Best Paper Award 2023

Thomas Bauwens (RSM), Benjamin Huybrechts (IESEG) and Frédéric Dufays (HEC Liège) have received the Organization & Environment’s Best Paper Award 2023, recognizing the 3-year impact for their paper “Understanding the Diverse Scaling Strategies of Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Renewable Energy Cooperatives”

The article addresses the diversity of scaling strategies, which the authors put forward as hybrid organizations, in the sense that they pursue several goals at once (economic, societal, environmental, etcetera). The authors also highlight how collaboration among social enterprises may help to achieve their goals collectively.

Read the entire article here:

Building together, trusting together

(This article was published, in Dutch, in the Volkskrant of 19 June 2023 and can be found here)

The Netherlands has about 4,000 citizen collectives. They have their own ideas on how to keep their homes, care and energy up to standard and restore confidence. Officials have yet to get used to this unconventional approach.

By Margriet Oostveen


They wanted to build an affordable, climate-neutral village where everyone would take care of each other. They sold their comfortable single-family homes and moved into construction sheds on the outskirts of Boekel, Brabant, for four years. There they went to work with a contractor.

They had three large circles with a total of 36 social housing units designed. In their village nobody would about asylum seekers: from the very first drawing board they reserved living space for two status holders. They also wanted to take care of the elderly and sick.

The initiator, Ad Vlems, was a system administrator in Tilburg. His wife Monique is an account manager. They started a citizens’ collective. With a few other families, they put their whole lives into the project. Then they crowdfunded and found subsidies.

Now ecovillage Boekel is a fact. Everyone has moved in, the status holders have arrived, and four people for whom the collective provides informal care. Its own energy supply is running, the food garden is green, the community center is progressing. ‘Last year we had 1,100 people visit with one tour a week, this year we are giving two such tours every week,’ says Ad Vlems. He has already been invited to Brussels three times to give a presentation at the EU Economic and Social Committee, and he now advises the Ministry of Transport and Public Works. Last month, they won a European sustainability prize.

Other municipalities want to know how to support citizen collectives like the one in Boekel “without killing them” with too much bureaucracy, because they grow “like mushrooms. This in the words of Godfried Engbersen, professor of sociology at Rotterdam’s Erasmus University.

He was speaking Friday in Eindhoven at a day for citizen collectives organized by Collective Power, the platform set up by Professor Tine de Moor of the Rotterdam School of Management to study citizen collectives and at the same time help them move forward. It is estimated that the Netherlands already has more than 4,000 of them.

Engbersen attributes the rapid growth to what he calls “the low-trust society”; a society where trust in government is low. ‘Because to work together you have to trust each other, and that is where something is going wrong between the government and citizens.’

The 4,000 Dutch citizen collectives now consist of some 1,400 housing cooperatives where people rent or buy, develop or manage homes together. There are 705 energy collectives with their own windmills or solar panels; 646 bread funds where self-employed people insure each other in case of illness and just under 1,500 care cooperatives with everything from nursery to assisted living with care, by self-employed people hired by the collective. And then there are dozens of agricultural cooperatives, in which citizens support farmers in sustainability, for example.

Covid was not the cause of the low confidence, says Engbersen, who is leading a study on the social impact of the pandemic. ‘Covid was the contrast agent; it made visible problems that had existed for a long time.’

Take the “demolition in the social domain” that the government caused before by closing or divesting numerous facilities, he says. Many citizen collectives know how to organize things better to maintain housing, energy and care and restore mutual trust. ‘The question now is what is a good public infrastructure for that,’ Engbersen says. ‘Because you are not average.’

Complicated language

The members of citizen collectives who have come to Eindhoven are mostly middle-aged white people who have continued their education. But as in the eco-village in Boekel, they don’t seem intent on keeping their privilege to themselves. In a workshop for energy collectives, volunteer energy coaches tell how in Haarlem they help fellow townsfolk understand the complicated language of sustainability (“sometimes I have to explain what ‘subsidy’ means”). Many here are familiar with the website, where you can type in words to test whether what you want to say is understandable to everyone.

The main goal of most collectives may be self-interest, but the secondary goal is often to strengthen togetherness and a network that people dare to rely on again. During a break, Wilhelmina Hoedjes of energy collective Weert Energie explains how the 550 members save up the profits from their solar farm to pay out as an energy subsidy to Weert’s minima. ‘The municipality would arrange that, because they are not allowed to tell us who it concerns because of privacy laws. Only the municipality still hasn’t distributed the money,’ says Hoedjes.

Civil servants often have to get used to the unconventional approach of citizen collectives, there is a lot of grumbling about that in Eindhoven. ‘But the government also has to ensure legitimacy, predictability and legal equality,’ explains administrative expert Karin Geuijen of Utrecht University ‘as the devil’s advocate’ once again. ‘That is of course the double of bureaucracy’.

Ten years ago, in the traditionally poor Afrikaanderwijk neighborhood in Rotterdam, residents founded the Afrikaanderwijk Cooperative, which provides them with, among other things, its own workshop, cleaning service and catering, work they can no longer count on elsewhere. All 100 or so members thus receive an income from the cooperative. Co-founder Annet van Otterloo says soberly to a room hanging on her every word: “I grew up with the idea that the government takes care of you. We have many people working in the cooperative who now see the government as a danger.’

Together, citizens get a lot done

(This article was published, in Dutch, in de Volkskrant of 11 June 2023 and can be found here)

Citizen collectives or “commons” solve problems that neoliberal government fails to address. The Netherlands now has thousands of them. Professor Tine De Moor explains why it is time to finally take them seriously.

By Margriet Oostveen

Bright spot in times of political wrangling and online threats: people are always going to cooperate again. Just ask Flemish professor Tine De Moor.

Her specialty is the economic and social history of citizen cooperatives and social enterprises. The Dutch buy windmills or solar panels together, they insure themselves and each other against illness in a bread fund, they support an organic farm in order to be able to eat more sustainably, they start their own neighborhood bus when it has been cut back, or their own fiber-optic network when the large providers ignore the village. And everywhere they often set up excellent care organizations themselves, from daycare centers to complete home care for the elderly.

These forms of cooperation are called “commons” in the professional literature, after the English word for the common patch of grazing land that villagers used to share (in Dutch, “de meent”). De Moor also uses the more modern term “institutions of collective action” or “citizen collectives”.

Citizen collectives have existed, intermittently, for a thousand years. In the last twenty years, people have again been seeking this collectivity with striking commitment. One-third of the estimated more than four thousand collectives the Netherlands now has were founded in the past seven years, often to solve problems that the neoliberal government ignored.

Tine De Moor, professor of Social Enterprises and Institutions for Collective Action at Erasmus University’s Rotterdam School of Management, was awarded 1.5 million euros for her research project UNICA. With that grant from the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), she aims to develop a theory on what makes citizen collectives resilient organizations. The accompanying platform is itself a collective of citizen collectives and scientists. Citizen collectives who sign up as research subjects can, in return, access a knowledge base with relevant scientific facts about, for example, funding or collaboration. De Moor is “deeply concerned” about the increased distrust of science. “The only remedy is to make science accessible.

De Moor wants the government to understand why citizen collectives are necessary and deserve broad support. The latter still too often dismisses citizen collectives as a non-committal form of citizen participation, she says. The hardest part for collectives is finding serious investors. De Moor: “Problems such as climate change and healthcare capacity are too urgent to keep reinventing the wheel. Moreover, collectives encourage a sense of community, and in times of polarization and declining trust, that is no luxury either.’

What do we need to know about citizen collectives? Six lessons.

Collectives more often abolished than failed

The first civic collectives were the merchant guilds of the 11th century. De Moor: “There is no strong state yet and the market is still embryonic, so people find their own ways to arrange the distribution of goods, products and services. Citizens together manage a meent (common) where they can graze some livestock, or a water board to protect against floods.

It worked like this until the end of the 18th century. One of the first official Dutch agricultural cooperatives was founded in 1817, and it was not for nothing that it was named Welbegrepen Eigenbelang (Well-understood self-interest): ‘People unite when they can’t manage on their own,” says De Moor. “That is the common thread of all collectives throughout time. It also distinguishes them from the government.’

Meanwhile, others are beginning to think about more efficient ways of organizing the state. See the Enlightenment, but also physiocratism is important, the French economic movement that measured the wealth of a nation by the value of the land available for agriculture. De Moor: “In the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, therefore, governments gradually wanted to get rid of that fiddling in separate little collectives.”

Throughout Europe in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, many guilds, market societies and commons were abolished. ‘A strong belief in the market emerges. And governments rise up against cartels, so to speak; they are convinced that individual initiative must be given more room if they want to develop citizenship.’

With the introduction of the Civil Code (completed in the Netherlands in 1838), most civic collectives disappeared. De Moor: ‘Collective property was given no place in it. Recognizing that property was in common possession was thus actually made impossible.’

Yet the guilds, for example, stood for more than economic self-interest. ‘They also tried in the late Middle Ages to regulate a bit the commercialization and proliferation of power. They were responsible for measuring and weighing goods and were also social,” De Moor says. ‘Apart from the quality mark, fire insurance was invented in the guilds, plus insurance for widows and orphans. And the interesting thing is: when the guilds were abolished, you saw that precisely this social component started to develop in new collectives. For example, in mutual insurance.’

What De Moor is trying to say: golden ideas emerged from many abolished citizen collectives, which were later institutionalized.

From the end of the 19th century there is a second wave, when, along with industrialization, new cooperatives emerge, that merge and grow rapidly. In 1871, nine farmers took over a milk factory in Wieringerwaard; a hundred years later, the international dairy cooperative FrieslandCampina emerged from this.

The ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ is a famous but shaky theory

In 1968, microbiologist Garrett Hardin published an influential, not to say deadly, essay in Science on citizen collectives: The Tragedy of the Commons. Tine De Moor summarizes it this way: “Imagine: you have a communal piece of pastureland and everyone is allowed to put cows on it. In the beginning this goes well, but then people think: I’ll put another cow there, because I can make cheese from that milk and sell it. So you get commercialization and eventually overgrazing. Hardin argued: if you want to do it right, there are only two options: you, as a government, take over the management of that pasture or you let the market take care of it.’

The Tragedy of the Commons had a major impact on economists and the choice between government regulation or market thinking – citizen collectives were more or less crossed out between them as a useless alternative. Fifty years later, American political scientist Elinor Ostrom became the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009 with her research on citizen collectives in developing countries. Ostrom showed that people can indeed go for collective rather than personal gain. ‘As long as there is no interference from above and people think carefully about arranging cooperation.’

Tine De Moor added her own research to this: she investigated a common grazing ground that appeared in The Tragedy of the Commons over a longer period in the early modern era (‘I did not quite know the names of the cows on the spot, but I knew the names of their owners’). And she found that the disappearance of common grazing land toward the end of the 18th century was more likely due to the impoverishment of the time, ‘which meant that farmers had fewer cows and therefore less interest in standing up for that pasture.’ So the problem was in the circumstances that were changing, not in the citizen collectives themselves.

“What emerged from Ostrom’s and my own research was that such a common does not function at all as Garrett Hardin described: a kind of open-access situation that anyone could just throw themselves into. In practice, you see that there is indeed a lot of mutual communication, consultation and agreements are made. Out of well-understood self-interest.’

In short, there are important arguments against Hardin’s image of collectives, says De Moor. ‘The problem is only that it stuck and became a reason for privatization. Otherwise there will be chaos, people reasoned.’

Sanctions don’t work, meetings do

So how do citizen collectives prevent that chaos? Fascinating by-catch in De Moor’s research: “The degree of sanctioning proved to be inversely proportional to longevity. In other words, the less participants punished each other for behavior that went against the common good, the longer a collective remained alive. ‘While sanctioning in today’s society is often our reflex: we have built a system that works reasonably well, but is also incredibly expensive: we have courts, police, you have to monitor, follow up on fines.’

Perhaps you can partly solve that in a different way, says De Moor: ‘That’s what those successful commons did: they started talking to each other.’ She discovered that citizen collectives from the past at most imposed sanctions to people who did not want to reach an agreement. If there was a sanction, it was, for example, the obligation to be present at a meeting’.

Indeed, sanctions can also be destructive, warns De Moor: “You think you are doing something good, but you are also destroying social fabric.”

Civic collectives are neither communist nor romantic

Under communism, haven’t we seen often enough how collectives can go wrong? On this, Tine De Moor is very decided: citizen collectives have nothing to do with communism. ‘Communism is a government-run system, while citizen collectives organize themselves from the bottom up. That’s why I have a hard time with scholars who talk about ‘commonism’: we really won’t get anywhere with that. The main reason De Moor herself uses the word “commons” as little as possible is also because it “sounds too much like ideology.”

Which brings us to the romance of citizen collectives: ‘I don’t want to be too romantic about the human need to cooperate all the time: citizen collectives emerge because of very material, basic needs, like energy and healthcare. I’ve never seen a citizen cooperative for toothpaste emerge. But at the same time, a collective can act as a lever for social renewal, and therein lies its power.’

Energy collectives, such as people buying a windmill or solar panels together, for example, can advance the idea of sustainability. The Herenboeren farming cooperative helps people think about the future of agriculture by letting them experience for themselves where food comes from.

Citizen collectives are indispensable in times of privatization

‘Look at the privatization of healthcare,’ says Tine De Moor. ‘If you privatize it, you get an infinite chain of subcontractors, because with commercialization things can always be done cheaper. That leads to enormous extra costs while the quality of care decreases: an elderly person still living at home now gets three care workers at the door every day. If you reorganize that locally and from the bottom up, close to the people who need care, then you can also approach that care much more efficiently. Many cooperatives have already shown that they work cheaper and better than the current system.’

Not that citizen collectives are the ideal solution in all circumstances. “A bread fund can insure self-employed entrepreneurs against illness for a maximum of two years, so with disability insurance you might wonder if it would not be better to do that through the government.

A citizen collective can give back a sense of well-being and sense of community, and there is evidence that citizen collectives can lead to prosocial behavior (behavior intended to help others), says De Moor: “Researchers tentatively conclude that participating in a small-scale democratic process such as a citizen collective might lead to what they call a ‘spillover effect.’ In other words, when many people still have very little faith in government and institutions, citizen collectives actually seem to be resistant to crises (such as the corona pandemic) and good for the functioning of a democracy.

How does that work? A government provides indirect solidarity, explains De Moor. “If I pay taxes to the government so that someone in Flevoland can receive benefits, that is indirect solidarity. But if I participate in a citizens’ collective, a group that is going to organize solidarity, then it is clearer for whom I am doing it.’

Why is that important in a country where indirect solidarity has always been fairly stable? ‘I don’t think it still is,’ says De Moor. ‘Many provisions no longer always reach the people for whom they were intended.’ See the new pension system. Or again healthcare, where a lot of money is now spent on organizing. ‘Direct solidarity is then often more efficient and effective. Also because it contributes to community building. People reconnect with each other and feel less lonely.’

Citizen collectives are long gone from the experimental phase

When Tine De Moor asks citizen collectives about obstacles, they usually have to do with funding and an opposing government. Three-quarters need external financiers and knock on the door of a municipality, for example. Officials often balk at liability, such as who is financially responsible when a housing cooperative’s construction project goes awry. While citizen collectives usually have been arranging their insurance for a long time. Liability also seems to be a bit of an excuse for not having to think along with collectives.’

Year after year, Tine De Moor receives visits from interested politicians and civil servants to whom she has to explain over and over again what citizen collectives really are. Most recently the Wiardi Beckman Foundation, the scientific bureau of the Dutch Labour Party. ‘The funny thing was that fifteen years ago I already gave that explanation to GroenLinks [which is about to merge with the Labour Party]. And last year the Scientific Institute for the [Christen Democratic] CDA was on my doorstep. Every time I have to start from scratch. And then they say: we might be able to experiment with that.’

Stop it, says Tine De Moor then. ‘Take citizen collectives seriously at last. Because most of them started solving long ago what you yourselves leave behind.’ CollectieveKracht is organizing a day on June 16 where citizen collectives and governments will engage in conversation. You can register via

Citizen collectives in the Netherlands

Housing cooperatives: an estimated 1,400, some still in formation. Rent or buy, develop or manage property jointly. Example: De Warren in Amsterdam, 36 sustainable homes for 5 housing groups.

Agricultural cooperatives: the total is untraceable. Through the agricultural cooperative Herenboeren, for example, there were 14 sustainable professional gentlemen farms in operation last year, and more than 29 are still in the process of being established. Affiliated farms are run by a professional farmer in exchange for a monthly salary paid by participating (citizen) members.

Energy cooperatives: 705 cooperatives with over 112 thousand members in 2022. They jointly buy windmills or solar panels, save energy by, for example, iso learning together. Or they collectively store energy, as six dairy farmers in NoordDeurningen do with their biogas from cow manure.

Bread funds: some 30 thousand self-employed entrepreneurs insure each other in case of illness in 646 bread funds. Often grouped around their place of residence, such as Broodfonds Oosterwold. Bread funds usually have 20 to a maximum of 50 members. Many have waiting lists.

Care: according to the latest estimate, there are nearly 1,500 small and large citizen collectives in the Netherlands that arrange care. This may be a parent-run child care center, such as De Villa in Utrecht. Or a complete care system, such as Austerlitz Zorgt, which arranges all care and support for the oldest inhabitants of the village of Austerlitz itself through one counter. From parents’ clubs and evening meals to renting care apartments and hiring care workers.

Sources: Knowledge Network Residential Cooperatives, Herenboeren, Hier Opgewekt, the BroodfondsMakers, Movisie

Debate on commons at Debatcentrum Arminius

A lively debate on ‘commons’ took place at Debatpodium Arminius on 27 June. Prof. Tine De Moor (Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University) was one of the speakers, along with political philosopher Yara Al Salman (Universiteit Utrecht), Femke Stam (Knarrenhof), Jelte Boeijenga (Energie van Rotterdam), Annet Van Otterloo (Afrikaanderwijk Coöperatie), Sebastiaan Bonte (Leefbaar Rotterdam) and Tim de Haan (D66). Watch the recordings on YouTube, sound starts at 6:21.

‘Commons for dummies’ – interview (in Dutch) with Tine De Moor

Following her inaugural lecture ‘Shakeholder society? Social Enterprises, citizens and collective action in the community economy‘, Tine De Moor was interviewed about commons (a.k.a. citizen collectives) by Annemarieke Nierop from the Wiardi Beckman Association. Van Nierop also visited a modern common, to wit the division of Herenboeren Nederland in Bergen. The resulting article (in Dutch) can be found on the association’s website.

‘Samen bouwen, samen vertrouwen’, article in the Volkskrant

The Volkskrant published an article on citizen collectives: ‘Build together, trust together. It presents Ecodorp Boekel as a specimen of a citizen collective and gives an impression of the CollectieveKracht meeting on 16 June, which was co-organized by a sub-group of our research team. The journal article highlights the keynote speech from prof. dr. Godfried Engbersen (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam) and contributions from Wilhelmina Hoedjes (Energiecollectief Weert), public administration expert Karin Geuijen (Universiteit Utrecht), and Annet Van Otterloo (Afrikaanderwijk Coöperatie). The article can be found here: Samen-bouwen-hoe-burgercollectieven-gedijen-waar-het-vertrouwen-in-de-overheid-daalt.pdf. For the English translation see this page.

‘Strong together? Citizen collectives solve problems unheeded by the government’ – Interview with Tine De Moor

De Volkskrant had an interview with Tine De Moor about 1000 years of history of institutions for collective action (a.k.a. commons) and the relevance of citizen collectives in our present-day society. ‘Problems such as climate change and the capacity of healthcare provision are too urgent to re-invent the wheel over and over again.’ The article can be found here: Samen sterk. Burgercollectieven lossen problemen op die de overheid laat liggen. See this page for a translation in English.

Book: Shakeholder society? Social enterprises, citizens and collective action in the community economy.

The inaugural lecture of prof. dr. Tine De Moor can be downloaded for free on this page: T_De_Moor_Shakeholder_Society.pdf


On a daily basis we are confronted with social dilemmas, or the choice between our own short-term benefits and long-term collective benefits of societies. We often look to governments and markets to create a framework that enables us… Read further

…to make the choice for the latter easier, but with many grand challenges ahead of us – climate change, loss of biodiversity, mass migration, inequality, to name but a few – we will need to look beyond those and look into the possibilities citizens themselves have to contribute to solving those challenges. In the Netherlands, the social enterprise in the form of the social business has in the past often been put forward as a solution that gives citizens choices as consumers. In “Shakeholder society?” Tine De Moor brings in the perspective of the entrepreneurial citizen, and looks at the possibilities of bringing the roles of stakeholders and shareholders closer together, in cooperative social enterprises. She argues that we need to consider the full breath of social enterprises and give recognition to a diversity of players in this field, all of which brings parts of the solution to the fore. The origins and features of this particular type of social enterprise are discussed, as are the various ways in which they may provide society with the much-needed transformative power. De Moor furthermore discusses the role of scientists, governments, and citizens in increasing the resilience of the cooperative social enterprise as a transformative business model.

Open seminar talk by Sverker Jagers

On 24 January Prof. Sverker Jagers, professor at the University of Gothenburg and director of CeCAR (Centre for Collective Action Research), gave a very captivating presentation on “Climate change, collective action and the need for applied environmental social science”. His research focuses on various aspects of environmental politics, from public opinion to institutional theory.

Open seminar talk by Nadia von Jacobi and Sara Lorenzini

On Tuesday 17 January, Dr. Nadia von Jacobi and Sara Lorenzini were the guests in our open seminar series. Von Jacobi is an Assistant Professor and Sara Lorenzini a PhD candidate at the Department of Economics and Management, University of Trento. Their interest lies predominantly in ways to ‘amplify’ citizen knowledge in the management of natural capital. Von Jacobi and Lorenzini talked about forests as commons.