During ExpoLondrina, one of the themes that inevitably arises in conversations among agribusiness leaders is growth. Scale, market access, operational efficiency. However, there is a classic instrument of cooperativism that remains, paradoxically, underutilized: intercooperation.
Provided as one of the structural principles of cooperativism, intercooperation is not merely an institutional guideline — it is, in essence, a strategy for intelligent expansion. Even so, in practice, few cooperatives explore its potential in a structured and legally secure manner.
The question that arises is: why?
The answer does not lie in a single factor, but in a combination of cultural, strategic and, above all, legal barriers.
First, there is a relevant cultural component. Many cooperatives still operate under a logic of almost absolute autonomy, which, although understandable from a historical standpoint, can hinder joint initiatives. The perception of “loss of control” or asymmetry among participants often prevents advances that, from an economic standpoint, would clearly be beneficial to all involved.
In addition, there is a strategic misalignment. Intercooperation requires institutional maturity: clarity of objectives, structured governance and the ability to make coordinated decisions. Without these elements, any attempt at joint action tends to become fragile — or, at the limit, unfeasible.
But it is in the legal field that one of the main obstacles lies.
The absence of well-structured contractual instruments, capable of regulating rights, duties, responsibilities, governance criteria and conflict resolution mechanisms, leads many cooperatives to choose not to move forward. Not due to lack of interest, but due to lack of security.
And here is a central point: intercooperation is not sustained by informality.
Joint projects — whether for commercialization, industrialization, logistics or even the sharing of structures — require an appropriate legal architecture. This involves everything from well-designed operational contracts to the creation of specific vehicles, when necessary, as well as the clear definition of governance rules and exit mechanisms.
Without this foundation, the perceived risk outweighs the potential benefit.
On the other hand, when well structured, intercooperation can generate significant gains: increased scale, cost dilution, brand strengthening, access to new markets and greater bargaining power. In an increasingly competitive environment, these factors cease to be differentiators and become conditions for survival.
The point, therefore, is not whether cooperatives should or should not intercooperate.
The real question is: how to do so in a strategic, safe and sustainable manner, respecting the principles of democratic management and the autonomy and independence of cooperatives?
The answer inevitably involves governance.
Effective intercooperation presupposes clear rules, alignment of expectations and institutional mechanisms that reduce uncertainties. It also presupposes a change in mindset: moving from a strictly individual logic to a vision of collective value creation.
In other words, to intercooperate is to exercise the cooperative value of solidarity.
And the cooperatives that are able to take this step, with adequate legal and strategic support, will not only be redesigning their positioning in the market — but also expanding their capacity to provide services to their members.
