respondents who rarely or frequently see the farmer-owned label. Overall, the average consumer has a strong knowledge of the basic implications of the farmer-owned label, but subtler inferences are not understood as well. Contrary to expectations, consumer knowledge is also inversely related to awareness. terms of consumption, the farmer-owned brand share varies across product categories (20-60%). Nonetheless, the general perception of the farmer-owned label is mostly positive.

Collectively owned and controlled by farm producers, co-operatives have been prominent and successful in many countries. The empirical literature on co-operatives is extensive, part of which considers the various determinants of co-operative membership. However, the evidence is mixed and scattered, which warrants a metaanalysis to help inform market and policy initiatives to increase the incidence of collective action by farm producers. Our search yielded 168 studies, 213 model results, and 924 effect size estimates for the ten most common determinants: gender, age, experience, education, household size, farm size, herd size, off-farm income, credit access, and market distance. On the basis of random-effects model results, eight of the ten determinants (excluding off-farm income and market distance) have a positive and significant effect on the likelihood of cooperative membership at the 99 % confidence level. Thus, farm producers who are small, female, young, inexperienced, uneducated, or credit-constrained are less likely to obtain co-operative membership. However, the effect size magnitudes are arguably small; effect size dispersions are not explained significantly by common study-level characteristics such as location (i.e. continent) or commodity sector (e.g. coffee). Information of local contexts is necessary to better understand heterogeneity in effect size observations.

Common property institutions are often analyzed with Ostrom's design principles, yetthere are few applications of the analytical framework to institutions owned and controlled by organized farm producers (i.e. farm producer co-operatives). Applicable to any human group with a common interest, the potential of the design principles to study farm producer co-operatives as common property institutions is appealing as current theories and frameworks do not completely or satisfactorily explain their survival or longevity. Prior literature is consulted to determine if and how each of the design principles is applicable to farm producer co-operatives. To help inform a future research agenda, we highlight the analytical limitations and the empirical challenges of the design principles to study farm producer co-operatives as common property institutions.

In response to increasing demands for decision‐making expertise in the global business environment, agricultural co‐operatives face the challenge of balancing governance adaptations with the risk of agency costs. While various mechanisms exist to align the interests of principals and agents within these organizations, communication – particularly digital – appears to hold the greatest potential. However, empirical evidence on its effectiveness remains limited. This study addresses this gap by examining the relation between both digital and non‐digital communication on principal–agent alignment and overall performance in agricultural co‐operatives. The empirical basis consists of a survey conducted in 2023 with 41 agricultural co‐operatives in Brazil. The results of a structural equation model show that (1) digital communication is related positively to principal–agent alignment, (2) non‐digital communication is not related significantly to principal–agent alignment and (3) principal–agent alignment is related positively to performance. These findings offer important insights for the governance of agricultural co‐operatives, which are further explored in the conclusion.

Although the governance of farm producer-owned and -controlled organizations is shaped by the complex interaction of mixed member, director, and manager objectives, its conceptualization in the literature is limited to the assignment of control to members, board directors, and managers. Such a categorization is imperfect as there exist other governance characteristics such as member vote distribution, board director identity, manager identity, and CEO identity. Using 371 survey responses from US farmer cooperatives, we inform the adoption of nontraditional governance characteristics in terms of proportional vote distribution, nonmember board directors (i.e., outside directors), and nonmember managers and CEOs. Furthermore, we relate the adoption of nontraditional characteristics to the competitive scope, organizational function, organizational size, and capital structure of the survey respondents by means of various empirical techniques. Generally, nontraditional adaptation of the governance structure, which implies an advanced delegation of control to decision specialists who are non-members, is positively associated with the competitive scope and organizational size. Also, such nontraditional adaptation is more common to marketing cooperatives as compared to supply cooperatives. Our study motivates a multi-dimensional conceptualization of governance, which is necessary to better understand the internal coordination of member and manager objectives. [EconLit Citations: Q13].

There exist concerns about the fairness of the revenue share model between food service establishments and delivery companies, which often charge a commission rate of 20–30%. As the third party in the multi-sided market, the perception of food consumers may have bearing on potential market and policy solutions. With 500 survey responses from English food consumers, we inform perceptions of interactional, procedural, distributional, and overall price fairness in the online food order and delivery industry. On average, there is a 5% difference in perceptions of the actual commission rate (20%) and a fair commission rate (15%). Per the results of a structural equation model, procedural fairness and distributional fairness respectively have negative and positive relationships to overall price fairness. Interactional fairness is not related significantly to overall price fairness.

Purpose Food service establishments and online food delivery companies use a revenue share model based on a commission rate. Because of the asymmetry of bargaining power, many food service establishments are vulnerable to a high commission rate. What is missing in the ongoing discussion about the revenue share model is the perspective of food consumers, who are the third party in the multi-sided market. Design/methodology/approach Within a willingness-to-pay (WTP) framework, we study if food consumers have preferences for the commission rate charged by food delivery companies to food service establishments. With 456 random consumers in the United States, we conduct a controlled experiment in which information is used as treatment in two groups. In the first group, the provided information only relates to the revenue share model (i.e. economic). In the second group, participants also received information about price control initiatives (i.e. economic and political). Findings Based on WTP-space mixed logit model results, there is a significant effect of information on preferences for the commission rate. While participants in the control group exhibited no aversion to the commission rate, participants who received treatment had a significant and negative WTP. The magnitude of the effect is estimated at -$1.08 for participants in the first treatment and -$2.28 for participants in the second treatment. Originality/value To date there is no applied research on the preferences of consumers in the online food order and delivery industry with respect to upstream conditions (i.e. commission rates).

In many countries, farmer cooperatives have been successful at facilitating access to markets in conditions of imperfect competition for a long time. However, modern farmer cooperatives have only been operational in Romania since 2005, and their development is slowed by several internal and external conditions. In the absence of empirical evidence of possible explanations for alleged shortcomings in the growth of farmer cooperatives in Romania, applied research is necessary to inform recommendations for practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders. Using financial data from 1,426 farmer cooperatives in Romania for the 2017–21 period, we estimate a double hurdle panel model of the probability and the intensity commercial activity with annual revenue as the variable of interest. All else equal, annual revenue increased in 2020 and 2021 relative to 2017, which to some extent refutes observations of underdevelopment. Although the membership size of farmer cooperatives in Romania is relatively small, its relationship to the probability and the intensity of commercial activity is positive. The relationship of age to the probability and the intensity of commercial activity is ∩‐shaped, which may imply a relatively short lifespan for farmer cooperatives in Romania. Possible explanations are member opportunism and double taxation misunderstandings, but further research is necessary to generate more insights.

Amid concern about the welfare implications of the revenue share model between food service establishments (FSEs) and food delivery companies (FDCs), academic contributions have been mostly theoretical. Within a conceptual framework of fairness, our empirical study provides a perspective from the third party in the multi-sided market: the consumer. Following an incentivized payoff allocation experiment with 500 English food consumers, we make three observations: (1) participants prefer to make allocations to FSEs as opposed to FDCs, (2) participants who perceive fairness as a social construct (honesty, responsibility) derive the most disutility from advantageous inequality and the least disutility from disadvantageous inequality in relation to FSEs, and (3) participants who perceive fairness as a structural construct (processes, outcomes) prefer more equal payoff allocations to FSEs and FDCs. The perception of price unfairness in the online food order and delivery industry is apparent, speaking to the need to find market and policy solutions.

PurposeThe objective of the study is to explore explanations for the capital structure compositions of farmer cooperatives, which have a unique equity structure with allocated equity as well as unallocated equity.Design/methodology/approachData came from a panel of US grain marketing and input supply cooperatives for the 2010–2020 period. The study is concerned with the proportions of debt, allocated equity and unallocated equity, which requires the application of a fractional multinomial panel model to ensure predictions fall within the observed data range (i.e. 0–1).FindingsLarger cooperatives have relatively high debt proportions. Diversification of the product portfolio has a positive effect on the debt proportion. Profitability is associated with higher debt proportions in input supply cooperatives and higher allocated equity proportions in grain marketing cooperatives. Over time, the proportion of unallocated equity increased. Overall, some results differ across grain marketing and input supply cooperatives.Practical implicationsIncreasing proportions of unallocated equity warrant a debate about the future value of ownership and governance by members of farmer cooperatives.Originality/valuePrevious empirical investigations of the capital structure compositions of cooperatives lacked a distinction between allocated and unallocated equity. Our results show that the proportions of the two equity accounts respond differently to given predictors. Furthermore, much of the prior empirical literature fails to separate cooperatives on the basis of economic activities (i.e. marketing, supply and mixed).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, grocery shoppers face a moral dilemma: to go inside the store or to use online alternatives, such as curbside pickup or home delivery to limit physical interaction. The veil of ignorance, a hypothetical state of mind, is an experimental tool used to nudge people toward the social welfare option during a decision-making process. We empirically test the effect of the veil of ignorance on grocery shopper preferences by implementing an online choice experiment with 613 U.S. consumers. Subjects who are veiled by ignorance about the state of the COVID-19 pandemic are not willing to pay significantly more for curbside pickup or home delivery than (unveiled) subjects in the control group. We also find heterogeneous effects by vaccination status. Consistent with limited evidence in the prior literature, the veil of ignorance is seemingly unable to induce moral choice behavior in real-world scenarios.

There are few empirical explanations for the decreasing number of cooperatives in the agricultural sector. To address the gap in the literature, we investigate the incidence of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and liquidations and dissolutions (L&Ds) among more than 1000 farmer cooperatives in the United States for the 2010-2020 period by means of survival analysis within a competing risk framework. According to our novel results, M&As are more common than L&Ds, corresponding to exit strategies of larger farmer cooperatives to achieve scale and scope economies. The incidence of L&Ds is almost entirely driven by size as relatively small cooperatives are more at risk. Implications and future research directions are discussed in the conclusion.

Purpose This study analyzes the long-term effect of merger and acquisition (M&A) activity on the profitability, efficiency and liquidity of the largest 500 farmer cooperatives in the United States. Design/methodology/approach Secondary data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture are complemented with primary data collected from print media publications about M&A activity by US farmer cooperatives. The analysis is based on group comparisons of means and distributions to study the effect of M&A activity on financial performance. Findings Farmer cooperatives with M&A activity generally have lower profitability, efficiency and liquidity than farmer cooperatives without M&A activity, both at the time of the merger or acquisition as well as afterward. Marketing cooperatives in particular perform worse following M&As. Also, the post-merger performance of farmer cooperatives with M&A activity is not affected by the profitability, efficiency or liquidity of the target. Originality/value Research on the post-merger performance of farmer cooperatives is both scarce and dated. This study analyzes the effect of M&A activity for a relatively large sample and a relatively long time period (2005–2020).

Collective action in the agricultural sector of Peru started in the form of agrarian production cooperatives around 1969. Following the collapse of the collectivisation program in the 1980s, external stakeholders helped to form marketing cooperatives in select sectors to discourage coca leaf production. Nowadays, cooperatives are only active in four sectors: banana, cocoa, coffee, and palm oil. Case study evidence of the performance of cooperatives in Peru is mixed, which raises the need for applied research to inform if cooperatives have been successful as instruments of smallholder development. We address the situation with empirical analysis of comprehensive survey data collected for the 2016-2019 period. Using multiple empirical techniques, we estimate the farm-level treatment effect of selling output to cooperatives. Generally, we find a positive effect of cooperatives on the price received and the quantity sold of their patrons. Palm oil cooperatives, which appear to have started in the recent past, form an exception. Implications of our findings are discussed.

This chapter develops a framework for formulating a cooperative strategy given the cooperative’s mission, objectives, and external environment. Despite extensive research detailing the diversity of cooperative equity rights and governance, a similar discussion of how internal characteristics support the cooperative strategy has not been discussed. We conjecture that a cooperative’s internal characteristics (governance, ownership, and performance measures) should be supportive or adapted to the cooperative strategy to create and capture value for members. However, many cooperatives have preserved their internal characteristics even though their strategy has shifted, which may be detrimental to long-term performance. Cooperative stakeholders can formulate and evaluate their cooperative’s strategy using the framework we outline.

This article estimates dynamic productivity change and its components (i.e., technical inefficiency change, scale inefficiency change, and technical change) for a sample of similar to 700 US farm supply cooperatives over the 2005-2017 period. Estimation is undertaken using a directional distance function that accounts for the presence of adjustment costs associated with investments in quasi-fixed factors of production. A bootstrap regression is then used to determine the factors affecting dynamic productivity change and its components. Results show that the sample cooperatives experienced a modest decline in productivity over the study period, on average. The analysis of productivity change decompositions suggests that productivity decline is mainly due to the negative contribution of technical inefficiency change. Results further reveal that ignoring adjustment costs when modeling cooperatives' performance leads to distortions in estimates of productivity and its components. The regression analysis results show that years of operation and a higher share of energy products in supply turnover are positively related to productivity change, technical inefficiency change, and scale inefficiency change. [EconLit Citations: Q12, D22, C61].

Empirical evidence of the benefit of farm producer organizations (FPOs) in the developing world is mounting. There is, however, no work in South America on the relationship between FPO membership and farm-level performance. We address the gap by estimating the treatment effect of FPO membership with respect to three outcomes: quantity produced, quantity sold, and price received. The empirical application focuses on the Peruvian coffee sector, where FPOs may have played an important role during the recent price crisis. A sample of approximately 9,000 survey responses from Peruvian coffee producers during the 2015-19 period is used in the analysis. Results show a positive treatment effect of FPO membership on all three farm-level outcomes. Compared to non-FPO members, FPO members produced 120-295 kg/ha more, sold 118-296 kg/ha more, and received 0.42-1.53 PEN/kg more. We also find evidence of heterogeneity in the estimated effect of FPO membership across time, farm size, and membership probability. The findings yield novel implications in terms of policy support for FPOs.

Food consumers have been engaging in collective action to combat food retail concentration for many years. As modern supermarkets gain in size and power, the activity of food consumer co-operatives may have more importance than ever to prevent food price increases. However, applied research on the price competition be-tween consumer co-operatives and firms is scarce at best. We address the considerable gap with an empirical analysis of price information from consumer co-operatives and firms in England, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Using the market basket approach, we observe significant differences in the food prices of co-operatives and firms. In the case of Sweden, the price index of the consumer co-operative is significantly lower, which may indicate an inability to implement a yardstick effect on the firm. Meanwhile, in England and the Netherlands, the firms have significantly higher price indices, which may be explained by the tendency of co-operatives to return profit to members at the conclusion of the fiscal year.

Investing in the agricultural sector exposes producers to numerous risks and uncertainties. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these challenges, and their impacts are still being felt globally. Our study aims to evaluate and describe the risk management strategies employed by small farmers in Missouri to mitigate and adapt to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their farm operations. We analyzed 141 survey responses, and our findings indicate that most respondents employed multiple strategies, including using savings, diversification, reducing inputs, donating output, delaying investment, gaining off-farm employment, and utilizing government relief programs. However, apart from the COVID-19 stimulus checks, which were automatically disbursed to eligible households, few farmers were aware of or participated in other federal relief programs aimed at supporting small businesses and producers. We recommend that Extension specialists collaborate with other stakeholders and agencies responsible for federal relief programs to enhance small farmer awareness and participation in the future. Additionally, further research is necessary to understand the coping strategies employed by small farmers to remain resilient and maintain personal and mental health during the pandemic.

The farmer-owned label is a relatively recent addition to the crowded landscape of information on food and drink product pack-ages. Due to its novelty, research on the farmer-owned label is still scarce. Using 451 responses from random food consumers in the United States, we attempt to explain variability in the purchase of farmer-owned brands in ten different food and drink product categories in terms of label comprehension and price fairness perception. Our structural equation model results are contrary to expectations: we find a negative relationship of label comprehension to the farmer-owned brand share, which implies food consumers do not support the various implications of farmer ownership of food brands. In addition, respondents who perceive more distributive price fairness and procedural price fairness purchase a higher proportion of farmer-owned brands. Implications for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers are discussed.