Response to interpellation 2025/26:257 on cooperative development
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the government's decision to change the support for cooperative development. KD wants to strengthen entrepreneurship and argues that cooperative entrepreneurship is valuable for jobs and services 1. KD argues that state support should be general and association-neutral to reduce complications and provide the best value for tax money 1 2 3. KD emphasizes that simplification is important for entrepreneurship throughout the country 4. S argues that the decision will have major consequences for small companies, services in rural areas, and social enterprises 5. S argues that cooperatives are important for preparedness and create housing 6. S argues that the government is tearing down a functioning support structure 7 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me why the government and I have decided to repeal the ordinance on cooperative development and what consequences I assess the decision may have.
The government wants to strengthen entrepreneurship throughout Sweden. When people come together and start companies – whether it happens in a limited company, a sole proprietorship, or a cooperative form – jobs, services, and faith in the future are created, even in rural areas. Cooperative entrepreneurship is a part of this and something the government sees the value of.
At the same time, we have a responsibility to use the taxpayers' money in as effective a way as possible and to reduce unnecessary complications. Therefore, the government is reviewing the support provided within appropriation 1:5 Business Development. The starting point is simply that similar activities shall be treated equally and that the support shall primarily be general and association-neutral.
Against that background, the government has decided to repeal the Ordinance on Cooperative Development (2001:1194). Support for the development of cooperation shall instead be included within the broader measures that already exist for entrepreneurship, new business creation, and business development.
It does not mean that the government wants to phase out all support to cooperative companies. My assessment is on the contrary that cooperative companies will also in the future be able to participate in state promotional measures on the same terms as other companies, within a more unified and efficient system.
The repeal of the ordinance will not enter into force until January 2027, which allows time for an orderly transition.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! The Government has, just as the Minister said, decided to repeal the ordinance on cooperative entrepreneurship. It is a decision that may not make the biggest headlines but which has very large consequences in practice.
It is about what support should be available for people who want to start companies together. These are companies that often emerge where the market does not suffice. It can be services in rural areas, worker cooperatives, social enterprises, or operations that create jobs for people who are far from the labor market. Today, it concerns 300 companies that employ nearly 8,000 people. I want to give some examples so that those listening get an insight into what we are talking about.
It is primarily about Coompanions' work, which has meant that the shop, the gas station, or the health center has been able to be preserved in the countryside. Those who live and work in the locality continue to run them.
A few of the examples are Ramsbergs handel in northern Västmanland or Nordvärmlands livs in Ambjörby in northern Värmland. It is also about Strömsbacka Återvinning, which is a work-integrating social enterprise where people who have been far from the labor market are given a new chance and where efforts for the environment are made by giving items new life.
Another example is all the fiber associations – more than a thousand – which have ensured that Sweden today has fiber connection to virtually all households. Where the state stopped and commercial interests were lacking, households gathered in fiber associations to plan, install, and in cooperation create connectivity throughout Sweden.
It is also about staff cooperatives, parent cooperatives, and user cooperatives in rural areas but also in our large cities. One example is Gullogården, a staff cooperative elderly home in a small village in Mora municipality.
Coompanion has an important role in inspiring, mobilizing and developing rural cooperatives in various ways, where residents' engagement is transformed into effective business ideas for rural development. There are plenty of examples. One is Röstånga, where the villagers now run a restaurant and have properties and activities, for example an art gallery. It is also about Basta and Vägen ut, which are operations that demonstrably contribute to breaking addiction and crime.
Madam Speaker! There are many examples all over our country, and Coompanion is part of the general promotional efforts for entrepreneurship and business growth. This has been ongoing for 40 years. It has been effective, and it has ensured prosperity throughout Sweden. Coompanion exists across the entire country and offers advice, education, and support.
I thank the Minister for the answer to my question, but I still do not understand it. It is good that we are now debating, but I still do not understand the answer. The Minister says that one should focus on efficiency and on using resources well. That is absolutely what should be done; we truly think so as well. But does the government then mean that the activities that have been carried out have been inefficient or cumbersome? Have they not given the effects that they were intended to give?
The question remains therefore. Why was the ordinance removed? It risks leading to the fact that cooperative activities cannot be developed in the future.
Louise Thunström (S)
Madam Speaker! I live on the Swedish west coast, in Tanum municipality. I am sure the Minister is well aware of what the conditions are like there. These are small towns that bloom in the summer, when the population quintuples. Add to that full ferry ports, packed campsites, and crowds of tourists and bathers.
During the winter half, local politicians struggle with declining population bases, small school units and expensive water and sewage taxes. Housing prices are high and incomes are quite low.
In one of the localities in Tanum municipality, Gerlesborg, the local population took matters into their own hands. When the market did not want to build apartments for year-round residence because it was not considered profitable, voluntary forces joined together. In 2018, a house with the tenure form cooperative rental housing was established. They simply did this to be able to stay in their home region.
This is one of many clear examples of the importance of cooperation in the countryside. Another fine example exists in another place in Sweden. It is Ramsbergs Handel, a shop owned jointly by 300 members. This, too, is an initiative based on having accepted the fact: Either the shop disappears, or one takes matters into one's own hands. Ramsviks Handel was also chosen as Cooperative of the Year in Sweden 2025.
At my home in Tanum municipality, there is broad political consensus that cooperative housing solutions are both welcome and necessary. This applies in particular in an area where housing prices are high and the possibility of year-round residency is crucial for the municipality to be able to function.
That there are also far-reaching plans for more cooperative rental apartments shows that the will to move forward is strong and that cooperation can be a long-term path forward for living coastal communities year-round.
Even though local engagement is strong, long-term support structures are required for this type of initiative to be possible. Knowledge of cooperative entrepreneurship is low in Sweden. That is precisely why I was sincerely surprised when the government in December chose to make the decision to repeal the ordinance on cooperative development.
The regulation has formed the basis for the state support to Coompanion, the organization that throughout Sweden provides advice and support to people who want to start and run cooperative enterprises. Through 25 regional organizations, Coompanion has built up a stable and functioning support structure for local development and an expertise when it comes to supporting and developing cooperative enterprises across the entire country.
What the government is doing is tearing down the infrastructure for cooperative entrepreneurship that has been built up over a long period and which is, in practice, crucial for people to be able to realize ideas regarding housing, service, jobs, and welfare.
Like the previous speaker Eva Lindh, I actually do not understand what the minister is expressing when she answers that this is done so that money will be used effectively and to reduce hassle. To me, this sounds more like a general formulation than a substantiated conclusion.
My question to the Minister is therefore how she and the government view cooperative entrepreneurship and whether the government has any concrete initiatives to strengthen knowledge about cooperative enterprises as an important part for the whole country to live.
Isak From (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for an important interpellation! I also thank Louise Thunström.
The Minister for Energy and Business actually has to step up and explain a bit. I find it somewhat difficult to understand what this was good for. Whose election promise was it to leave Coompanion in the lurch? Here we have an organization that for a long time has shown very good results when it comes to building entrepreneurship. This is what the government now wants to demolish and redo.
This does not affect Sweden's large and strong cooperative companies. It does not affect Norra Skog, Södra Skogsägarna, Folksam, Lantmännen, Arla, Riksbyggen or HSB. It affects the small and new companies. It affects the women out in the housing cooperatives who want to start a market garden. It affects those who feel that they don't really want to or dare to start their own company but who could imagine doing so together with someone else.
Coompanion has shown with all clarity that major efforts are needed, not least to seek capital for this type of company. There is, just as Louise Thunström points out, a great lack of knowledge. At the same time, the cooperative business form has shown very good results with an average of approximately 400 new companies per year. So many have reported that they have gotten started and can grow. Some remain as small cooperative associations, and some grow and become large and strong companies.
Once again, I ask the Minister for Energy and Business: Where did this come from? It actually seems really stupid. Furthermore, it was an extremely bad Christmas present. The UN designated 2025 as the Year of Cooperation, and states were urged to carry out measures to strengthen the cooperative business form. And what does the government do? It gives Coompanion a very bad Christmas present and says: We are going to stop this. We are shutting it down.
No, the Minister for Energy and Industry must take everything and explain how this happened!
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I can understand that this raises certain questions. I shall see if I can elaborate on the text somewhat further.
Once again: The government, and not least I personally, truly safeguards cooperatives and social entrepreneurship. It is a form that we discuss far too rarely in Sweden. I myself have extremely good experiences of it from my time as a politically active person in Uppsala municipality and wish that more people would discover its value, not least if one wishes to be involved and contribute to our common welfare in a different way than through the more square-shaped limited company form.
I also think that Eva Lindh is doing a good deed with the large number of examples she lists here in the chamber. It provides an insight into the broad spectrum of cooperatives that exist, but also into the different functions and needs they many times fulfill and meet. They can truly create jobs and, not least, sustain local services and contribute to vitality in local communities by fulfilling a very special function beyond entrepreneurship in general.
If one then looks at the state's role in this, one can observe that business promotion needs to hold together and be fair. When we use taxpayers' money to support entrepreneurship, I mean that the principle needs to be that similar activities are also treated equally. If the state builds permanent special solutions for a certain form of organization, there is a risk that support becomes a matter of formalities instead of a matter of effect and utility. It easily leads to a system that is difficult to oversee and where it becomes difficult to prioritize, which makes the system difficult to justify in the long term.
We mean that there has been no reason to have a completely separate solution for this without it being handled within ordinary systems for similar activities. State support needs to be general and association-neutral, and that also means that everyone should be covered by the same broad business promotion on the same terms.
This is not a change that we make lightly. It is also a reason why we have such good foresight that this does not enter into force until next year.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for trying to elaborate on the answer, but I must nevertheless state that it does not provide any clear information on how the government intends to replace what is now being dismantled. Referring to general corporate support or regional initiatives is not sufficient.
Cooperative development is something else. It is about business models where profits are reinvested locally, where people come together and where democratic ownership is part of the idea. That competence does not exist automatically in traditional business.
That is precisely why the state has for a long time seen the need for a special mission. That is precisely why actors such as Coompanion have been built up with national coverage and long experience – because it is needed.
I am worried about Sweden's economy. I am worried about Sweden's development. I am worried about Sweden's entrepreneurship. This is crazy. It is uneconomical. 25 million kronor is a lot of money, but in the state budget, it is a fairly small sum that yields an incredibly large effect – 300 companies, 8,000 people employed and a lot of creativity that has been able to be utilized and developed both in cities and, above all, in the countryside. People who do not have experience in entrepreneurship have been able to get help to start companies together. It is, therefore, an incredibly effective contribution for the 25 million kronor that it has been about in the state budget.
That is why I am very concerned. I hope that the operations that exist today will still be able to continue. But what we are talking about now, what we are responsible for as politicians, is not just what exists here and now but also what exists in the future. I am worried and am seriously very concerned that if this is withdrawn, we will no longer have that little rural trade that can arise when one builds cooperatively together, or the personnel cooperatives that can contribute something else because a special knowledge is required.
When the government now removes this regulation, it is not just about money. It is also about uncertainty. This creates uncertainty out in society: Is this nothing that Sweden's politicians want?
As said, this does not affect the major cities above all, but smaller towns, rural areas and places where the alternatives are already few – where every company, every service point and every job opportunity is crucial. I do not understand it.
I still want to ask, because I do not understand the background: Is this about the Sweden Democrats' suspicion of this form of company? I must still ask that question. Is this some form of pressure, or is there something else behind it?
The Minister refers to streamlining. We all want that. But this is not an efficient way to use either our tax money or the strength and creativity that exists in our country.
Louise Thunström (S)
Madam Speaker! In the previous election campaign, the government promised that the whole country should live. The decisions that have been made during this mandate period have, however, rather gone in the opposite direction. Parallel to what we are debating today, that is, the support for cooperative development, the government has removed the state investment support for housing and reduced the state presence through the closure of service offices. Studieförbunden, which in many places in our country are the only remaining places for meetings, education, and culture, have lost a third of their state support. Small municipalities are struggling to be able to maintain schools and community services.
The structures that contribute to a vibrant countryside are being dismantled step by step. It is when you lift your gaze and add up all these small parts that it becomes clear. Taken together, it reinforces the picture that the countryside is repeatedly deprioritized, despite clear promises that the whole country shall live.
Cooperatives can keep the grocery store or the local gas station alive in the countryside. They can create housing and jobs for those who might otherwise have difficulty entering the labor market. Cooperative companies create sustainable, robust communities and are especially important for our preparedness.
25 million is the sum Coompanion has received per year in recent years. These should be very well invested funds that have yielded many times the return.
I therefore want to appeal to the minister: Do not ruin this important, unique resource! Do not weaken Sweden!
Isak From (S)
Madam Speaker! I had hoped for a bit more information from the Minister for Energy and Business regarding the reason: Why? How did this happen? What is the cause?
In this case, we must say that it is good that this has been pushed back to 2027. It provides conditions for a new government to brake, steer, and change the development. It requires that one asks the question whether something else lay behind it. That question is important if other parties are to submit proposals on how to ensure that the operation can continue.
The cooperative companies have demanded that the politicians increase competence, not least among the state agencies. It is about ensuring that the cooperative companies can also participate in large public procurements. This is something that the regional policy supports have counteracted. Neither Coop nor OK have received state shipping subsidies for a rural grocery store or for a local gas station, because they "sit" on large organization numbers. Still, they are small operations.
There have been demands on the policy to provide the same conditions for the cooperative companies to a greater extent. Does the Minister for Energy and Enterprise have anything else in store for the cooperative companies? Otherwise, it becomes even stranger. If one removes the conditions for applying for support and for strengthening and increasing competence when it comes to starting a cooperative company, there will be fewer cooperative companies.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I shall try to dispel the clouds of worry.
We do not differ in our views on the cooperatives, but we differ on what is the best form to support them. According to Tillväxtverket's evaluation, there is a large difference in cost per company for the activities that have been conducted through, for example, Coompanion and those that have been conducted through, for example, Nyföretagarcentrum. If one calculates the average cost per newly started company, Coompanion's activities land at just over 65,000 kronor per company, while Nyföretagarcentrum's activities land at 13,000 per company. That is a large difference.
No, it is not about there being a hidden agenda or view on the cooperatives, but it is about getting the most value for tax money and ensuring that there are no separate arrangements for different forms.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the detailed answer.
We do not seem to share the view on how this is best done. It is a pity. Weakening the support for cooperative development is not effective economic policy, regardless of what I hear the Minister say. This is about a completely different form of enterprise, namely entrepreneurship that probably would not have come about if it had not been started for a cooperative purpose. That must be kept in mind.
This is not consistent with the government often saying that one should think about the work line and that entrepreneurship should exist throughout the entire country. In practice, this is a decision that hits hard where the needs are greatest.
I am concerned. There is also no long-term solution. That a deadline of one year is given is not a solution for the future. The only thing in that case would be to change the government, and I hope for several reasons that we will do so – not just because of the question of cooperative companies. It is a question of political priorities. We shall choose support and entrepreneurship that is effective, does good things for Sweden as a whole and develops Sweden, develops the entire country. That is where this becomes so damn important.
I hope that the government will rethink and ensure that cooperative companies can be developed. It is not a matter of less knowledge or opportunities for cooperative entrepreneurship, but rather more.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the members who have participated in the interpellation debate and, above all, the interpellator Eva Lindh.
I think this debate has fulfilled an important function in highlighting the great value of cooperative enterprise. I also agree with Eva Lindh's statement that this is an enterprise that might otherwise not have happened. This means that I will follow up and conduct a dialogue with the current support systems that exist regarding how they intend to work further during the next year when this specific form of support ceases.
In order for it to be possible to live and reside in the entire country and to have the strength and courage to run businesses in the entire country, three things are often decisive, namely less administration, lower costs and an easier way to hire and invest. That is why the government's simplification agenda has been so important. The abolition of the requirement to save a mass of physical receipts has saved up to 4 billion kronor per year. The lowering of the turnover limit for VAT from 80,000 to 120,000 means that more of the smallest companies get less administration.
We have expanded the growth support with reduced employer contributions, reduced employer contributions for young people and simplified the 3:12 rules. This has lowered the tax for over 60,000 entrepreneurs as of January 1 of this year. Furthermore, we have finally, after many years of discussion, introduced farm sales of alcohol as well as simplified dance and hotel permits.
Much has happened in this area, and it will continue to happen. It is about a broad agenda for regulatory simplification for all business activities.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.