Research on World Agricultural Economy

The Dynamics of Multi-Stakeholder Collective Action in Organic Tea Cooperatives

Rika Hariance

Development Studies Doctoral Program, Andalas University, Padang 23561, Indonesia

Melinda Noer

Development Studies Doctoral Program, Andalas University, Padang 23561, Indonesia

Endrizal Ridwan

Development Studies Doctoral Program, Andalas University, Padang 23561, Indonesia

Hasnah Hasnah

Development Studies Doctoral Program, Andalas University, Padang 23561, Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v7i1.1772

Received: 24 February 2025 | Revised: 15 April 2025 | Accepted: 2 September 2025 | Published Online: 5 January2026

---

Abstract

Cooperatives are a form of collective action where members work together to achieve greater economic or social benefits than they could individually. Yet, establishing cooperatives that benefit all members in the long term is notoriously challenging. This research examines the factors leading to the failure of collective action among multiple stakeholders (government, private sector, and farmers) in the organic tea producers' cooperative in Solok Regency, West Sumatra, Indonesia. This research employed a mixed-methods approach including surveys with 48 cooperative members, 12 key informant interviews, and direct observation. Data were analyzed using content analysis methods and numerical triangulation. The study found that, while physical and spiritual solidarity among cooperative members was high, the tangible benefits compared to the costs incurred remained low. Affective and normative commitments were high, but continuity and tangilblebenefits were very low. Additionally, interactions among parties did not support the formation of a strong collective identity. To enhance the success of collective action, improvements can be made by refining the reward system and encouraging the formation of a strong collective identity through programs that promote shared goals and cooperative values among members.

Keywords: Collective Action; Cooperatives; Failure; Multi‑Stakeholders; Organic Tea

---

References

[1] Anauati, M.V., Feld, B., Galiani, S., 2016. Collective action: Experimental evidence. Games Econ Behav. 99, 36–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2016.06.005

[2] Hariance, R., Noer, M., Ridwan, E., 2021. Build a strong agribusiness institution through collective action. In proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Bio-Based Economy for Application and Utilization, Padang West Sumatera, Indonesia, 16th December 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/741/1/012078

[3] Plows, A.J., 2000. Collective identity through collective action-Environmental direct action in Britain. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexandra_Plows/publication/229036939_Collective_Identity_through_Collective_Action-Environmental_Direct_Action_in_Britain/links/0f31753871feb13bc4000000?ev=pub_int_doc_dl&origin=publication_detail&inViewer=true (cited 31 January 2025).

[4] Wilkins, D.J., Livingstone, A.G., Levine, M., 2019. All click, no action? Online action, efficacy perceptions, and prior experience combine to affect future collective action. Comput Human Behav. 91, 97–105. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.007

[5] Mujahid, M.M., Salman, D., Abduh, M., 2021. Multiparty collaboration in the fishery region development programme (Minapolitan) in East Luwu Regency. Journal of Collaborative Conflict Resolution. 1(3). Available from: https://www.scribd.com/doc/219049562/Kolaborasi-Multipihak-Pada-Program-Pengembangan-Kawasan-Perikanan-Minapolitan (cited 31 January 2025). (in Indonesian)

[6] Nasrulhaq, N., 2020. The basic values ​​of collaborative governance in public policy studies. Kolaborasi: Jurnal Administrasi Publik. 6(3), 395–402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26618/kjap.v6i3.2261 (in Indonesian)

[7] Fitri, M.R., Jauhari, P.R., 2020. Collaboration between civil society and companies in implementing the SDGs in Indonesia. RESIPROKAL. 2(2). Available from: https://www.sdg2030indonesia.org/page/12-tujuan-empat (cited 31 January 2025).

[8] Olson, M., 2002. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, 20th printing. Harvard University Press: London, UK.

[9] Fitriati, U., Isramaulana, A., Ni, L., 2021. Revitalizing the people's economy collectively through cooperatives. 3(1), 53–57. (in Indonesian)

[10] Nurpadi, D., 2020. Building agricultural cooperatives based on agribusiness value chains. In: Nurpadi, D., (Ed.). 20 Cooperative Thinking in Facing the Industrial Era 4.0 and Society 5.0. No. 022. IKOPIN: Jatinangor, Indonesia. (in Indonesian)

[11] President of Indonesia, 2025. President's instructions No 9, 2025. Ministry of State Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta. (in Indonesian)

[12] Mujiyanti, S.A., 2023. Indonesian Cooperatives and Their Problems. Journal of Business Economics Informatics. 5(3), 1026–1029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37034/infeb.v5i3.653 (in Indonesian)

[13] Asgha, B., 2019. The role of social capital in the performance of microfinance institutions: A case study at Koperasi Maju, Jakarta. Indonesian Journal of Accounting and Governance. 1(1), 44–54. (in Indonesian)

[14] Irawan, D., 2018. Development of partnerships between cooperatives, micro and small enterprises (KUMK) and medium/large enterprises for local superior commodities. Coopetition. IX, 53–66. (in Indonesian)

[15] Prima, M., Irna, Lindayanti, 2019. Solok Radjo Cooperative: Changing the lives of farmers and the Arabica coffee trade in Solok Regency. NUSANTARA: Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial. 6(3), 457–472. (in Indonesian)

[16] Andeska, N., Martion, D., 2017. The “Tungku Tigo Sajarangan” in the Era of Globalization. Journal of the Study and Creation of Outrigger Art. 4(2), 173–185. (in Indonesian)

[17] Habermas, J., 2007. The theory of communicative action critiques functionalist reason. Discourse Creation:Yogyakarta, Indonesia. (in Indonesian)

[18] Vågsholm, I., Belluco, S., Bonardi, S., et al., 2023. Health based animal and meat safety cooperative communities. Food Control. 154, 110016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.110016

[19] Monteiro, N.B.R., da Silva, E.A., Moita Neto, J.M., 2019. Sustainable development goals in mining. J Clean Prod. 228, 509–520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.332

[20] Niesten, E., Jolink, A., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B., et al., 2017. Sustainable collaboration: The impact of governance and institutions on sustainable performance. J Clean Prod. 155, 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.085

[21] Szitar, M.-A., 2014. Learning about Sustainable Community Development. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 116, 3462–3466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.784

[22] Afrizal, 2014. Qualitative Research Methods, 1st ed. PT. Rajagrafindo Persada: Depok, Indonesia. (in Indonesian)

[23] Creswell, J.W., Creswell, J. D., 2018. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. SAGE Publication Inc: London, UK.

[24] Sugiyono, 2020. Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods. Alfabeta: Bandung, Indonesia. (in Indonesian)

[25] Polski, M.M., Ostrom, E., 1999. An Institutional Framework for Policy Analysis and Design. In: Cole, D.H., McGinnis, M.D. (Eds.). Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington School of Political Economy: Volume 3, Frameworks and Methods of Institutional Analysis. Lexington Books: Lanham, MD, USA.

[26] Sarr, S., Hayes, B., Decaro, D.A., 2021. Applying Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development framework, and design principles for co-production to pollution management in Louisville’s Rubbertown, Kentucky. Land Use Policy. 104, 105383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105383

[27] Tebet, G., Trimble, M., Pereira, R., 2018. Using Ostrom’s principles to assess institutional dynamics of conservation: Lessons from a marine protected area in Brazil. Mar Policy. 88, 174–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.037

[28] Ostrom, E., 2000. Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 14(3), 137–158. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2646923 ( (cited 2 Febuary 2025)

[29] Esteban, T.A.O., 2020. Building Resilience through Collective Engagement. Architecture_MPS. 17(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.amps.2020v17i1.001

[30] Davies, B., 2000. Grice’s cooperative principle: getting the meaning across. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics. 8, 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.09.002

[31] Hakelius, K., Hansson, H., 2016. Members' attitudes towards cooperatives and their perception of agency problems. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 19(4), 23–36. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2015.0219

[32] Itang., M.A., 2016. Mohammad Hatta's Cooperative Economic Thoughts: Their Relevance to Islamic Economic Ethics. Laksita: Serang, Indonesia. (in Indonesian)

[33] Mensesneg Republik Indonesia, 1992. Republic of Indonesia Law Number 25 of 1992 concerning Cooperatives. Mensesneg Republik Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia. (in Indonesian)

[34] Hu, Q., Entebang, H., Puah, C.H., 2024. Status and Development of Agricultural Public-Private Partnership Program Implementation in China. Caraka Tani: Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 39(1), 223–234. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20961/carakatani.v39i1.83311

[35] Ihsaniyati, H., Sarwoprasodjo, S., Muljono, P., et al., 2024. Diversity of Knowledge-Sharing Behavior to Encourage the Practice of Robusta Coffee Red-Picking (Case Study of Temanggung Robusta Coffee Farmer, Indonesia). Caraka Tani: Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 39(1), 235–254. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20961/carakatani.v39i1.82647

[36] Scott, J.C., 1977. The Moral Economy of The Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. Yale University: New Haven, CT, USA.

[37] Popkins, S.L., 1979. The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA.

[38] Tirivayi, N., Nennen, L., Tesfaye, W., 2018. The benefits of collective action: Exploring the role of forest producer organizations in social protection. For Policy Econ. 90, 106–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.010

[39] Shumeta, Z., D’Haese, M., 2016. Do coffee cooperatives benefit farmers? An exploration of heterogeneous impact of coffee cooperative membership in Southwest Ethiopia. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. 19(4), 37–52. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2015.0110

[40] Su, S., Wan, C., Li, J., et al., 2017. Economic benefit and ecological cost of enlarging tea cultivation in subtropical China: Characterizing the trade-off for policy implications. Land Use Policy. 66, 183–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.044