Solidarity across borders: Decoding the functionality of CoopCycle in Latin America

Introduction

CoopCycle is both an international federation and a platform cooperative founded in 2017 in Europe, as a response to the labour precarisation driven by corporate platforms (Guichoux, 2023; Papadimitropoulos & Malamidis, 2024). This study analyses the processes of CoopCycle’s adaptation in Latin America between 2020 and 2023, employing a mixed research design. It integrates Socio-Technical Analysis (Thomas et al., 2008, 2019) and Social Network Analysis (Sanz, 2003), aiming to generate an interdisciplinary approach capable of revealing the heterogeneous elements that constitute CoopCycle’s assemblage networks.

The central argument is that Digital Solidarity Economies (DSE) cannot be reduced to labour sociology or media studies; rather, it requires an STS approach. Such an approach integrates interactive models of technological change to move beyond linear frameworks grounded in isolated subjects, singular artefacts, or original situations (Albornoz, 2011). This combination enables a dynamic, relational, and contingent perspective on technological adaptation processes, where the platform is not used because it works, but instead works because it is used.

DSE has emerged from reflections with collectives, academics, and cooperativists to account for the digitalization of solidarity economies and the struggle for digital economies that place solidarity at their core (Grohmann, 2025). This approach encompasses technological and institutional forms and experiences, like platform cooperatives. The notion of platform cooperatives has gained traction since 2015, Scholz (2016) conceptualises platform cooperativism as a direct response to the corporate model, proposing a “principles decalogue” based on shared ownership and democratic governance.

Fuster Morell, Espelt, and Renau (2021) discuss these principles and propose concrete dimensions of performance such as governance, economic model and data policy, thus providing tools to assess empirical experiences. Scholz (2023) broadens the perspective, shifting from normative proposals towards organisational and political capacity-building. Grohmann (2023) argues that Global North notions are insufficient to capture the diversity of the Global South, introducing the concept of “technologies managed by workers from below” to account for grassroots, worker-driven innovation.

Building on this, the idea of DSE emphasises that solidarity-oriented digital economies are not simply digitalised cooperatives but experimental spaces where platforms, data, and AI are mobilised for “community sovereignty”, and autonomy (Grohmann, 2025). Along these lines, Albornoz et al., 2025 demonstrates that initiatives in the region are heterogeneous but combine cooperative legacies with digital innovations and test new governance models: platform cooperatives in Latin America are not only technological constructs but also local experiences.

To date, most studies about platform cooperatives like CoopCycle have focused on Europe, and in Latin America the analysis has been limited to the argentinean case. This article broadens the focus to other countries in the region, offering a more comprehensive comparative perspective. By situating this case within broader debates, it shows how platform cooperativism reconfigures when grounded in Latin American realities and is shaped by territorial trajectories, socio-political disputes, and hybrid institutional arrangements.

CoopCycle’s main characteristic lies in the combination of open-source software for logistics management with a cooperative governance model, promoting technological sovereignty and labour justice (Spier, 2022). The software includes a mobile application and a web panel based on open technologies (Papadimitropoulos & Malamidis, 2024). Its design as a common digital infrastructure, protected under the Coopyleft licence, restricts its use to organisations of the social and solidarity economy (CoopCycle – License, n.d.).

This model significantly reduces entry costs for delivery cooperatives, which would otherwise need to invest thousands of dollars and spend months in developing, maintaining, and managing proprietary software. Wheeler (2007) shows how this design allows one to avoid dependence on costly proprietary systems. Taken together, these features resonate with Benkler´s (2002) notion of commons-based peer production, understood as a collaborative mode of organisation in which distributed contributions enable both innovation and long-term sustainability.

Solidarity is not only an antagonistic value but also a productive one, giving rise to forms of work that are less or even non-capitalocentric (Vieta & Heras, 2022, p. 276). CoopCycle operates under the principle of “one cooperative, one vote”, eliminating the separation between capital and labour (Kasparian, 2022). It also promotes formal employment, transparency in data use, and democratic governance, such that it is not necessary to be a founder in order to participate in the board of directors. Furthermore, solidarity is expressed in the international technical support that connects member cooperatives, while its sustainability model is based on a system of memberships and donations (Brard, 10 March 2025). In this way, CoopCycle consolidates itself as a viable alternative to platform-based labour precarisation, deregulation, and the erosion of collective rights, particularly in labour-intensive sectors such as delivery (Bono & Droppa, 2024; Rosenblat, 2018).

Conceptual framework: Towards non-linear and relational approaches

To analyse CoopCycle’s adaptation processes from a non-linear, relational, and contingent perspective, this research conceptualises solidarity as a programmatic idea which, alongside cooperation, constitutes a counter-hegemonic ideational framework. Rooted in an alternative vision of the economy, solidarity facilitates transformative practices. In Latin America, solidarity has resonated beyond cooperatives and social classes, encompassing ecological, intergenerational, gender, racial, and multicultural dimensions of broader civilisational change (Coraggio, 2007). Historically, it has structured alternative ways of producing, buying, selling, and consuming in response to unemployment, exclusion, and impoverishment caused by capitalism (Singer, 2007).

Experiences of “new cooperativism” based on solidarity are less about formal structures and more about commons thinking. Solidarity can materialise in concrete and effective economic practices that articulate alternatives beyond colonial legacies and capitalism-centred realities – such as solidarity economies rooted in social justice and collective action, and increasingly oriented towards environmental care and wellbeing (Vieta & Lionais, 2022). In this sense, solidarity is not only an antagonistic value but also a productive one, giving rise to forms of work and production that are less or even non-capitalocentric (Vieta & Heras, 2022, p. 276).

This study conducts a network analysis employing concepts from the dialectical model of Marsh and Smith (2000) in its ideational variant (Kisby, 2007), in order to describe the processes of CoopCycle’s adaptation processes in the region. The model comprises four categories that allow the dichotomy between structure and agency to be overcome, placing at the centre of the description both the actors and the networks they form, their structural context – in the three cases under analysis – and the programmatic ideas that bind and mobilise them. Actors face opportunities or limitations imposed by the structural context, against which they may deploy strategies and learn, while also being carriers of interests and programmatic ideas.

Actors may form networks and occupy different positions within them, defined by their ideas, interests, relations, and even their membership in other networks. These are represented as graphs and are configured as relational structures that are neither neutral nor invariable, since they account for the problems, solutions, and issues that emerge as relevant to address – including those capable of modifying stabilised decision-making networks. The structural context, for its part, is marked by power relations shaped by the intersections of gender, race, and class, reflecting the preferences of dominant actors and networks.

From a critical realist standpoint, material contexts cannot be separated from ideational ones when describing the adequation of cooperative models such as CoopCycle, since programmatic ideas and material factors interact and mutually influence each other (Kisby, 2007; Swinkels, 2020). Programmatic ideas act as mechanisms of cohesion within actor networks, guiding courses of action and establishing shared goals. They are not merely rhetorical devices or confined to the macro-ideological level of paradigm shifts (Kisby, 2007), but enable the description of actors’ motivations, their framings of problems and solutions, and strategies to subvert corporate working conditions or challenge the prevailing order of platform capitalism.

Since platforms operate in diverse geo-cultural contexts, the prevailing order in each case is closely tied to the nuances of “platform capitalisms” in their heterogeneity (Steinberg, Zhang & Mukherjee, 2024, p. 2). Nevertheless, in general terms, strategies for participation in digital labour governance have emerged (Grohmann, 2025). The case of CoopCycle shows how this experience materialises the programmatic idea of solidarity, transcending artefactual and operational dimensions to hybridise digital infrastructures, public policies, knowledge exchange networks, and platform cooperative modes as expressions of a digital economy rooted in solidarity (Alvear et al., 2023; Grohmann, 2025; Rubim & Milanez, 2024).

Given the central role that the programmatic idea of solidarity occupies in this work, as a frame-breaking idea, it is essential to consider how it proves persuasive to key actors and influences their organisational practices, relations, exchanges, the development of technological infrastructures of and for cooperatives such as CoopCycle, as well as in the processes of public policy and regulation in the case studies. The debate regarding the relationship between changes in these variables and programmatic ideas remains unresolved. The impact of ideas is not simply transferred onto the role played by agents; it is only through the actions of specific actors, motivated by particular programmatic beliefs, that these ideas can exert influence (Kisby, 2007).

It is important not only to identify these actors, but also to examine whether their behaviour corresponds with their professed adherence to these ideas. In addition to these levels of consistency, the impact of programmatic ideas depends on their degree of institutionalisation and material expression (Rueschemeyer, 2006). This type of structural differentiation (Rueschemeyer, 2006) helps to understand how ideas gain traction within the broader social order, specifically within policy frameworks, inter-organisational relations, infrastructures, skills development, and labour organisation. Finally, the degree of integration into decision-making networks indicates the role solidarity plays in determining courses of action aimed at subverting the dominant problem and solution framings in policy agendas.

Methodology

This research describes employs network analysis from a socio-technical perspective. It proposes a mixed research design that integrates Socio-Technical Analysis – the qualitative component – and Social Network Analysis – the quantitative component – for generating an interdisciplinary approach capable of revealing the heterogeneous elements that constitute CoopCycle’s assemblage networks. In this way, it becomes possible to describe the trajectories of technological appropriation, alliances with public institutions and other organisations, and the non-human factors like policy instruments or digital infrastructures that have influenced the platform’s functionality.

Building on previous studies that have questioned the technical, economic, and regulatory viability of platform cooperativism (Albornoz et al., 2023; Fuster Morell et al., 2021; Salvagni et al., 2023), this article offers a novel approach by linking these dynamics to processes of territorialisation articulated through solidarity within the structural contexts of the Global South. An analytical reconstruction is conducted for adaptation processes shaped by heterogeneous coalitions in three Latin American countries: Mexico, Argentina, and Chile. These cases were selected because each involved socio-technical adaptation processes between 2020 and 2023, aimed at enabling the operation of CoopCycle in the region. This study addresses the question: How are the processes of CoopCycle’s socio-technical adaptation developing in Latin America?

Socio-Technical Analysis is a methodological proposal oriented towards analysing and describing the processes through which the functioning of technological artefacts is constructed in a symmetrical manner (Thomas et al., 2008, 2019). Functioning is neither a static phenomenon nor the linear outcome of solving a problem through a technological design. Rather, functioning is the result of a sequence of processes of adaptation of technological solutions to situated socio-technical articulations (Thomas et al., 2019). The notion of adaptation refers to the appropriation of knowledge and technology through historically situated socio-technical trajectories and involves the co-constructing the functionality of technologies in specific cases (Thomas et al., 2019).

This process includes programmatic ideas, actors, material conditions, networks, knowledge, public policies, regulations, and funding. These elements move beyond descriptive and static notions of adaptation by emphasising the relational and co-constructed nature of functionality. Whether a digital platform functions or not results from a non-linear, situational, contextual, and relational process that is partly planned and partly self-organised. Therefore, methodologically, both functioning and non-functioning experiences are examined through the analytical reconstruction of the elements implicated in the processes (Thomas et al., 2019, p. 142).

Social Network Analysis is a technique that makes it possible to map, graph, and describe the multiplicity and heterogeneity of the elements that constitute CoopCycle’s adaptation processes in Latin America. Using Gephi software, these elements are represented in type 1 networks (Grandjean, 2021), designed to represent the relationships between different types of actants (Latour, 2008). The basic elements that define a network are essentially twofold: the human and non-human actors that establish relations among themselves, and those relations; are represented as points or nodes, and relationships as lines (Sanz, 2003).

Networks thus become an operative analytical tool that employs the mathematical language of graph theory to measure both the properties of the network and the position of the actants (Sanz, 2003). This study considers the following metrics (Table 1):

Graphs are the result of constructing matrices of nodes and relations. The data from which these matrices are built derive from different techniques, including:

• Documentary analysis: books, peer-reviewed articles, reports, press sources, and official websites.
• Participant observation at regional events on platform cooperativism (May 2023).
• Semi-structured interviews (12 in total) conducted with members of cooperatives, programmers, researchers, and public officials (Table 2.):

Also, the snowball technique was employed to construct and saturate the networks. The node matrices incorporate different types of actants: brokers, promotional instruments, cooperatives, capacities, institutions, geographical spaces, workers’ collectives, firms, and non-human elements. Each type was colour-coded for graphical representation.

Solidarity across borders: the journey of Coopcycle in Latin America

This section describes the adaptation of the CoopCycle platform in the three cases mentioned before: Argentina, Chile, and Mexico. This dynamic encompasses programmatic ideas, actors, material conditions, networks, knowledge, public policies, regulations, and funding. These elements are not only described, but emphasise the relational and co-constructed nature of CoopCycle’s functionality in the region.

3.1. Argentina and the role of technology cooperatives

The degree of institutionalisation of the programmatic idea of solidarity in Argentina, through its materialisation in regulatory and public policy instruments, has been variable. Historically, cooperative and associative forms predated legal frameworks. Influenced by European migrants, these entities emerged in response to state neglect and were only legally recognised in 1889 through a reform of the Commercial Code (Correa, 2022). During the 20th century, the cooperative movement advocated for Law 11388 and, subsequently, Law 20337, which established the current regulatory authority (Correa, 2022).

Over time institutions and public policies have oscillated between support and control depending on political cycles. In a structural context marked by neoliberal policies, the sector underwent restructuring around increasingly heterogeneous worker cooperatives (Kasparian, 2020). Two processes explain this restructuring: the recovery of enterprises by their workers and the implementation of social policies promoting the creation of cooperatives, without structural changes to address the challenges of capitalism and as part of anti-poverty alleviation policies (García, 2021; Kasparian, 2020).

The year 2019 was characterised by a structural context favourable to cooperativism in Argentina. This period of government was marked by the recognition and promotion of the cooperative sector through the integration of intellectual cadres into the public sector (ex.Mario Cafiero as head of Instituto Nacional de Asociativismo y Economía Social (INAES)), as well as reforms to encourage professional service cooperatives (R. Muñoz & Zamora, 2021). At present, with an ideological turn to the right, actions of minimisation and stigmatisation of the cooperative sector have been deployed in the country (D. Kasparian, 14 March 2025; C. Muñoz, 14 March 2025).

Amidst this structural context – marked by opportunities and constraints imposed by more neoliberal or progressive periods – Software and IT Services Cooperatives (CSSIs) have grown. These cooperatives are legally constituted as worker cooperatives. Since 2002, over 30 CSSIs have been created, in Greater Buenos Aires and other ten provinces (García, 2021). The Argentine Federation of Worker Cooperatives in Technology, Innovation and Knowledge (FACTTIC) was established in 2011 as an intercooperative platform promoting a vision of work and technology grounded in cooperativism and free software. FACTTIC also advocates for the sector and provides technical training (FACTTIC, n.d.).

Between 2020 and 2023, FACTTIC led the CoopCycle pilot project in Argentina, amid the expansion of digital platforms and a highly informal labour market that fostered precarious employment (Garavaglia, 2023). Labour conflicts increased, particularly in the delivery sector, where working conditions were repeatedly denounced (Centro de Innovación de los Trabajadores, 2022). Cecilia Muñoz explains: the initiative that arises from FACTTIC is, we want to adapt a delivery platform to Argentina instead of developing it from scratch (…) let us present it to INAES at that time so that they could finance us to technically adapt the platform” (Muñoz, 14 march 2025).

In this context, FACTTIC emerged as the most influential actor in the CoopCycle adaptation network (out-degree: 13, see Figure 1), positioning the platform as an alternative to corporate models. FACTTIC built strategic alliances with various actors to facilitate CoopCycle’s use by local workers, including the CoopCycle Federation, the Gino Germani Institute, and the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MINCYT), which supported the documentation and systematisation of the experience (Kasparian, 2025; Kasparian, 2022; Muñoz, 2025; Muñoz et al., 2023). Muñoz noted: “we managed to build a stable team where we are no longer just technologists; we built networks of trust with universities and with delivery collectives” (Muñoz, 14 march 2025). It also secured two public grants through the National Institute of Social Economy (INAES) and collaborated with municipalities where pilots were located.

FACTTIC used the two INAES grants, framed within Argentina’s post-pandemic recovery strategy under President Alberto Fernández, to enter the decision-making network of public policy. During this period, INAES actively positioned the social, popular, and solidarity economy as “the third engine of the economy” (Economía Solidaria, 2020), seeking to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 (R. Muñoz & Zamora, 2021). By securing these resources, FACTTIC not only strengthened its role as the main actor in the CoopCycle adequacy but also gained access to institutional arenas where recovery policies were designed and implemented. This dynamic illustrates how the renewal of INAES – expressed in its shift from the social to the productive sector and the deployment of three new policy instruments – created an opportunity structure that FACTTIC leveraged to influence policy directions. Visualising relations with INAES, municipalities, and MINCYT shows that the state functions as an active node in the network, while FACTTIC occupies a strategic position within it, shaping both cooperative adaptation and broader post-pandemic agendas.

FACTTIC played a central organising role within the entire network, holding the highest betweenness centrality value (1.0). Guided by the idea of solidarity as the foundation of fair work models, it established connections with brokers leading CoopCycle adaptations in Chile and Mexico in order to share technical improvements. In this way, it became a key relational hub due to its intercooperative role and technical capacity: “it shelters tech cooperatives, aggregates and diversifies the sector, and seeks to sustain these work models” (Muñoz, 14 March 2025).

In addition to building relationships with countries that had already carried out CoopCycle adaptation processes in the region, FACTTIC deployed a strategy of engagement with local cooperatives as potential users. This strategy consisted of developing actions to strengthen the organisational capacities of cooperatives, fostering relationships with the municipalities, and providing support for the use of the platform adapted to the specific territory (Muñoz, 14 March 2025).

The first user collective FACTTIC engaged with was United Delivery Workers (TRU), composed of former corporate platform couriers operating in San Martín, Buenos Aires (D. Kasparian, 14 March 2025). As a result of the actions developed jointly with FACTTIC, INAES funding bodies, and the CoopCycle platform between 2020 and 2023, TRU reached a high degree of betweenness centrality within the CoopCycle adaptation network (0.57).

The second cooperative was Central Salta, a delivery and logistics cooperative founded in 2019 in the city of Salta, focused on delivery and oriented towards collaborative work (Muño, 2022). This cooperative attempted to implement the CoopCycle platform between 2022 and 2024, during which period FACTTIC collaborated with the European cooperative Mensakas to resolve technical problems. However, the use of CoopCycle by the cooperative was not achieved, due to difficulties in building trust and identity with a foreign project (Kasparian, 14 March 2025; C. Muñoz, 14 March 2025). Despite this, Central Salta maintains a relationship with FACTTIC to this day and continues working on cooperativism and gender issues.

3.2. Chile and the role of engaged research centers

Historically, Chile has lacked a unified legal framework for the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE), although debates on alternatives to private property have precedents, such as the 1971 constitutional reform that recognised collective and social property (Radrigán, Inostroza & Correa, 2024). This process was interrupted during the dictatorship and only resumed in the late 1990s. In 2004, Decree with Force of Law No. 5, known as the General Law of Cooperatives, established the principles for cooperatives. Subsequently, Law No. 20.881 (2016) improved their oversight and governance. The pandemic acted as a turning point, bringing visibility to the SSE and spurring incipient efforts towards its institutional recognition (Montes, 12 March 2025). From 2022 onwards, a significant institutional shift became evident: the Division of Associativity and Cooperatives (DAES) was strengthened, and the National Institute of Associativity and Cooperatives (INAC) was created. In Chile, the programmatic idea of solidarity was institutionalised only partially and belatedly, without fully translating into instruments or effective participation in decision-making, owing to a historically unfavourable structural context.

Looking for fair work alternatives (Fairwork & Oxford Internet Institute, n.d.), former platform workers in the city of Concepción formed a collective that established the cooperative Por La Chita in 2021. They contacted the CoopCycle federation with the intention of implementing the platform. One enabling factor was the presence of technical capacity among members: “There were programmers in the group who carried out the platform implementation in Chile” (Cooperativa de trabajo PEC, 11 March 2025). This effort coincided with the municipality of Renca’s post-pandemic economic reactivation initiatives and the ongoing work of the Centre for Social and Cooperative Economy Studies (CIESCOOP).

After several months dedicated to trying to adapt the CoopCycle platform, the members of Por La Chita abandoned the implementation: “They implemented the platform in Chile, which required some adaptations that no one else had the expertise to do except the programmers (…) Finally, they disbanded, completed the implementation, but never got to use it” (Cooperativa de trabajo PEC, 11 March 2025). The main reason was that it took longer than expected and required more resources than initially planned, while personal emergencies led members of Por La Chita to abandon the project. The failure to complete the deployment illustrates how even emancipatory technologies face structural tensions that reveal both material and symbolic limitations when adapted to diverse contexts.

As the process was accompanied by CIESCOOP, the platform codebase was preserved and shared with other cooperatives, including Pantera Courier and Pídelo en Cleta, both based in Santiago. CIESCOOP emerged as the key node in the network (see Figure 2), with an out-degree of 5 due to its relationships with all cooperatives involved and with the CoopCycle federation. According to Patricio Inostroza, “we had the technology, but no cooperative to use it,” so CIESCOOP took the initiative to “retrieve what Por La Chita had achieved” and connect new cooperatives to the existing infrastructure (Inostroza, 13 March 2025).

Members of Pídelo en Cleta explained that the experiment with the platform became possible because the municipality of Renca invited CIESCOOP to support local initiatives. CIESCOOP recommended repurposing the previously adapted version of CoopCycle: “They told us, you’re working on similar things – maybe try using it internally to get familiar with it” (Cooperativa de trabajo PEC, 11 March 2025). In parallel, Pantera Courier – another bike repair and cycle logistics cooperative – based in the south-east Santiago borough of Peñalolén, also joined the effort. They operate as a mechanical workshop for urban and cargo bikes. The temporary use of CoopCycle by cooperatives such as Pantera Courier and Pídelo en Cleta reflects a form of territorial and situated appropriation grounded in everyday rationalities. As Inostroza noted, these initiatives diverged from the corporate platform logic: “These cooperatives were not competing with Uber or Rappi. They were focused on last-mile delivery and neighbourhood-level logistics, which could be managed even without a digital platform” (Inostroza, 13 March 2025).

The adaptation process lasted around six months and involved using the platform to coordinate delivery routes. This is a critical function for cycle logistics cooperatives, especially those handling food: “Food deliveries all come at the same time – it becomes a peak-hour problem. You have to split up the work in a thousand ways” (Cooperativa de trabajo PEC, 11 March 2025). This gave rise to a new organisational role: the “route coordinator”. In this case, the creation of the route coordinator role operated as a strategy to ensure equitable work distribution and protect members from the exploitative logics. The position embodied a concrete expression of solidarity, reinforcing collective values and countering the asymmetries of platform capitalism.

The network shows the importance (out-degree 4) of Santiago, the city where the cooperatives that tried to implement CoopCycle operate, and of COVID-19, which served as a framework of opportunity for these activities. The concentration of connections in Santiago and the activation of links as a result of the pandemic configure a territorially localised innovation network, where the health crisis acted as a node of opportunity and structural reorganisation. It also demonstrates that the actors and the resources mobilised are concentrated in this city.

3.3. Mexico: politics, policy, and technical capabilities as the key for socio technical adaptation processes

The high degree of institutionalisation of solidarity in Mexico, reflected in its materialisation in regulatory and policy instruments for the social and solidarity sector, was achieved in an adverse structural context. The first legal recognition of the sector in 1889, during the Porfirian dictatorship, was a legislative simulation aimed at controlling the working class (Rojas, 2016). This trend persisted until 1982, when paternalist policies sought to refunctionalise the sector as a supporting force for the state party system (Rojas, 2022).

The Mexican Revolution (1910–17) opened a process of state reorganisation that led to the first General Law on Cooperative Societies in 1927, later reinforced during the Cardenista period with the expansion of ejidos, trade union confederations, and urban and rural cooperatives. However, in the following decades, cooperativism lacked significant support measures.

In the neoliberal reform (1982–83), several articles of the Mexican Constitution were amended. Article 25, in particular, incorporated the private, public, and social economic sectors, formally recognising a mixed economic system (Rojas, 2022). Mexico’s economic reform was part of the global wave of neoliberal restructuring that began in 1982 (Quintana, 2016). In this context, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) government promoted economic liberalisation. This was not a technical project but a political one, shifting economic power from popular sectors to wealthier groups and triggering productive fragmentation, liberalisation, privatisation, and precarisation (Sandoval, 2007; Quintana, 2016).

In 2012, under a new reformist cycle of the PRI, a labour framework of flexibilisation and an export-oriented model were consolidated, within which the social and solidarity economy was recognised as a mechanism to mitigate the economic exclusion of the most vulnerable groups (Rojas, 2022). The enactment of the Social and Solidarity Economy Law in 2012 represented a victory for the cooperative movement within a context of regressive and supervisory policies (Rojas, 2016; Rojas, 2022). Nevertheless, there remains no public institution exclusively dedicated to the sector; instead, responsibilities were dispersed across various agencies.

The creation of INAES to implement public policies for the promotion and development of the social and solidarity economy sector (INEGI, 2022) illustrates how solidarity operates as a structuring idea, shaping both organisational functioning and policy instruments aimed at strengthening cooperativism (Social and Solidarity Economy Law, 2012). Despite persistent challenges linked to geographical inequalities (M. Ibarra, 13 March 2025), these instruments have laid the groundwork for supporting SSE initiatives at both federal and local levels.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government’s decision not to incur debt or allocate public funds to cover household spending severely affected the country’s largest entities – Mexico City and the State of Mexico – (Horcasitas et al., 2021). Within this structural context of crisis, unemployment, and impoverishment, more than 12 civil society organisations, local governments, companies, and international agencies strategically entered the decision-making network to drive solutions. COVID-19 played a pivotal role (out-degree: 9) in catalysing these efforts, highlighting both the importance of cooperatives in logistics and the growing relevance of digital tools for distribution and commerce under crisis conditions (M. Ibarra, 13 March 2025).

One of the most relevant initiatives was the Rodando Juntas pilot project, launched in March 2021, through which its promoters and cooperatives established the first connection with the European CoopCycle Federation. It built upon Rodando Ayuda, an initiative that delivered food to vulnerable populations using sustainable transport during the COVID-19 pandemic (J. Bustillos et al., 2022; Horcasitas et al., 2021; ITDP et al., 2021). These projects materialised the programmatic idea of solidarity across different sectors of society and territories, proposing a bottom-up post-pandemic governance model. Nevertheless, the role of the World Bank Group is noteworthy, as it has promoted projects in Mexico since 2012 through financial and technical support related to road safety, sustainable urban mobility, freight logistics and gender equity (Crotte & Arvizu, 2017).

The cooperatives participating in these pilot projects and currently part of CoopCycle in Mexico are mostly based in Mexico City, one of the country’s most populated territories (with more than 17% of inhabitants) and one of the hardest hit by the pandemic. They also come from territories such as Puebla and Puerto de Veracruz. The operation in Puerto de Veracruz was preceded by the activities of the cooperative Libelubike in Xalapa.

This was a strategy of the founder of the Libelubike cooperative, who identified a greater opportunity to operate successfully in a territory concentrating state, municipal, and federal powers (Libelubike, 10 March 2025). One of the main issues on the municipal agenda was mobility in public and alternative transport. Consequently, “Libelubike pushed for the construction of the first cycle lane and the formation of the first squad of cycle police”, while also undertaking other strategic actions such as sending formal letters to the municipality, organising cycling events, and training sessions (Libelubike, 10 March 2025).

Changes have occurred between the cooperatives that initially integrated CoopCycle and those currently comprising it (Table 2). During the first months of 2025, a legal constitution process began for a regional cooperative named Bicicooperativa Urbana, intended to encompass all CoopCycle member cooperatives, enabling them to access financing, exercise labour rights, and take active roles in the European CoopCycle Federation (Libelubike, 10 March 2025). This strategy, advanced by platform cooperativism actors, seeks to confront challenges such as the lack of recognition of cycle couriers as a professional service, competition with motorcycle couriers, and low incomes, while leveraging strengths such as the knowledge and skills acquired through participation in the CoopCycle Federation: “we have received training on finance, last mile delivery, transport of sensitive goods such as blood samples, and gender” (Libelubike, 10 March 2025).

Another relevant actor in the CoopCycle adaptation network in this case (see Figure 3) is the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), due to its strategic capacity to engage with public institutions supporting SSE (out-degree: 22). Key partners included the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion (STyFE) and INAES, particularly through the NODESS initiative for the territorial development of the SSE. NODESS itself plays a significant structural role (out-degree: 8), with solidarity as its core principle for transforming dominant socio-economic relations.

Following the creation of NODESS, INAES ceased to operate solely as a funding body and instead became a strategic actor that articulated social and solidarity economy organisations with higher education institutions across territories. It has also taken part in processes of research, advocacy, and national-level dialogue. In 2012, it provided training for legislators on cooperativism, “which was crucial for legal advocacy and for the implementation of public policy in local governments” (M. Ibarra, 13 March 2025).

There is an agreement among academic actors and INAES officials that NODESS facilitated the building of strong local ties in favor of SSE development (J. Viornery, March 25, 2025; M. Ibarra, 13 March 2025). However, strategically, ITDP leveraged academic, governmental, and cooperative capacities for the adaptation of CoopCycle. The relationship between ITDP and NODESS was key for developing training components related to cooperativism (Secretaría de Bienestar et al., 2022), since NODESS acted as a crucial node of passage (betweenness: 0.8) for the circulation of knowledge on solidarity and cooperative values. Furthermore, it expanded its topics to include bicycle logistics, safety protocols, and gender perspective (J. Bustillos et al., 2022), enabling a power rebalancing platform economies.

Within the framework of the NODESS–ITDP relationship, another strategy was deployed to maximize the training component, which consisted of using public institutions' digital tools to train cooperative members. This was done through the platform of the National System of Training and Specialized Technical Assistance (SINCA), designed for the dissemination, training, and connection of SSE actors (Díaz et al., 2022; INAES, 2020). In this sense, the FOCOFESS fund for the legal constitution of cooperatives carries less weight in the adaptation process (0.01 of betweenness centrality) than the training component, since “cooperative training is more important than legal constitution so that when cooperatives are registered, they do not fail” (M. Ibarra, March 13, 2025).

Discussion: main lessons from a STS perspective

The adaptation of CoopCycle in Argentina did not succeed in consolidating itself as a process of knowledge and technology appropriation through historically situated socio-technical trajectories (Thomas et al., 2019). Nevertheless, it is possible to identify several lessons from this case based on the multiple strategies deployed by relevant network actors to reconfigure the logistical space against corporate rationalities, grounding it instead in values of solidarity and autonomy (Santos, 2000). For example, the adaptation process involved shifting TRU’s operations from mobile to desktop devices, replacing WhatsApp with Telegram for internal communication, and using Slack to interact with CoopCycle’s European partners – aimed at ensuring that technological tools became part of a more coherent assemblage aligned with the needs of workers.

Other adjustments, though not ultimately adopted by Argentine cooperatives, served to reinforce learning and strengthen ties with other CoopCycle nodes. The most relevant included replacing OpenStreetMaps with Google Maps due to coverage gaps and safety concerns in Buenos Aires (Muñoz, 14 March 2025; C. Muñoz et al., 2023); substituting Stripe with the widely used local payment system MercadoPago (Franco et al., 2024); and modifying the platform to accommodate motorbike deliveries rather than only bicycles. From a socio-technical perspective, these adaptations illustrate how adaptation processes are shaped by material conditions, labour needs, and available capacities (Thomas et al., 2019).

Another important lesson from this case relates to the role of teaching–learning spaces in socio-technical adaptation processes. FACTTIC participated in the first edition of CooperativasYa, an educational initiative launched in 2020 by The New School (USA) and Mondragon University (Spain), which actively disseminated programmatic ideas of platform cooperativism through training. Its first edition engaged 418 participants from 49 countries (Platform Cooperativism Consortium, 2020).

Through its participation, FACTTIC absorbed lessons and good practices on platform cooperatives and identified CooperativasYa as a key reference point for the sector: “Some influential people were involved in the first CooperativasYa cohort” (Muñoz, 14 March 2025). Education in this space familiarised FACTTIC members with CoopCycle’s open-source model and with an already initiated project, providing a crucial foundation for later adaptation efforts. Its significant betweenness centrality score (0.5) reflects how training functioned as a mechanism for circulating programmatic visions, connecting actors, and aligning them with the broader cooperative agenda.

Beyond these valuable lessons, CoopCycle could not be effectively used by cooperatives in Argentina nor consolidated as a viable model. This outcome may be linked to the dispersed nature of the network, reflected in its density score of 0.047, meaning that only 4.7% of all possible ties were present. This indicates a network with limited overall connectivity. Nevertheless, the presence of actors with high betweenness centrality – such as FACTTIC, TRU, and CooperativasYa – enabled initial progress by bridging otherwise disconnected nodes and sustaining flows of knowledge, funding, and technical support.

The relatively low density highlights the incipient and experimental character of the adaptation process, where alliances were selectively built around key grants, municipalities, and cooperative groups rather than across the entire ecosystem. Over time, shifting political conditions and institutional volatility in Argentina hindered the consolidation of instruments that could have deepened and stabilised these ties, resulting in a fragile network whose cohesion depends on a few strategic brokers rather than a dense web of interconnections.

On the other hand, the Chilean case shows how processes of technological adaptation unfolded through contingent encounters and voluntary labour, rather than being the result of pre-established institutional pathways. ​​The adaptations carried out by Por La Chita were further enhanced through technical support from FACTTIC and members of what would become the Chilean software cooperative New Dev. This support emerged contingently – when a former Por La Chita member posted in a Facebook group seeking technical help to implement CoopCycle. A programmer (now in New Dev) saw the post and reached out to FACTTIC for assistance (New Dev, 12 March 2025). This person then contacted FACTTIC and New Dev to request support in the process.

The initiative was sustained through a mix of voluntary labour and partial funding from the Chilean state: “Por La Chita got a SERCOTEC grant, which allowed them to legally register the cooperative… but much of the work was still volunteer-based” (Cooperativa New Dev, 25 March 2025). Another problem was the licence version of CoopCycle: “licence is only for clean energy use – no combustion engines. That works in cities like Paris or Concepción, but in Chile, where people use motorcycles, that’s a real limitation” (Cooperativa New Dev, 25 March 2025). These challenges highlight how platform cooperatives depend on fragile socio-technical assemblages, where public funding, international NGOs, and informal networks intersect. The issue of CoopCycle’s licence – restricted to clean energy vehicles – further exemplifies how global technical frameworks can clash with local material conditions. In this sense, platform adaptations are negotiations with territorial realities, labour practices, and infrastructural constraints.

Public policy instruments played a partial yet significant role in enabling cooperative experimentation. Por La Chita accessed the “Crece” Fund administered by SERCOTEC, which finances organisational empowerment to improve competitiveness (SERCOTEC, n.d.). Pídelo en Cleta received municipal funds from Renca to support training and cover the salary of a route coordinator (Ilustre Municipalidad de Renca, n.d.). Pantera Courier, meanwhile, benefited from “La Escuelita,” co-designed by the Municipality of Peñalolén and the NGO Yunus, which provided training in social and solidarity economy principles and organisational strengthening (Pantera Courier, n.d.). These initiatives compensated for the lack of dedicated public instruments for platform cooperatives, while partnerships with international NGOs added training and capacity-building components aimed at fostering long-term sustainability. These support structures show how platform cooperatives, even in the absence of explicit state recognition, can leverage broader SSE policies and programs to sustain their initial phases.

The central role of CIESCOOP is particularly relevant in this context. Its high betweenness and out-degree values reveal its function as a hub that facilitated knowledge transfer, training, and the circulation of resources (P. Inostroza, 13 March 2025). CIESCOOP is the most central node in terms of betweenness (1.0), although the CoopCycle platform itself also plays a significant intermediary role (0.45). This is due to the technical adaptations required to match territorial realities. One of the most significant changes was the integration of MercadoPago, widely used in Chile. These adjustments reflect a situated socio-technical adaptation process (Thomas et al., 2019).

CIESCOOP’s centrality – high out-degree (5) and betweenness (1.0) – demonstrates its pivotal role in facilitating knowledge transfer and resource sharing between organisations. Such articulation is essential to cooperative innovation processes, as it mobilises existing capacities and knowledge within the network (P. Inostroza, 13 March 2025). This is fundamental for cooperative processes, as it enables the use of the installed capacities and knowledge available in the network. Although none of the cooperatives analysed continue to use CoopCycle today – largely due to the closure of the pandemic-induced window of opportunity – the organisational and technological learning remains embedded in their members (Cooperativa de trabajo PEC, 11 March 2025; Cooperativa New Dev, 26 March 2025). This indicates that the legacies of adaptation persist beyond immediate implementation. The Chilean case thus highlights the importance of historically situated socio-technical trajectories, where dispersed networks, limited connectivity, and fragmented institutions coexist with significant knowledge production and experimentation.

Ultimately, while the CoopCycle network in Chile remains weakly articulated, the emergence of new cooperatives and supportive mechanisms points toward cautious optimism. The CoopCycle adaptation network in Chile exhibits a low density value (0.044), meaning that only 4.4% of all possible ties are present – a clear indicator of a highly dispersed network with limited connectivity. Despite this, the presence of key actors with high betweenness centrality enabled initial progress by linking otherwise isolated nodes and facilitating the circulation of knowledge, training opportunities, and financial resources. The challenge lies in consolidating these dispersed initiatives into a more cohesive ecosystem. At the same time, the Chilean case illustrates how technological adaptations can generate enduring knowledge and capacities even when platforms are abandoned, underscoring the broader contribution of these experiments to the development of the SSE.

One of the key lessons from the Mexican case is the participation of cooperative members as a central element of technological adaptations. From a socio-technical perspective, this active participation, the existence of favourable public policy instruments for the solidarity economy, and the establishment of relationships among diverse actors – ITDP, FACTTIC, the CoopCycle Federation, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), and IDB Lab – form part of a single assemblage. On the one hand, the knowledge of cooperative members’ daily tasks enabled the incorporation of technical improvements that were not adopted in other Latin American countries where CoopCycle adaptation processes were attempted. On the other hand, knowledge about solidarity and cooperativism was expanded and circulated. In this sense, technological adaptations were rooted in real geographies, where the needs and knowledge of cooperative members, together with municipal governance and mobility infrastructure, played a central role.

These elements, often categorised as “social,” are as important as technical capacities and even territorial specificities for ensuring that the platform works in line with cooperatives’ modes of work organisation, their interactions with clients, and their operating spaces. The main adjustments included inputting information into the platform, setting prices, and reducing reliance on tools like WhatsApp (Libelubike, March 10, 2025). Other relevant modifications involved enabling cash payments, translating the platform’s interface into Spanish, using Google Maps for route planning, and integrating electric, cargo, and traditional bicycles (J. D. Bustillos, May 15, 2023; A. Márquez, April 19, 2023; C. Muñoz, March 14, 2025). Device use was also differentiated: while couriers relied on smartphones for routing and deliveries, desktop computers remained essential for dispatch coordination. This human coordination component represents an alternative to the algorithmic surveillance typical of corporate models, contributing to greater transparency in decision-making.

The adaptation of CoopCycle in Mexico constitutes a genuine process of knowledge and technology appropriation through historically situated socio-technical trajectories (Thomas et al., 2019). CoopCycle is not used simply because it is inherently useful or functional for cooperatives; rather, it becomes useful and functional because it is transformed into an artefact made usable and beneficial for them. The Mexican case demonstrates how adaptation processes involve co-constructing the functionality and utility of technologies in specific territories, in the full socio-material sense (Feenberg et al., 2008; Gómez & Medina, 2022).

Finally, despite the lessons provided by the Mexican case, one of the challenges lies in the low density value of the CoopCycle adaptation network. The network shows a density of 0.047, meaning that only 4.7% of possible ties are present. This dispersion is counterbalanced by the significant institutionalisation of the social and solidarity economy, expressed through initiatives such as NODESS, which facilitated knowledge circulation and financial support. Likewise, the inclusion of diverse actors in policymaking and initiatives, both for post-pandemic recovery and sustainable mobility, contributed to strengthening the network. Beyond this, however, the absence of public policy instruments specifically oriented towards platform cooperatives remains a challenge for consolidating the networks for the future.

Conclusion: An artefact is not adopted because it works; it works because it is adopted

From the perspective of the Socio-Technical Approach (STA), the processes of CoopCycle’s adaptation in Latin America can be interpreted as attempts at technological reappropriation aimed at subverting the organisational, technological, and political frameworks of platform capitalism. The adaptation of a digital infrastructure grounded in cooperative values, rather than in value extraction, constitutes a counter-hegemonic technological and political praxis. The three cases analysed show that the co-construction of functionality and sustainability of a cooperative platform is neither linear nor purely technical. Rather, it depends on a set of material and ideational factors that determine for whom the tool works: for the cooperatives themselves, or for the intermediaries facilitating its adaptation.

In Argentina, Chile, and Mexico, the experiences reveal both the potential and the limitations of these trajectories. In the first case, the brokerage capacity of key actors made it possible to connect isolated nodes and mobilise knowledge and resources, although long-standing institutional indifference prevented the consolidation of a stable and sustainable network over time. In the second, the emergence of links among cooperatives, in a favourable context with public instruments and actors possessing technical expertise, highlighted the strength of collective management and joint learning. Yet the subsequent political turn in national policies weakened the instruments that initially sustained the initiative. Finally, in Mexico, the incorporation of cooperatives into the problem–solution network of sustainable mobility, together with the solidarity legacies of the pandemic, enabled a greater degree of institutionalisation of the initiative, which remains active thanks to the development of mixed sustainability strategies and a context more favourable to cooperatives. Nevertheless, institutional fragmentation and the absence of specific policies continue to limit the consolidation of these initiatives.

Finally, adaptation is a contingent process of territorialisation in which cooperative practices, technical knowledge, and institutional frameworks temporarily reorganise social and urban territories, generating “used territories” that leave behind learning, networks, and capacities that may be reactivated in the future (Santos, 2000). Thus, CoopCycle’s adaptation in Latin America does not merely involve “importing” a European technology; rather, it reconfigures it. These experiences suggest that the future of platform cooperativism in the region depends not only on the availability of open-source tools but also on their embedding within political coalitions and territorialised practices capable of sustaining them over time.