The relevance of the cooperative model in the field of renewable energy

This article examines the relevance of the cooperative model in the field of renewable energy (RE). RE sources have been developed since the end of the 1970s and their growth has been expansive since then. While social-ecological movements have been instrumental in shifting the public attention towards the need for alternative energies (Sine and Lee, 2009), in most countries the sector has rapidly become dominated by corporate actors experienced in building large-scale RE projects. In an attempt to counter the corporate hegemony and to protect available lands, a range of citizen initiatives have emerged under different forms and names such as community energy groups or renewable energy (source) cooperatives (van der Horst, 2008; Willis and Willis, 2012; Lipp et al., 2012; Schreuer and Weismeier-Sammer, 2010; Weismeier-Sammer and Reiner, 2011). Pioneering examples include EWS in Germany, Enercoop in France, Energy4All in the UK, or Ecopower in Belgium.

As these citizen groups tend to adopt the cooperative model, or a related form depending on the local legislation and context, it seems important to understand what are the specific features, assets and limitations of this model in the field of RE. Indeed, while ‘traditional’ cooperatives operating for a long time in fields such as banking, agriculture, or retail, have received an important attention in the cooperative literature, much work still needs to be done to understand why and how cooperatives emerge either in fields in which they have not traditionally been widespread (such as health and care, services, etc.), or in ‘new’ fields or sub-fields (such as fair trade, microfinance or renewable energy). Research is even more needed insofar as ‘new’ cooperatives tend to differ from traditional ones in several ways, for instance through the involvement of multiple stakeholders (rather than a dominant one such as producers, consumers or workers) or through a stronger orientation towards general interest goals (beyond traditional mutual interest at the basis of most cooperatives).

While RE cooperatives have strongly developed in countries such as Denmark (Lipp et al., 2012), Germany (Schreuer, 2012; Weismeier-Sammer and Reiner, 2011) and to a lesser extent the UK (Aitken, 2010; Kellett, 2007; Seyfang et al., 2012; van der Horst, 2008; Willis and Willis, 2012; Walker et al., 2007), their development has been much slower in other countries, particularly Southern Europe (Lipp et al., 2012). This seems to echo, to a certain extent, the general development of RE in these countries (Haas et al., 2011). Before mapping these differences against the background of RE development in these countries, it is necessary to understand how the assets and limits of the cooperative model apply to the particular case of RE. This is precisely the aim of this article. On the one hand, the assets of the cooperative model enable to understand why this form has been adopted by citizen groups and has developed in certain countries. On the other hand, the limits or weaknesses of the model enable to explain why cooperatives are still a minority in the field of RE and why their development is constrained by obstacles in certain countries.