It is commonplace in co-operatives to refer to
co-ops as having both “social” and “economic” objectives. Sometimes
this is even used as a form of definition of what co-operatives are and
what they are for: that they differ from other businesses because they have
social goals. While there is an element of truth in this, this terminology
can also become misleading.

The problem with the “dualistic” view (social and economic) is that it
appears to lay a second set of obligations on co-operatives, over and above
those they face in common with competing, non–co-operative enterprises.
In other words, while other businesses have only one, clear set of obligations
(the economic: profit), co-operatives in this view carry a double burden.
This way of thinking leads many mainstream economists, business
leaders, and policy makers to conclude that co-operatives are mere curiosities
that will be left behind under all but exceptional circumstances because
they are burdened by greater hindrances and expectations than their competitors.
They cannot raise capital from markets the same way other businesses
can, yet they actually are expected to do more than other businesses.
Therefore, co-operatives will generally fail, weaken, or transform into more
conventional structures.

The social-economic dualist view of co-ops persists, perhaps, because it
is useful for various groups to think this way— up to a point. For managers
of co-operatives, dualism is helpful because it encourages them to concentrate
on “their” job—the economic one—and leave social goals for
others to worry about. This perspective slides easily into a primacy of economic
goals over social ones, along the lines of: the co-op has to first make
money before any of it can be spent on good causes. Economic goals become
money-making and sustaining goals; social goals become costs.