Cooperative Identity in the Digital Age: Strengthening Democratic Member Control
On 16 September 2026, Mr. Balasubramanian G. Iyer, Regional Director of ICA-AP, took part in The Cooperative Identity Lab: “Protecting Cooperative Identity with and Beyond Norms: Ensuring Cooperative Identity Remains Relevant, Resilient and Resonant.” He contributed to the session on “Democratic Control in Digital Cooperatives,” alongside Dr. Morshed Mannan, Lecturer in Global Law and Digital Technology at Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh; Mr. Akkanut Wantanasombut, Head of Innovation for Social Solidarity and Inclusive Economy in Asia (ISSIE) at the Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University; and Ms. Anne-Laure Degris, Co-Chief Executive of Smart, Belgium.
The discussion examined a fundamental question for the cooperative movement: how can meaningful democratic member control be preserved in large, federated, multi-stakeholder and platform cooperatives when participation is increasingly mediated by technology? Participants considered safeguards around digital notice, deliberation and voting; identity verification; accessibility and inclusion; transparency of automated systems; data rights; cybersecurity; and mechanisms for reviewing and challenging decisions.
In his intervention, Mr. Iyer drew a distinction between complex cooperatives and digital cooperatives. Complex cooperatives may have multiple layers of representation, diverse memberships, subsidiaries and operations across sectors or countries. While most cooperatives today use digital technology, this does not necessarily make them digital cooperatives. In a digital cooperative, technology or digital infrastructure is central to the organization’s operations or business model. In both cases, however, structure and technology are only the means. The central question is whether they strengthen or weaken democratic member control.
Referring to the ICA Guidance Notes, Mr. Iyer highlighted the opportunities technology provides for large and geographically dispersed cooperatives to extend member education and participation. At the same time, he stressed the continuing importance of direct interaction among members in building trust.
Digital systems can make participation faster, wider and more convenient. But they can also make decision-making more distant, opaque or exclusionary. Democratic control therefore cannot be measured simply by whether members are able to vote electronically. Cooperatives also need to consider whether members have meaningful access to information, opportunities for deliberation, the ability to question decisions, and an understanding of how technology and automated systems influence those decisions.
Mr. Iyer suggested that ICA could consider developing practical guidance or a democratic-control assessment tool for digital cooperatives. Such a tool could help cooperatives examine not only their bylaws and voting arrangements, but also who controls their technology, data and decision-making infrastructure. This could be complemented by peer reviews, case studies and model provisions for cooperative laws and bylaws.
Digitalization also presents an opportunity to move beyond viewing cooperative democracy primarily through the annual general meeting. Used well, technology can enable participation to become more continuous, informed and inclusive. Summing up his intervention, Mr. Iyer observed: “Law should provide the floor, cooperative principles should provide the standard, and actual practice should provide the proof.”
As digital technology becomes increasingly embedded in cooperative governance and business models, the discussion ultimately comes back to a simple but important test: “Does technology deepen cooperative democracy, or does it merely digitize a democracy that is already weak?”