The story of cooperatives in Nepal is not particularly old. It began on April 2, 1957, when Bakhan Cooperative Society was established in what was then Bakhanpur, now Sharadanagar, Chitwan, becoming the country’s first cooperative institution. Given this history, cooperatives may appear, at first glance, to be built around money: savings, loans, investment, interest and returns. But look more closely, and the real story of a cooperative begins not with money, but with people and trust. That trust is sustained, day after day, by three simple yet powerful elements: information, timing and understanding.
Most urban cooperatives that have emerged over the past two or three decades were founded by people who came to the cities to run businesses, take up jobs, work as daily wage earners or pursue other professions. They were bound not by capital, but by a shared purpose. Some may not have had much money, but they shared a common goal. This is why a cooperative is never merely an economic institution; it is also an institution of shared trust.
At monthly Board of Directors meetings, discussions naturally arise over whether loans have been disbursed, where investments have been made and what decisions have been taken. Yet if even one small thing goes wrong—if information is not exchanged in time—it can breed suspicion, misunderstanding and tension. The real question, then, is not simply, “Who failed to call whom?” It runs deeper: have we, as an institution, built a system that ensures the right information reaches the right person, at the right time, in the right way?
The first “C” is Communication, the foundation of any functioning institution. The communication model developed by Shannon and Weaver describes communication as a process involving a sender, a message, a medium and a receiver, with “noise” or disruption potentially distorting the message along the way. Later scholars such as Berlo and Schramm added the importance of feedback and a shared field of experience, recognising that communication involves not only what is said but also how it is interpreted and how the receiver responds.
This is why the statements “I already told them” and “I never got any information” can both be sincerely believed. The gap between them is a textbook example of communication “noise”. In a cooperative, managerial communication takes this basic process to the institutional level through the systematic sharing of plans, decisions, responsibilities and results among the appropriate people and levels of the organisation.
The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) defines a cooperative as a member-owned and democratically controlled institution. It links active member participation and the accountability of elected representatives to the foundational principles of cooperatives. When Board members are left out of the information loop on important decisions, the administrative outcome may still be that “the work got done”. But that does not necessarily build the institutional trust that comes from people knowing, understanding and moving forward together.
The second “C” is Chronology, or timing. This is not simply about the clock. It is also about choosing the right medium at the right time. Daft and Lengel’s Media Richness Theory suggests that high-risk or ambiguous information is better communicated through “richer” channels, such as telephone calls or meetings, while low-risk and straightforward information can be conveyed through “leaner” channels such as text messages or notices.
Consider a decision involving significant risk and multiple stakeholders, such as the disbursement of a loan. If the relevant information does not reach everyone at the appropriate time, questions can quickly arise: “Why were we not told?” or “How was this decision made?” Research on the banking sector in Kathmandu Valley has also found a significant positive relationship between managerial communication and decision-making.
The lesson is straightforward: making the right decision is not enough. The information needed to make and understand that decision must reach the relevant people through the appropriate medium and at the appropriate time. Responses such as “I did not call, so they were not informed” or “The phone was not picked up, so I could not inform them” point to a failure to establish an appropriate communication process. Neither should be considered an adequate institutional response.
Ensuring that information reaches the right people at the right time requires a system. But a system alone cannot complete institutional communication. If something is discussed in a meeting but no written record is made, different memories and interpretations can emerge afterwards. This is another way Shannon and Weaver’s “noise” can manifest at the institutional level.
A simple communication protocol can therefore be valuable for cooperatives. It can clarify which information must be shared immediately and through which medium, which decisions must be tabled at meetings, and which decisions must be documented in writing. The ICA has also noted that modern mobile and internet technologies can facilitate democratic participation, while emphasizing that the value of in-person discussion and participation remains important.
WhatsApp, Viber and email are not solutions in themselves. The real solution is a culture in which the right information travels through the right medium at the right time.
But even when information and timing are right, a third “C” is necessary: Comprehension. Without mutual understanding, trust cannot be sustained.
Mayer, Davis and Schoorman’s organisational trust model identifies three important attributes of trust: ability, or confidence in a person’s competence to perform their responsibilities; benevolence, or confidence that they care about the interests of others; and integrity, or confidence that they will follow agreed principles and procedures.
When a decision is questioned, the concern may not always be about the decision-maker’s competence. It may instead be about integrity and process. “Why wasn’t I told about it?” can gradually become “Why wasn’t I trusted to hear it?”
Research on cooperative governance has similarly found a significant relationship between members’ perceptions of their involvement in governance and their confidence in directors. The purpose of communication, therefore, is not to involve everyone in every minor detail. It is to ensure that each person receives the information relevant to their role and responsibilities. That is what allows ability, benevolence and integrity to be demonstrated in practice.
Ultimately, the future of a cooperative is not determined by an impressive office or an attractive financial scheme alone. It is also determined by how its people communicate with one another.
The three dimensions—clarity of information, appropriateness of medium and timing, and understanding built on ability, benevolence and integrity—work together to build institutional trust. A single “seen” mark is no proof of comprehension. A single phone call does not fulfil the full responsibility of transparency. And a single meeting does not end the conversation.
A healthy cooperative culture should instead routinely ask four simple questions: Who needs this information? By when do they need it? How should it be delivered? And how should feedback be gathered once a decision has been made?
The founders of Nepal’s cooperative movement planted the seeds of collective trust more than seven decades ago. It is now up to today’s generation to nurture that trust through these three elements. The real strength of a cooperative is not found in its ledger alone, but in the trust among its members.
And perhaps the most valuable investment in protecting that trust is also the simplest: timely, clear and responsible communication.
