[jasode]

>there is something about the structure of co-operatives that intrinsically makes them less attractive to investors?

It's the intrinsic structure of being owned by the workers that makes co-operatives less financially attractive to outside investors. My previous comment about why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166080

Co-operatives also have to compete in the marketplace (compete in both the costs & revenue) with other companies that are not co-ops. This financial pressure from other global economic actors is what causes co-ops like Mondragon to outsource labor to subcontractors or workforce in other countries who are not true members of the co-op. Mondragon appliances, etc still have to compete in sales with everyone else.

[vladharbuz]

This is an interesting answer, thank you! I agree that co-ops using only funds contributed by their members will struggle to compete with companies that receive large investments. However, the bigger question is why investors would not want to invest in a co-operative. As far as I can tell, you're saying that investment in co-operatives is intrinsically less attractive because investors would obtain some kind of fixed return, as opposed to permanent ownership of shares in the company. Is that what you meant?

If so, the question that remains is a relatively open one. Let's say that, for the sake of argument, we reached the conclusion that organising companies as co-operatives would bring considerable social benefits to the majority of people compared to the current way or organising work. If this were true, what would have to be changed so as to make them a reasonable option? Perhaps our values of prioritising economic values over social value? Perhaps regulations on shareholders?

Yanis Varoufakis proposes a system that answers this question in Another Now [0], but I'm also curious to hear other answers.

[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49098225-another-now