=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3293/paper4
|storemode=property
|title=An Investigation on Greek Agricultural Cooperatives' Services: What is Missing?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3293/paper4.pdf
|volume=Vol-3293
|authors=Evangelia Karasmanaki,Panagiota Dimopoulou,Achilleas Kontogeorgos,Georgios Tsantopoulos
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/KarasmanakiDKT22
}}
==An Investigation on Greek Agricultural Cooperatives' Services: What is Missing?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3293/paper4.pdf
An Investigation on Greek Agricultural Cooperatives’ Services:
What is Missing?
Evangelia Karasmanaki 1, Panagiota Dimopoulou 1, Achilleas Kontogeorgos 2 and Georgios
Tsantopoulos 1
1
Department of Forestry and Management of Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of
Thrace, 193 Pantazidou Street, 68 200 Orestiada, Greece
2
Department of Agriculture, International Hellenic University, 57001 Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract
Agricultural cooperatives have played a key role in helping farmers withstand major market
changes. The Municipal Unit of Zagora in Greece has a long and successful tradition of
agricultural cooperatives. In order to detect the characteristics that account for this success, this
study investigates the views of cooperative members on the contribution of cooperatives and
the measures which could further improve their operation. Overall, respondents acknowledged
that cooperatives provide successful product marketing and, at the same time, play a positive
role in the local area. In particular, they perceived that cooperatives ensure a good name for
their products and open up the market for new products. Moreover, they viewed that
cooperatives have boosted the local economy, enhanced the profile of the local area and offered
opportunities for local development. However, respondents did not evaluate positively the
training provided by cooperatives while they perceived that there are limited opportunities to
invest in the cooperative with high return rates. To further improve the operation of
cooperatives, decisions should be taken jointly by administration and market experts, while it
is necessary to make investments in research and development R&D and equipment, as well
as to establish product prices based on new criteria (such as the size and quality of delivered
quantity).
Keywords 1
Agricultural cooperatives, agriculture, farmers’ attitudes.
1. Introduction
Cooperatives have played a key role in the agricultural sector and historically have served as a major
institutional and organizational tool that enabled independent farmers to endure the market power of
local and international retailers [1]. They have also condensed the supply chain enabling farmers to
integrate processing and marketing procedures into very few steps, thereby permitting considerable
saving on intermediation costs [1]. In addition, cooperatives seek to both enhance the welfare of their
members and add value to products. Other strengths include the decreased cost of production and
member networking [2].
The relevant literature has focused on the factors affecting cooperative entrepreneurship and has
inferred that a lot can be gained from investigating the relationship between conditions, strategies and
impacts [3,4]. Although the establishment of agricultural cooperatives follows a rising trend,
cooperatives keep facing significant challenges of both internal and external nature [5]. To understand
which characteristics of cooperatives are effective, this study investigates the views on the contribution
of cooperatives and measures that could improve the operation of cooperatives among members of
agricultural cooperatives in a Greek study area which is renowned for its high quality products.
Proceedings of HAICTA 2022, September 22–25, 2022, Athens, Greece
EMAIL: evkarasm@fmenr.duth.gr (A. 1); panadimo3@fmenr.duth.gr (A. 2); akontoge@ihu.gr (A. 3); tsantopo@fmenr.duth.gr (A. 4)
ORCID: 0000-0002-6192-2709 (A. 1); 0000-0002-4186-0379 (A. 3); 0000-0003-0273-3235 (A. 4)
©️ 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
10
2. Methodology
The population under study was farmers in the Municipal Unit of Zagora (Greece) which has a long
and successful tradition in agricultural cooperatives with the most important being the apple growing
cooperative “Zagorin” whose products have been designated “Protected Designation of Origin”. The
findings in this paper are part of a larger research but here the analysis involved only farmers who are
members of agricultural cooperatives. A structured questionnaire was constructed and all items drew
on the findings of previous relevant research. Respondents were recruited by simple random sampling
and, in total, 210 farmers participated in the study. The analysis in this paper involved only the responses
of respondents who are members of agricultural cooperatives. Hence, the final sample was 199 farmers.
The collected data were scrutinized with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software
version 23, and, in specific, descriptive statistics, the non-parametric Friedman test and factor analysis
were conducted.
3. Results
The sample involved 199 members of agricultural cooperatives in the Municipal Unit of Zagora.
The majority were male (62.3%) and significant shares were aged between 41 and 50 years (49.2%) as
well as between 31 and 40 years (23.1%). Most respondents were married (85.4%) and a considerable
share of married respondents had two children (58.8%). In terms of education level, most farmers were
middle school graduates (35.5%) and high school graduates (34.2%). Farming was the main occupation
for most participants (82.9%). Respondents had a long experience in farming as an appreciable share
of 35.7% had been engaged in farming for 25–35 years and 33.2% for 16–25 years.
Farmers evaluated the contribution of agricultural cooperatives. To that end, they assessed a set of
different kinds of contribution which concerned not only the ways in which cooperatives benefit them
personally but also the ways that cooperatives benefit the local area. To detect differences among
respondents’ evaluations, the non-parametric Friedman test was performed. The most important
contributions were the ability of cooperatives to improve the profile of the local community (mean rank
17.52), to support the local society (mean rank 17.50) and to provide opportunities for local
development (mean rank 17.42). According to respondents, cooperatives can also provide a good name
for products and services on the market (mean rank 16.90) and open up the market for new products or
services (mean rank 14.65). Another highly ranked variable was cooperatives’ openness to new
members (mean rank 13.43). There were, however, aspects that received much lower rankings with the
lowest ranked aspects being the training that cooperatives provide to their members (mean rank 8.81)
and the ability of members to invest in the cooperative with a high rate of return (mean rank 8.94).
To attain further insights into farmers’ evaluation of cooperatives, factor analysis was performed
because it can indicate how farmers distinguish between the various forms of cooperatives’
contributions. Prior to the analysis, the Bartlett's test of sphericity (Chi-Square = 4060.953 with df = 276
and p < 0.001), the Cronbach's alpha value (0.955) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index (0.930) verified
the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Results presented in Table 1 show that after rotation, four
factors emerged. Based on the variables loaded, the first factor can be termed “Member participation
in decision-making and interest representation”, the second factor “Contribution to the local area and
production of reputable and pro-environmental products”, the third factor “Information, training and
opportunities for investments and cooperation” and the fourth factor “Product exclusivity and access
to funding and new technologies”.
11
Table 1
Rotated component matrix for respondents' evaluation of different aspects of cooperatives
Factor loadings of the data after rotation
1 2 3 4
Participation in decision-making (for all
0.818 0.260 0.077 0.217
members)
Equal rights in decision-making for all
0.770 0.292 0.189 0.213
members
Ability to express concerns 0.763 0.193 0.204 0.279
Involvement of members in decision-
0.713 0.281 0.344 0.096
making
Opportunities for all members to
0.664 0.291 0.394 0.235
participate in administration
Open to new members 0.626 0.378 0.128 0.059
Opening up the market for new
0.585 0.539 0.170 0.241
products and services
Representation of the interests of
0.582 0.418 0.367 0.264
members
Improvement in the profile of the local
0.250 0.840 0.065 0.210
community
Opportunities for local development 0.259 0.828 0.083 0.213
Support for the local society 0.222 0.813 0.109 0.183
Good name for products and services
0.214 0.732 0.173 0.167
on the market
Environmentally friendly products 0.452 0.596 0.269 -0.001
Opportunities to invest in the
-0.004 0.150 0.788 0.268
cooperative with a high rate of return
Professionalism of staff and managers 0.148 0.201 0.773 0.295
Encouraging the active participation of
0.307 0.041 0.743 0.127
members
Information (by the administration) on
0.433 0.200 0.709 0.117
the cooperative’s plans and objectives
Promoting cooperation among
0.499 -0.013 0.658 0.202
members
Training for new members 0.357 0.178 0.554 0.458
Products and services that cannot be
0.198 0.214 0.241 0.787
found elsewhere
Easy access to funding (e.g., loan
0.120 0.368 0.242 0.722
intermediation)
Useful website 0.454 0.082 0.255 0.662
Access to new technologies 0.512 0.135 0.297 0.613
Price stability (for supplies and
0.072 0.283 0.496 0.550
products)
Then, respondents evaluated various measures which, if taken, may improve the operation of
cooperatives. To detect statistically significant differences among responses, the non-parametric
Friedman test was performed. The adoption of a decision-making model in which decisions are taken
jointly by the cooperative administration and market experts (mean rank 10.63) was the highest ranked
measure. This was followed by investments in equipment for the production of high-quality products
(mean rank 10.33), investments in research and development (R&D) (mean rank 9.89), increasing the
price of cooperative shares for new members (mean rank 9.51) and the establishment of different prices
according to the delivered quantities (mean rank 9.36).
12
To gain a deeper understanding of farmers’ views on these measures, responses were analyzed with
factor analysis. Τhe Cronbach's alpha value (0.867), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index (0.834) and
Bartlett's test of sphericity (Chi-Square = 1837.976 with df = 120 and p < 0.001) confirmed the
eligibility of the data for factor analysis. According to the results in Table 2, four factors were loaded.
Based on the content of the variables included in each factor, the first factor can be named “Measures
to improve price establishment, quality control and management”, the second factor can be termed
“Measures to improve price establishment and changes in shareholder regime, funding and voting”,
the third factor can be named “Investments in equipment and R&D and inclusion of market experts in
decision-making” and the fourth factor can be termed “Equal vote and ability to transfer or sell shares
for all members”.
Table 2.
Measures to improve cooperatives’ operation shown with factor loadings after varimax rotation
Factor loadings of the data after rotation
1 2 3 4
Establishing a mandatory delivery
0.901 0.200 0.092 0.001
contract for each member
Imposing sanctions in case of not
0.870 0.246 0.037 -0.069
delivering the agreed quantities
Establishing different product prices
0.869 0.250 -0.010 -0.016
according to quality delivery criteria
Applying other quality systems for the
0.835 0.214 0.147 0.126
cooperative’s operation (e.g., ISO 9001)
Applying a system of integrated
0.828 0.178 0.216 0.157
management (AGRO 2.1/ AGRO 2.2)
Establishing prices for supplies
according to each member’s purchase 0.217 0.834 0.101 0.037
size
Establishing product prices based on the
0.365 0.634 -0.053 -0.114
delivered quantity
Ability to receive funding from non-
members (third parties, private persons 0.088 0.601 0.064 0.369
and enterprises).
Losing cooperative shares in case of
0.283 0.572 0.096 0.354
leaving the cooperative
Enabling members to acquire more
votes according to the capital they 0.212 0.523 0.030 0.323
invest in the cooperative
Investing in modern equipment to
0.211 0.033 0.870 0.005
produce high-quality products
Investment in R&D 0.360 -0.097 0.829 0.032
Adoption of a decision-making model in
which decisions are taken jointly by
-0.204 0.221 0.803 0.033
cooperative administration and market
experts
Enabling members to transfer or sell
-0.046 0.009 0.016 0.854
cooperative shares
Increasing the price of cooperative
-0.038 0.179 -0.052 0.635
shares for new members
Equal voting rights for all cooperative
0.315 0.321 0.243 0.516
members
13
4. Conclusions
The area of study is renowned for its agricultural cooperatives and added-value products. In this
regard, cooperative members’ views can help understand what makes these cooperatives successful so
that other cooperatives take the same steps to improve their operation. Respondents acknowledged that
cooperatives in the study area have a positive impact on their products by providing a good name and
opening up the market for new products. Moreover, they perceived that the cooperatives have provided
significant local benefits by supporting the local economy, enhancing the profile of the local area and
offering opportunities for local development indicating that members value the overall positive role of
cooperatives in the local area. This can allow us to infer that the effective operation of cooperatives
stems not only from successful product marketing but also from the positive role of cooperatives in the
local area. Hence, it is important for the successful operation of cooperatives to add local development
objectives in their agenda. There were, however, aspects that seem to require improvement; most
importantly, the training provided to members and investments in the cooperative with high return rates
were the aspects that received the lowest ranking suggesting that these aspects need to be improved.
Results have also pointed to measures which could, according to members’ view, improve the operation
of cooperatives. These measures concern the inclusion of market experts in decision-making,
investments R&D and in equipment that will enable both the production of high-quality products and
changes in the establishment of prices by taking new criteria into account (such as the size and quality
of delivered quantity). It can thus be argued that the application of these measures would further
enhance the operation of cooperatives in the study area.
5. References
[1] E. C. Tortia, V. L. Valentinov, C. Iliopoulos, Agricultural cooperatives. Journal of Entrepreneurial
and Organizational Diversity, 2 (2013), 23-36. doi:10.5947/jeod.2013.002.
[2] A. Batzios, A. Kontogeorgos, F. Chatzitheodoridis, P. Sergaki,. What Makes Producers Participate
in Marketing Cooperatives? The Northern Greece Case. Sustainability, 13.4 (2021), 1676.
doi:10.3390/su13041676.
[3] A. P. Pliakoura, G. Beligiannis, A. Kontogeorgos, Significant barriers to the adoption of the
agricultural cooperative model of entrepreneurship: a literature review. International Journal of
Social Economics. 49.1 (2021), doi:10.1108/IJSE-10-2020-0710.
[4] C. I. Papadopoulou, E. Loizou, K. Melfou, F. Chatzitheodoridis, The Knowledge Based
Agricultural Bioeconomy: A Bibliometric Network Analysis. Energies, 14(20), (2021), 6823.
doi:10.3390/en14206823.
[5] E. Fytopoulou, S. Tampakis, S. Galatsidas, E. Karasmanaki, G. Tsantopoulos, The role of events
in local development: An analysis of residents’ perspectives and visitor satisfaction, Journal of
Rural Studies, 82 (2021) 54–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.018.
14