Agricultural Law, Commercial Law

Italian Agricultural Cooperatives Between Civil Law and European Regulation: A Development Perspective

January 8, 2026

Italian agricultural cooperatives represent a distinctive economic and legal model that balances mutualistic principles with entrepreneurial strategies. This paper examines the evolving regulatory framework governing these cooperatives, with a focus on the interplay between Italian civil law and European regulations. The analysis explores key structural and functional aspects, including mutuality, governance, digital transformation, and integration with renewable-energy communities. A central objective is to assess the legal and economic challenges affecting agricultural cooperatives, particularly in relation to their internationalization and financial stability. The study highlights potential reforms aimed at enhancing competitiveness while preserving cooperative identity. By examining judicial interpretations and legislative developments, the paper provides insights into how cooperatives can adapt to emerging market and policy dynamics, ensuring long-term sustainability within the agri-food sector.

1. Introduction

Agricultural cooperatives represent a fundamental pillar of the Italian economic and legal system, playing a strategic role in promoting sustainability, social cohesion, and economic development within the primary sector¹. Unlike other corporate structures, agricultural cooperatives are distinguished by their mutualistic nature, aimed at meeting the economic and social needs of their members through the collective management of resources and agricultural activities. This business model², governed by Articles 2511-2548 of the Italian Civil Code (“CC”), integrates economic and social objectives, ensuring a balance between the valorization of local agricultural production and the promotion of rural community well-being³.

In recent decades, agricultural cooperatives have navigated an ever-evolving landscape marked by global challenges such as the ecological transition, digitalization, and international competition⁴. While deeply rooted in a historical tradition of mutuality and solidarity, they must now adapt to the pressing demands for innovation and to new dynamics in the agri-food market. Addressing these challenges requires not only strengthening organizational and managerial capacities but also effectively integrating with European and national policies that promote sustainable development models.

Their legal and economic significance is further reinforced by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which acknowledges their strategic role in improving market-supply concentration and strengthening producers’ bargaining power. Through the shared management of resources and the adoption of innovative business models, agricultural cooperatives contribute to the competitiveness of the primary sector and serve as a concrete exemplar of the circular economy⁵.

At a time marked by climate change, geopolitical tensions, and an increasing demand for sustainability, the importance of agricultural cooperatives cannot be underestimated. Their ability to adapt and innovate will be crucial in addressing future challenges while upholding the mutualistic principles that define them and ensuring value creation for both their members and the broader region.

2. The European Regulatory Framework and Its Relationship with National Legislation

Agricultural cooperatives hold a key position within European and national policies aimed at promoting sustainability, competitiveness, and the economic integration of the primary sector. Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013⁶, despite being amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117⁷^, remains a central reference for the regulation of the Common Market Organization (CMO)⁸, assigning agricultural cooperatives a strategic role as producer organizations. These organizations not only enhance supply concentration and strengthen producers’ bargaining power but also foster the economic and environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains (Article 152, Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2117).

A distinctive feature of European law is the balance between supporting agricultural cooperatives and applying competition rules under Articles 101-102 TFEU. This balance results in targeted exemptions for agricultural cooperatives that pursue objectives of collective interest, ensuring that such benefits do not lead to significant market distortions. The European regulatory approach thus recognizes the uniqueness of cooperatives, which combine economic efficiency with mutual solidarity, fostering inclusive and sustainable production models.

In Italy, the transposition of European norms is integrated into Legislative Decree No. 228/2001, which broadened the definition of an agricultural entrepreneur⁹, including cooperatives engaged in the processing, preservation, marketing, and enhancement of products supplied by their members¹⁰. The decree also redefined the concept of related activities, placing particular emphasis on the prevalence requirement for products supplied by members. This criterion not only qualifies the cooperative’s activity as agricultural but also exempts it from the legal framework governing commercial companies, reinforcing the mutualistic nature of its operations.

The link between European and national regulations is further strengthened through the financial instruments of the 2023-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which supports agricultural cooperatives in projects aimed at fostering innovation, sustainability, and economic resilience. The new CAP governance model, introduced by Regulation (EU) 2021/2115¹¹, grants Member States greater autonomy in managing funds and defining rural development strategies. Within this framework, agricultural cooperatives can benefit from targeted interventions for infrastructure modernization, digital technology adoption, and ecological transition. These instruments align with the European Green Deal and national climate and energy strategies, which include specific incentives for agricultural-energy communities and the circular economy.

The European and national regulatory framework thus establishes an integrated system designed to enhance the role of agricultural cooperatives as key players in rural development and the ecological transition. This system not only provides economic support through tax incentives and public funds but also ensures legal protection for contributing members. Thanks to this dual safeguard, agricultural cooperatives today stand as pillars of regional development, capable of promoting sustainable, competitive, and inclusive production models.

3. Mutualistic Structure and Objectives of Agricultural Cooperatives

Agricultural cooperatives constitute a distinctive corporate model founded on the principle of mutuality¹², which represents the cornerstone of both their legal framework and internal organization. Unlike capital-based companies, whose primary objective is profit maximization, agricultural cooperatives pursue the satisfaction of their members’ economic, social, and professional needs through the collective management of productive resources and the provision of goods and services under more favorable conditions than those available on the market. Moreover, agricultural cooperatives facilitate the valorization of local production and promotes a sustainable model of regional development¹³. However, the mutualistic nature of cooperatives does not preclude their entrepreneurial dimension, as they must operate according to criteria of economic efficiency to ensure the sustainability of their organizational structure.

A central element of this system is the mutualistic relationship, which entails reciprocal obligations between the members and the cooperative¹⁴. One of the most significant of these obligations is the mandatory conferment of agricultural products by members, a requirement that does not constitute an ancillary obligation within the meaning of Article 2345 CC, but rather a fundamental obligation essential to the cooperative’s functioning¹⁵. This synallagmatic relationship¹⁶ is structured as a contract with reciprocal obligations: members undertake to provide their agricultural products in accordance with the procedures established by the cooperative’s bylaws, while the cooperative assumes the duty to process, enhance, and market the conferred products, distributing the resulting economic benefits in proportion to the contributions¹⁷.

This contractual framework carries significant legal implications. The cooperative is subject to the general principles of contractual obligations, allowing members to invoke the defense of non-performance (Article 1460 CC) or to request termination of the contractual relationship should the cooperative fail to fulfill its statutory obligations¹⁸. At the same time, the close interrelation between the mutualistic bond and the productive organization strengthens the legal position of members, ensuring a balanced interplay between obligations and rights within their relationship with the cooperative.

At the heart of the mutualistic model lies the principle of prevalent mutuality¹⁹, enshrined in Article 2513 CC. This principle requires that the cooperative’s activities be carried out predominantly with and for its members, both in terms of supply and revenue. This is not merely a formal requisite but an essential criterion for preserving the cooperative’s mutualistic identity²⁰. Jurisprudence has clarified that compliance with prevalent mutuality cannot be assessed solely through a quantitative analysis; rather, it necessitates a qualitative evaluation aimed at ensuring that the benefits primarily accrue to the members²¹. Non-compliance with this principle may result in the loss of the cooperative’s status as a mutualistic entity, triggering fiscal and regulatory repercussions.

Another distinguishing feature of agricultural cooperatives is the sharing of entrepreneurial risk among members. Unlike capital-based companies, where the risk is limited to the invested capital, cooperative members actively participate in the entity’s economic risks. Specifically, the remuneration of conferments is not automatically guaranteed but is contingent upon the cooperative’s economic performance and market conditions. This system reinforces the mutualistic bond and promotes economically responsible, and sustainability-oriented management.

From a regulatory standpoint, agricultural cooperatives benefit from favorable legal and fiscal treatment due to their social function and strategic importance in rural development. Italian legislation, in conjunction with European Union regulations, encourages the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, technological innovation, and the advancement of circular-economic models. In particular, Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 acknowledges the role of agricultural cooperatives in improving supply concentration, enhancing producers’ bargaining power, and fostering greater economic and environmental sustainability within agri-food supply chains. Furthermore, economic support mechanisms derived from rural development policies, including structural funds and preferential tax regimes, further consolidate the role of cooperatives as key actors within the productive and regional fabric.

4. The Relationship Between Agricultural Cooperatives and Related Activities

The link between agricultural cooperatives and related activities is essential for understanding their legal nature and strategic role within the economic system. Pursuant to Article 2135 CC, agricultural activities include not only cultivation, livestock farming, and forestry but also related activities such as the processing, preservation, marketing, and enhancement of agricultural products, provided that these products originate predominantly from the members’ farms. This legal framework enables cooperatives to operate across the entire agri-food supply chain, fostering an integrated model that combines economic development with regional sustainability.

Related activities are closely linked to the biological cycle of the land, as stipulated in Article 2135(3) CC. The requirement of prevalence should not be interpreted solely in quantitative terms but must reflect a functional and substantive connection with the agricultural production cycle. In this context, agricultural cooperatives serve as intermediaries between members’ labor and the market, transforming the supplied products and enhancing their value through commercialization.

Jurisprudence has clarified that agricultural transformation cooperatives retain their status as agricultural entrepreneurs when the related activity is predominantly directed toward products supplied by their members. In this regard, the principle of predominant mutuality, enshrined in Article 2513 CC, plays a crucial role, requiring that at least 50% of the cooperative’s economic transactions be conducted with its members, whether in the form of contributions or member-generated revenue²². Not only does this principle preserve the connection between related activities and the agricultural production cycle, but it also ensures that the cooperative remains faithful to its mutualistic purpose, preventing its transformation into a purely commercial enterprise.

However, the Italian Supreme Court has specified that not every processing and marketing activity can automatically be considered agricultural²³. This principle highlights the necessity for a concrete and substantive link between related activities and the biological cycle, thereby preventing agricultural cooperatives from becoming mere commercial intermediaries.

Related activities also play a strategic role in enhancing the value of products supplied by members. The ability to process and market agricultural products on a large scale strengthens producers’ bargaining power, improving their competitiveness in the market²⁴. Moreover, this model supports the creation of more sustainable and resilient agri-food supply chains, in line with the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

A further distinctive aspect of agricultural cooperatives is that related activities do not constitute independent commercial operations but rather an expression of the mutualistic relationship between members and the cooperative. On this point, case law has clarified that the contribution of agricultural products by members does not constitute an exchange-based contract but rather an obligation deriving from the social contract, intrinsically linked to the mutualistic purpose of the cooperative²⁵. This legal framework allows cooperatives to maintain their mutualistic identity, ensuring a balance between statutory obligations and economic benefits.

This arrangement strengthens the role of cooperatives as instruments of economic and social integration, where members are not mere suppliers but actively participate in the management of activities and the distribution of benefits.

Related activities acquire particular importance at the European level, especially in relation to the objectives of the ecological transition. Agricultural cooperatives are encouraged to integrate innovative activities into their production processes, such as the generation of alternative energy²⁶⁵ or participation in renewable-energy communities²⁷. These initiatives, supported by European and national programs, offer new opportunities to combine environmental sustainability with the economic valorization of member-supplied agricultural products.

5. Democratic Governance in Agricultural Cooperatives

Democratic governance is a fundamental principle distinguishing agricultural cooperatives from other corporate structures, as it is based on the “one member, one vote” mechanism established by Article 2538 CC. Unlike capital-based companies, where decision-making power is proportional to the shares held, agricultural cooperatives ensure that each member has equal voting rights, regardless of their economic capacity or the volume of their contributions. This model reflects the mutualistic nature of cooperatives, aiming to guarantee equal participation among members and preserve collective interests.

The principle of equal decision-making translates into a governance system that fosters active participation and meaningful member engagement in the cooperative’s management. Judicial rulings have consistently emphasized that any attempt to deviate from this rule, even through statutory agreements, would contravene the cooperative’s mutualistic purpose and compromise its identity²⁸. Consequently, democratic governance not only safeguards internal democracy but also ensures that control remains equitably distributed, preventing the undue concentration of power.

The organizational structure of agricultural cooperatives comprises three main governing bodies. The general assembly, recognized as the cooperative’s supreme body, is responsible for strategic decisions such as approving financial statements, appointing directors, and amending the bylaws. Operating under the majority principle, in accordance with Article 2538 CC²⁹, the assembly ensures a balance between participation and decision-making efficiency.

The board of directors, elected by the assembly, oversees both ordinary and extraordinary management, representing the collective interests of the members. It is tasked with ensuring transparent and responsible governance, upholding mutualistic principles, and promoting participatory management³⁰.

Where applicable, the board of statutory auditors performs supervisory functions, ensuring compliance with administrative regulations and statutory provisions.

Beyond formal equality, democratic governance fosters informed participation in the cooperative’s activities. Article 2545-quater CC mandates that members contribute to the cooperative’s mutualistic purpose not only through financial contributions but also by actively participating in assembly decisions. Non-participation or failure to fulfill social obligations may lead to the exclusion of a member³¹.

However, the democratic model of agricultural cooperatives is not without challenges. Collective decision-making processes can slow down operations, particularly in competitive markets that require rapid action. Additionally, balancing individual and collective interests may lead to internal conflicts, potentially affecting organizational cohesion. Furthermore, the increasing complexity of regulatory frameworks necessitates specialized administrative expertise.

To address these challenges, cooperatives are adopting innovative solutions, integrating democratic principles with technological tools and more adaptable governance models to enhance operational efficiency while preserving their mutualistic identity.

6. Digitalization as a Tool for Internal Governance

Digitalization is transforming the internal governance of agricultural cooperatives, making decision-making processes both more efficient and more inclusive. Tools such as digital platforms for managing general meetings, electronic voting systems, and applications for information sharing promote greater transparency and member participation while simultaneously reducing administrative complexity.

One of the main benefits of digitalization concerns the management of meetings and decision-making processes. Agricultural cooperatives, often characterized by a large and geographically dispersed membership base, can benefit from online meeting management platforms and electronic voting systems, allowing members to participate actively without the need for physical presence. The adoption of software for managing meeting minutes and the integration of digital signature tools streamline bureaucratic procedures while ensuring greater security and traceability in decision-making.

Another key aspect is the use of cloud-based document management systems, which allow essential documents such as financial statements, regulations, contracts, and production-activity reports to be stored, updated, and shared in real time³². This eliminates issues related to information dispersion and significantly reduces costs associated with paper-based management. Additionally, immediate access to data enables governing bodies to operate with greater timeliness, avoiding delays in resolutions and improving the cooperative’s strategic planning.

7. Agricultural Cooperatives and the Protection of the Contributing Member’s Position

The role of the contributing member plays a central role in the system of agricultural cooperatives, as it is through contributions that these entities fulfill their mutualistic purpose and ensure their economic sustainability. The contribution represents not only the key element of the mutualistic relationship but also the cornerstone of the cooperative’s internal regulation, which is based on a dynamic balance between reciprocal rights and obligations.

As previously mentioned, under Article 2135 CC, the contribution does not constitute an ancillary service pursuant to Article 2345 CC but rather a fundamental obligation arising from the social contract, closely linked to the mutualistic purpose. The Court of Cassation has clarified that this obligation cannot be equated with an autonomous exchange contract³³, but instead reflects the peculiar nature of the associative bond between members and the cooperative³⁴. This interpretation confirms that the relationship between the member and the cooperative is aimed not only at enhancing the value of the member-contributed products but also at promoting a collective and solidarity-based management of resources.

The contribution generates a synallagmatic relationship between the member and the cooperative. On the one hand, the member undertakes to contribute their agricultural products according to the terms established by the statute; on the other, the cooperative is obligated to process, store, and market these products, distributing the economic benefits derived from the mutualistic activity to its members. However, remuneration does not constitute an immediate and guaranteed right but rather a mere expectation, subject to the cooperative’s economic performance and financial results³⁵.

This structure reflects the principle of mutuality, whereby members not only share the benefits arising from the entity’s management but also participate in the economic risks associated with its activities. Such a balance is essential to preserving the cooperative’s mutualistic nature and ensuring an equitable distribution of resources.

The position of the contributing member is protected both by the provisions of the CC and by the cooperative’s statute, which plays a crucial role in regulating relationships between members and the entity. The statute, in fact, governs fundamental aspects such as the criteria for remuneration, the redistribution of benefits, and risk management. In this context, proportional rebate mechanisms³⁶ based on contributions serve as an essential tool to ensure fairness in the redistribution of economic advantages. Similarly, the statute may establish procedural safeguards for the potential exclusion of a member, such as the obligation to provide reasons for decisions and the right to challenge them, in accordance with Article 2533 CC. Moreover, democratic participation of members is encouraged through mechanisms that allow them to directly influence decisions concerning the management of contributions and the cooperative’s strategic planning.

Despite the legal protections available, the position of the contributing member is not without significant issues. A significant concern is information asymmetry, which can limit the member’s ability to access complete and transparent information regarding the cooperative’s management, thereby compromising their ability to assess the adequacy of remuneration. In addition, the economic risk inherent in the mutualistic structure means that remuneration for contributions depends on the cooperative’s economic performance and is therefore not always guaranteed. This issue becomes particularly problematic in times of crisis within the agricultural sector. Furthermore, the collective management of resources and the redistribution of benefits may generate internal conflicts between contributing members and administrators, particularly in cases of disagreement over operational strategies or methods of distributing economic outcomes.

To address these challenges, it is essential to promote member training, enhancing their skills and fostering greater awareness of the cooperative’s operational mechanisms. At the same time, the adoption of independent monitoring tools is necessary to ensure transparent management in line with mutualistic principles, reducing the risk of internal tensions and information asymmetries. These measures would not only strengthen the protection of the contributing member but also contribute to consolidating the economic and social sustainability of the cooperative model.

The protection of the contributing member is not limited to statutory provisions or regulations governing the redistribution of benefits but also extends to legal remedies in cases of nonperformance by the cooperative. If the cooperative fails to fulfill its obligations regarding the processing and valorization of contributed products, the member may avail themselves of protective instruments such as the defense of nonperformance under Article 1460 CC or, in more severe cases, seek the termination of the mutualistic relationship. Case law has repeatedly emphasized the importance of these remedies, underscoring their fundamental role in ensuring compliance with the cooperative’s obligations toward contributing members³⁷.

At the same time, the cooperative has self-protective mechanisms to manage potential breaches by members, such as the application of sanctions provided for in the statute or, in extreme cases, exclusion from the social contract, always in compliance with statutory and regulatory provisions. This balance of rights and obligations helps preserve the sustainability of the mutualistic relationship, ensuring a system that protects both the individual interests of members and the overall effective functioning of the entity.

8. The Right of Pre-emption and Agricultural Cooperatives

The right of agricultural pre-emption represents one of the cornerstones of agricultural law, aimed at safeguarding the continuity of land cultivation and promoting the stability of rural enterprises. Its original legislative framework, outlined by Law No. 590/1965 and Law No. 817/1971, initially granted this right exclusively to direct farmers, in accordance with the principle of favor for the active farmer, designed to strengthen agricultural ownership in the hands of those who actually cultivate the land³⁸. However, the legislation has undergone significant evolution, culminating in the extension of pre-emption rights to other collective entities, including agricultural cooperatives, subject to specific legal requirements.

The first recognition of agricultural pre-emption rights for agricultural cooperatives came with Article 16(5) of Law No. 817/1971, which allowed agricultural cooperatives formed by farmers to exercise pre-emption in their capacity as tenants of the land. Subsequent case law consolidated this approach, affirming that the mutualistic function of agricultural cooperatives, based on collective land management and the aggregation of small producers, aligns with the protective purposes of the pre-emption system³⁹.

A further step forward was made with the enactment of Legislative Decree No. 228/2001 and Legislative Decree No. 99/2004, which expanded the range of subjects entitled to exercise pre-emption, including agricultural partnerships, provided that at least half of their members qualify as direct farmers and are duly registered in the special section of the business registry⁴⁰. The rationale behind this extension lies in the legislator’s intention to adapt pre-emption regulations to the evolving reality of collective agricultural enterprises, recognizing that agricultural cooperatives, when operating in line with the direct farming model, pursue the objective of ensuring the continuity of agricultural activities.

However, for an agricultural cooperative to exercise the right of agricultural pre-emption, it must meet strict legal requirements, both substantively and procedurally. The first criterion concerns the agricultural nature of the cooperative, which must be established in compliance with Articles 2511 et seq. CC, with an exclusively agricultural corporate purpose and activities directly related to cultivation, livestock farming, or forestry. Additionally, at least half of the cooperative’s members must hold the status of direct farmers, as evidenced by their registration in the special section of the business registry. Case law has interpreted this requirement strictly, emphasizing that the registration must be valid and up to date at the time of the land sale⁴¹.

Despite the legislator’s clear intention to grant pre-emption rights to agricultural cooperatives under specific conditions, the practical application of this right has raised several interpretive issues. One of the main concerns is the legal significance of business-registry entries in determining whether a cooperative’s members qualify as direct farmers. Courts have ruled that such registration is not constitutive but merely declaratory, meaning that the pre-empting cooperative may be required to provide additional documentary evidence of its effective agricultural activity⁴². This has led to considerable litigation, as in some cases sellers have challenged the validity of pre-emption exercised by agricultural cooperatives, arguing that they lacked effective direct cultivation.

Another critical issue concerns the exercise of pre-emption by farm-management cooperatives, which cultivate land belonging to their members through lease or loan agreements. According to prevailing case law, pre-emption can only be exercised by cooperatives that own adjacent land, excluding those managing land under contractual arrangements⁴³. This restrictive interpretation has been criticized by scholars, who argue that it risks undermining the objective of agricultural continuity and hindering the consolidation of agricultural cooperatives as instruments of collective land management⁴⁴.

Thus, while the extension of agricultural pre-emption rights to cooperatives represents an important recognition of their role in the sector, it remains characterized by application limits and a complex regulatory framework. In conclusion, the excessive rigidity of formal requirements and restrictive judicial interpretations call for a reconsideration of the legal framework to ensure that the institution effectively contributes to strengthening agricultural cooperatives and preserving the continuity of land cultivation⁴⁵.

9. The Insolvency of Agricultural Cooperatives: Legal Nature and Applicability Limits

The issue of the insolvency of agricultural cooperatives is a highly relevant legal matter situated at the intersection of agricultural and commercial law. The complexity arises from the dual legal status of these entities: while they operate as agricultural enterprises under Article 2135 CC, they are incorporated as cooperatives, thereby subject to the regulations applicable to corporations⁴⁶. This legal framework has significant implications for their subjection to insolvency proceedings, particularly judicial liquidation (formerly bankruptcy).

Article 33 of the Italian Business Crisis and Insolvency Code (“CCII”), introduced by Legislative Decree No. 14 of January 12, 2019, reaffirmed⁴⁷ the exclusion of agricultural entrepreneurs from insolvency proceedings, recognizing the unique characteristics of agricultural activities, which are marked by irregular production cycles and heightened exposure to market and environmental risks. However, this exemption does not automatically extend to agricultural cooperatives, which may be classified as commercial enterprises and thus subject to judicial liquidation. Their exclusion from insolvency proceedings depends on demonstrating that they effectively fall within the category of agricultural entrepreneurs, in accordance with the requirements set out in Article 2135 CC.

Case law has consistently emphasized that the agricultural nature of a cooperative cannot be assessed merely on a formal basis but must be determined in concrete terms, taking into account the actual activities carried out⁴⁸. In particular, the Italian Supreme Court has clarified that, to benefit from exclusion from judicial liquidation, a cooperative must demonstrate that its agricultural activity is predominant over its commercial activity and that its production cycle aligns more closely with an agricultural rather than an industrial model⁴⁹.

Specifically, the criterion of agricultural predominance, as outlined in Article 2135 CC, requires that activities connected to agricultural production (such as processing, preservation, and marketing) be functionally linked to the biological cycle and that the majority of raw materials used originate from members’ contributions. Failure to meet this requirement may result in the reclassification of the cooperative as a commercial enterprise, leading to its subjection to insolvency proceedings⁵⁰.

Another key aspect is the registration in the special section of the business registry reserved for agricultural entrepreneurs, which serves as an indication of the agricultural nature of the activity. However, case law has repeatedly held that such registration is merely declaratory and not constitutive⁵¹. Therefore, even when such registration is present, courts retain the authority to verify in concrete terms whether agricultural activities prevail over commercial ones. This interpretation aims to prevent abuses intended to shield the cooperative from insolvency proceedings through a purely formal claim of agricultural entrepreneur status.

A particular case concerns agricultural cooperatives that qualify as social enterprises⁵² under Legislative Decree No. 112/2017. According to lower court jurisprudence⁵³, these cooperatives are not subject to judicial liquidation applicable to commercial companies but rather to compulsory administrative liquidation. This legal framework distinguishes them both from individual agricultural enterprises, which are inherently excluded from insolvency proceedings, and from ordinary agricultural cooperatives, whose insolvency status depends on meeting the criterion of agricultural predominance.

In light of these considerations, it is clear that the current legal framework creates a disparity between individual agricultural enterprises, which are automatically excluded from judicial liquidation, and agricultural cooperatives, which must provide detailed evidence of meeting the agricultural predominance requirements. This regulatory uncertainty not only leads to a high level of litigation but also creates operational challenges for cooperatives, which risk being reclassified as commercial enterprises.

A legislative intervention clarifying the boundaries between agricultural and commercial activities for agricultural cooperatives could help reduce uncertainty and ensure a more consistent application of insolvency rules. In the meantime, the negotiated crisis-settlement tools⁵⁴, introduced by the CCII, provide agricultural cooperatives with an opportunity to prevent judicial liquidation through restructuring and business-continuity strategies.

This mechanism allows struggling agricultural cooperatives to initiate a debt-restructuring process and preserve business continuity without resorting to insolvency proceedings. Its effectiveness depends on the cooperative’s ability to develop a sustainable recovery plan and demonstrate the predominance of agricultural activities. In particular, case law has clarified that the qualification of a cooperative as agricultural, and the consequent exemption from insolvency proceedings, must be assessed based on objective criteria, evaluating the predominance of agricultural activities over commercial ones and their strict connection to the primary production cycle⁵⁵.

The uncertainty regarding the legal classification of agricultural cooperatives, arising from the interplay between agricultural and commercial activities, remains a significant issue. The need to distinguish between these two categories has been repeatedly emphasized by both legal scholars and case law to ensure a consistent application of the rules and avoid conflicting judicial interpretations⁵⁶.

The insolvency of agricultural cooperatives, therefore, remains a highly relevant issue that requires a balance between safeguarding the specificities of the agricultural sector and ensuring transparency and equitable treatment in the market. Once again, a legislative intervention aimed at further clarifying the criteria for qualifying agricultural activities and assessing their predominance could help reduce litigation in this area and provide greater legal certainty for sector operators.

10. Agricultural Cooperatives and Renewable Energy Communities (RECs)

Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) represent an innovative model that integrates effectively with the nature and objectives of agricultural cooperatives. Introduced by Directive (EU) 2018/2001 (RED II) ⁵⁷ and transposed into the Italian legal system through Legislative Decree No. 199/2021, the RECs aim to promote the production, consumption, and sharing of renewable energy, strengthening energy self-sufficiency and fostering the sustainable development of local communities ⁵⁸. The ability of agricultural cooperatives to aggregate resources, coordinate members, and manage shared projects makes them key instruments for the success of the RECs, especially in rural areas ⁵⁹.

The involvement of agricultural cooperatives in the RECs is based on a close synergy between the enhancement of territorial resources and the pursuit of environmental sustainability objectives. In particular, these entities offer agricultural producers the opportunity to fully capitalize on the economic and social benefits associated with renewable energy production. Unused or marginal lands, warehouses, and other agricultural structures become ideal spaces for the installation of photovoltaic systems or for the production of biogas and biomass, thereby transforming energy into a shared and sustainable resource.

However, the RECs do not merely address energy needs; their regulatory and organizational structure aligns perfectly with the mutualistic principles characterizing agricultural cooperatives. As highlighted by the RED II, the RECs must be autonomous legal entities based on voluntary participation and oriented not towards profit but towards achieving social, economic, and environmental benefits. In this context, agricultural cooperatives are ideally positioned to assume a leading role, as their primary purpose, governed by Articles 2511 et seq. CC, is closely linked to the creation of shared value for members and the territory.

Article 30 of Legislative Decree No. 199/2021 stipulates that the RECs must be autonomous legal entities, non-profit in nature, and oriented toward generating economic, social, and environmental benefits for the local community ⁶⁰. Although the regulation does not mandate a specific legal form, the cooperative structure proves particularly suitable for combining energy production with a participatory resource management, in line with the mutualistic and democratic principles typical of the RECs ⁶¹. This type of organization allows for the integration of agricultural activities with energy projects, with a particular focus on economic and environmental sustainability. In many cases, the energy produced is primarily allocated for self-consumption within the cooperatives themselves, thereby reducing operational costs and strengthening the competitiveness of agri-food supply chains.

A striking example of the effectiveness of this synergy is provided by advanced agrivoltaic systems, which combine energy production with agricultural land use. This solution involves the installation of elevated or crop-integrated structures, allowing for reduced land consumption while preserving agricultural productivity and generating renewable energy. The REC model can become the cornerstone for the collective management of such systems, ensuring that the energy produced remains within the communities and is used to enhance agricultural activities.

The regulatory flexibility characterizing the RECs represents an additional strength for agricultural cooperatives. By transposing European provisions, the legislator has granted the RECs a broad margin of statutory autonomy, allowing them to adapt to the needs of their territories and members. This approach is particularly evident in the regulation of relationships between the RECs and their members, governed by private-law contracts that enable the structuring of management and energy-distribution mechanisms based on the specificities of local communities. Such flexibility strengthens the RECs’ ability to provide tangible benefits to rural areas while simultaneously contributing to the ecological transition and the fight against climate change.

Despite the significant opportunities offered by the RECs, agricultural cooperatives must address several notable challenges. These include the bureaucratic complexity associated with accessing incentives, the need to coordinate the diverse requirements of members, and the importance of ensuring transparent and efficient management of energy resources. However, the incentive framework introduced by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (“NRRP”) and Ministerial Decree No. 414/2023 provides concrete tools to overcome these difficulties, making the creation of renewable-energy systems more accessible and promoting widespread energy self-consumption.

In conclusion, agricultural cooperatives and the RECs represent a powerful combination for integrating rural development, environmental sustainability, and innovation. Thanks to their ability to merge agricultural activities with energy projects, cooperatives can not only reduce their energy dependence but also become key players in a more inclusive development model rooted in the region. To fully realize this potential, it will be essential to continue supporting agricultural cooperatives through targeted incentive policies, dedicated training for members, and a clear and stable regulatory framework.

11. The Impact of Agriculture 4.0 on Agricultural Cooperatives

In the context of the digital evolution of the primary sector, Agriculture 4.0 has emerged as a revolutionary paradigm based on the integration of advanced technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and satellite-monitoring systems⁶². According to the 2023 Smart AgriFood Report, by the Politecnico of Milan Observatory⁶³, the Agriculture 4.0 market in Italy reached a value of approximately EUR 2.1 billion in 2022, with an annual growth rate of 31%, driven by crop-monitoring systems, connected machinery, and data-analysis platforms. The digitalization of agriculture is also one of the central objectives of the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2023-2027⁶⁴, within the framework of the Farm to Fork⁶⁵ strategy and Regulation (EU) No. 2021/2115, which recognize the role of technology in environmental sustainability and in the optimization of productive resources.

Agricultural cooperatives, by their very nature as collective and mutualistic entities, are strategically positioned to leverage the potential of new technologies. The IoT, for instance, enables real-time data collection on essential parameters such as soil moisture, climatic conditions, crop status, and animal health⁶⁶. Connected sensors also provide the opportunity to certify events automatically and without human intervention. Through these insights, cooperatives can optimize resource usage, reduce waste, and improve production profitability⁶⁷. Digitalization extends beyond business management to the development of the entire rural ecosystem, enhancing connections between producers and strengthening the agri-food supply chain⁶⁸. The IoT can also have a significant impact on food safety management during transportation, through the advanced use of interconnected – even biodegradable – sensors that, via the internet, facilitate timely data exchange and collection, as well as the monitoring of essential parameters such as storage temperature and product location⁶⁹.

Additionally, cloud computing can facilitate coordinated collaboration among food producers, retailers, testing laboratories, and regulatory authorities. It is also worth noting that cloud technology is highly scalable, meaning it can adapt to evolving organizational needs, which makes it particularly beneficial for businesses operating in markets characterized by seasonal demand peaks or cyclical production.

However, the use of these technologies also raises legal and organizational concerns, particularly regarding the management and ownership of data collected by sensors and connected equipment. Data regulation in agriculture is indeed a crucial issue, as data not only enhances operational efficiency but also influences market dynamics and relationships among cooperative members⁷⁰.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning⁷¹ offer additional tools for optimizing agricultural production. Cooperatives can leverage predictive algorithms to anticipate adverse weather events, monitor the spread of plant diseases, and optimize distribution logistics⁷². These tools are especially valuable for large cooperatives, which must coordinate production across multiple associated farms and respond swiftly to market-demand fluctuations. However, the value of these technologies depends on the quality and management of the data collected: the distinction between input data (directly generated by agricultural machinery) and output data (processed by algorithms and AI systems) highlights how digitalization is redefining decision-making roles within cooperatives, posing new challenges in terms of governance and information control.

Blockchain technology is emerging as a transformative tool in the agri-food sector, offering advanced solutions for traceability, transparency, and efficiency throughout the entire production chain⁷³. This technology functions as an open, shared, decentralized, and distributed digital ledger in which data is recorded and integrated chronologically to ensure the creation of immutable and tamper-resistant records⁷⁴. Its operation is based on four fundamental principles: (a) decentralization; (b) security; (c) verifiability; and (d) automation through the execution of smart contracts⁷⁵.

Blockchain allows for the immutable and verifiable recording of every phase of the production process⁷⁶, from sowing to distribution, providing consumers with detailed information on the origin and quality of products. This level of transparency not only strengthens consumer trust but also protects producers from fraudulent practices and counterfeiting.

For agricultural cooperatives⁷⁷, adopting blockchain represents a significant opportunity to improve internal management and relationships with members⁷⁸. However, it is important to highlight the tension between blockchain technology and data protection regulations under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR⁷⁹). The former inherently ensures data immutability, processed in a distributed and decentralized manner, whereas the latter imposes, when applicable, the right to data erasure at the request of the data subject. This creates a potential conflict between blockchain’s transparency and integrity requirements and the privacy protection principles enshrined in the GDPR⁸⁰.

The implementation of smart contracts can automate and ensure the execution of agreements between parties⁸¹. These are autonomous systems capable of self-managing, as once established, they do not require human intervention for execution. Upon the fulfillment of predetermined conditions, they ensure the automatic execution of economic transactions in accordance with the contractual framework formalized in the operational algorithm. For instance, payments to members can be made automatically when specific predefined conditions are met, reducing settlement times and ensuring a more equitable distribution of revenues. This approach not only enhances operational efficiency but also mitigates the risk of disputes, as contractual terms are encoded and transparent to all parties involved.

However, the adoption of blockchain in the agricultural sector is not without challenges. It is crucial to address legal and contractual issues related to the use of smart contracts, ensuring compliance with existing regulations and ensuring that all parties fully understand the implications of such tools. Additionally, it is essential to guarantee interoperability among different blockchain systems and promote common standards to facilitate widespread adoption.

At the same time, robotics is also profoundly transforming the agricultural sector, offering innovative solutions that enhance operational efficiency and address the growing shortage of skilled labor. For agricultural cooperatives, integrating robotic technologies into production processes represents a strategic opportunity to optimize activities, reduce costs, and improve the sustainability of agricultural practices. The adoption of such technology helps overcome some of the sector’s typical challenges, including the high reliance on manual labor and dependence on workforce availability.

The applications of robotics in agriculture are numerous, ranging from sowing to harvesting, including pruning and weeding⁸². Agricultural robots, equipped with artificial intelligence and advanced sensors, can constantly monitor crop conditions and intervene precisely to optimize resource use. Robotic sowing systems ensure uniform seed distribution, improving soil yield and reducing waste. In pruning operations, intelligent machines can accurately identify branches to be cut, contributing to plant health and increasing crop productivity. In harvesting, robots equipped with artificial-vision systems and mechanical arms carefully select ripe fruits, minimizing waste and ensuring a higher-quality product.

A particularly relevant aspect for agricultural cooperatives is the positive impact of robotics on environmental sustainability. The use of robots for weeding, for example, significantly reduces the need for chemical herbicides, promoting more eco-friendly farming practices. Similarly, automated irrigation-management machines, through real-time soil-parameter analysis, optimize water consumption, reducing waste and improving resource efficiency.

However, integrating robotics into agricultural cooperatives presents some challenges. One of the main obstacles is the high investment cost, which can be prohibitive for small and medium-sized enterprises. To overcome these difficulties, the NRRP⁸³, the Transition 4.0 Plan, and the Horizon Europe⁸⁴ program provide specific incentives for the agricultural sector, allocating funds for the purchase of smart machinery, drones, digital platforms, and integrated farm-management systems. Another crucial aspect is the need to adequately train personnel in the use and maintenance of robots, so that cooperatives can fully exploit the potential of new technologies without encountering operational or technical problems.

Due to their collective and mutualistic structure, agricultural cooperatives can greatly benefit from adopting robotics, not only in terms of increased productivity and efficiency but also by strengthening their competitiveness in international markets. The ability to integrate advanced technologies while sharing investment and training costs among members provides a significant advantage over individual agricultural enterprises. In a context where global demand for food products is growing and environmental challenges require a more rational use of resources, robotics emerges as an essential tool for ensuring more sustainable and innovative agriculture.

Digitalization⁸⁵ also enhances the economic and financial management of cooperatives⁸⁶. Automated accounting software enables real-time monitoring of revenues, expenses, and member contributions, reducing the risk of accounting errors and improving financial forecasting. The integration of business-intelligence tools allows for the analysis of economic and production data, identifying market trends, optimizing pricing strategies, and planning targeted investments⁸⁷. This approach, known as the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (“AKIS”), not only enhances the cooperative’s reputation but also facilitates access to markets requiring specific certifications, such as organic products or protected-designation-of-origin (PDO) products.

Despite the advantages offered by digitalization, the digital transition of agricultural cooperatives presents significant challenges. Key obstacles include the high initial costs of technology implementation, which are often prohibitive for small and medium-sized cooperatives, and the resistance to change among some members. Additionally, the low level of digital literacy among many agricultural operators necessitates investment in training programs, so that members and employees can fully leverage the potential of Agriculture 4.0 and digital cooperative management⁸⁸.

Agriculture 4.0 represents a major opportunity for agricultural cooperatives, allowing them to use new technologies to improve operational efficiency, reduce costs, and make their activities more sustainable. However, the success of the digital transition will depend on the cooperatives’ ability to overcome economic and cultural barriers, adopting innovation strategies that promote collaboration among members and ensure balanced growth in the agricultural sector.

12. The Internationalization of Agricultural Cooperatives and Access to Global Markets

Internationalization represents one of the main challenges and opportunities for Italian agricultural cooperatives. Participation in global markets allows for risk diversification, increased competitiveness, and the enhancement of Italian agri-food excellence. However, agricultural cooperatives, on average, export only 8% of their production, compared to 10% in traditional agriculture and 13% in the food industry as a whole⁸⁹. This limited export propensity results from a series of structural and organizational factors that hinder the international expansion of Italian cooperatives.

One of the primary constraints is the fragmentation of the cooperative system, which is predominantly composed of small and medium-sized enterprises that, unlike large agri-industrial groups, do not benefit from economies of scale or from adequate logistical and commercial structures to compete globally. The small size and territorial dispersion of cooperatives complicate the coordination of export strategies and make it more difficult to access foreign markets characterized by intense competition. Additionally, limited familiarity with financial instruments for exports and challenges in managing international commercial relations constitute further obstacles to the international projection of cooperatives⁹⁰.

Despite these challenges, the Italian cooperative system has enormous competitive potential, driven by the quality and reputation of the Made in Italy agri-food sector⁹¹. To strengthen their presence in international markets, it is essential to adopt more structured internationalization strategies. A first step is the creation of alliances among cooperatives, through consortia or business networks, to overcome size limitations and access facilitated financial instruments. This model, already successfully adopted in the Netherlands and Denmark, allows cooperatives to share resources, infrastructure, and expertise, improving logistical and distribution efficiency.

At the same time, digitalization offers innovative tools to facilitate access to global markets. The use of e-commerce platforms and international marketplaces reduces geographical barriers and expands commercialization opportunities. Tools such as Access2Markets⁹², provided by the European Commission, offer detailed information on regulations, tariffs, and export conditions in major global markets, facilitating the strategic planning of cooperatives. Additionally, blockchain technology can be used to improve product traceability, ensuring transparency throughout the supply chain and meeting international consumers’ sustainability demands.

Another key factor for successful internationalization is strengthening managerial competencies within cooperatives. Knowledge of international trade dynamics, the management of certification requirements in different markets, and adaptation to the cultural and regulatory specificities of each country are essential elements for successfully navigating global competition. In this context, training programs, institutional support, and technical-assistance networks can bridge existing gaps and provide concrete tools for managing export operations.

However, access to global markets is not without obstacles. In addition to regulatory barriers and the costs of complying with international standards, cooperatives must compete with multinational agri-food corporations, which possess significantly greater financial and logistical resources. To overcome these challenges, cooperatives must adopt positioning strategies that highlight the distinctive strengths of Made in Italy, such as environmental sustainability, product authenticity, and quality certifications.

In this scenario, the role of institutions and public support mechanisms becomes essential. Programs such as the Fondo per la Promozione Integrata⁹³ and the measures provided under the (CAP) and the NRRP offer specific financial instruments to support the internationalization of agricultural cooperatives. Access to these incentives, combined with aggregation strategies, digitalization, and skills development, can transform internationalization from a challenge into a concrete opportunity for the growth and consolidation of the Italian cooperative system.

13. Conclusions

Agricultural cooperatives represent a fundamental economic and organizational model for the Italian agri-food sector, offering a synthesis of mutualism and entrepreneurship. Their ability to respond to the challenges of global competitiveness, digitalization, and the ecological transition depends on their capacity to adapt to a constantly evolving regulatory and economic framework.

A crucial element for the future of cooperatives is the strengthening of internal governance through digitalization, which can enhance managerial transparency and the democratic participation of members. However, the success of this process depends on the ability to integrate new technologies without distorting the mutualistic model and without creating barriers to information access for less digitally skilled members.

Internationalization is another critical challenge for the sector. Although agricultural cooperatives have traditionally faced difficulties in exporting due to organizational fragmentation and a lack of managerial skills, tools such as business networks and institutional support can help them overcome these limitations. The promotion of the Made in Italy agri-food sector, combined with the adoption of digital strategies and access to European funds, can strengthen the presence of cooperatives in global markets.

The ecological and energy transition presents new opportunities, particularly concerning renewable-energy communities (RECs) and advanced agrivoltaic models. The integration of agricultural activities with energy production represents a strategic lever for reducing costs, increasing energy self-sufficiency, and contributing to national and European climate objectives.

From a legal perspective, the distinction between agricultural and commercial activities continues to impact the economic stability of cooperatives and the protections they can benefit from. The current regulatory framework generates uncertainty, with case law requiring a concrete assessment of the predominance of agricultural activities to exclude cooperatives from judicial liquidation. A legislative intervention to clarify these aspects could help reduce litigation and provide greater security to industry operators.

In summary, agricultural cooperatives have the tools and opportunities to successfully tackle future challenges. Technological innovation, international market growth, environmental sustainability, and a clearer regulatory framework are key factors in ensuring the sector’s competitiveness and resilience. A coordinated effort among institutions, cooperatives, and trade associations will be essential to support a business model capable of adapting to global changes while preserving mutualistic principles and maintaining a strong connection to local communities.

14. References

Albisini F., Agricoltura e digitalizzazione: l’impresa agricola nel tempo presente, in Quaderni della Riv. dir. alim., 2023, 1, pp. 92-106.
Alessi R.,Pisciotta G., L’impresa agricola. Artt. 2135-2140, Turin, 2010;
Barabanova Y. – Krzysztofowicz M., Digital Transition: Long-term Implications for EU Farmers and Rural Communities, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, doi:10.2760/093463, JRC134571.
Barr, E. – Incutti, E.M., Gli smart contracts nel diritto bancario tra esigenze di tutela e innovativi profili di applicazione, in Contr. impr., 2019, p. 930 ss.;
Bassi A., Le società cooperative, in Bassi, Buonocore, Pescatore, Commento ai D.Lgs. n. 5-6 del 17 gennaio 2003, Torino, 2003, p. 264;
Bassi A., Scopo mutualistico – Società cooperative, Profili tipologici e causali, in Trattato delle società, edited by Donativi V., Milan, IV, p. 1361;
Bassi A., Scopo mutualistico, in Società cooperative, edited by Presti, Commentario Marchetti-Bianchi-Ghezzi-Notari, Milan, 2000, p. 1368 et seq.;
Battelli E., Innovazione tecnologica e gestione della filiera agroalimentare, in Dir. Agroalim., 2024, p. 473.
Belviso U., Le cooperative a mutualità prevalente, in Il nuovo diritto delle società, Liber amicorum Gian Franco Campobasso, edited by Abbadessa-Portale, 4, Turin, 2007, p. 651 et seq.;
Belviso U., Scopo mutualistico e capitale variabile nelle società cooperative, Milan, 2012, p. 124 et seq.;
Bonfante G., La “morte” del contratto di scambio nelle cooperative secondo una sentenza del Supremo Collegio, in Le società, 2024, p. 24;
Bonfante G., La natura agricola delle cooperative di trasformazione e il requisito dell’attività prevalente con i soci, in Giur. Comm., 2020, p. 146;
Bonfante G., La società cooperativa, in Trattato di Diritto Commerciale, Bologna, 2014;
Bonfante G., La società cooperativa, Itinerari di giurisprudenza, in Le Società, 2023, p. 102 et seq.;
Bonfante G., sub art. 2538, in Comm. Cottino, Bonfante, Cagnasso, Montalenti, Bologna, 2004, p. 2560;
Bonfatti S., La procedura di Composizione Negoziata per la soluzione della Crisi d’Impresa: funzione, natura, presupposti ed incentivi, Dirittodellacrisi.it, September 20, 2023;
Buonocore V., L’impresa, in Tratt. Buonocore, 2, I, Turin, 2002, p. 559;
Buonocore V., Rapporto mutualistico e parità di trattamento, in Il nuovo diritto delle società, Liber amicorum Gianfranco Campobasso, edited by Abbadessa – Portale, 4, Turin, 2007, p. 579 et seq.;
Campagna M.F., Gli scambi attraverso algoritmi e il problema del linguaggio. Appunti minimi, in Analisi giuridica dell’economia, 2019, p. 156 ss.;
Canfora I., Politica Agricola Comune e digitalizzazione del comparto agroalimentare, in Riv. dir. alim., Quaderno No. 1, 2023, p. 11.
Cappelli V., Appunti per un inquadramento privatistico dell’autoconsumo di energia rinnovabile nel mercato elettrico: il caso delle comunità energetiche, in Nuova giur. civ. com., 2023, p. 381;
Cappelli V., Profili privatistici delle nuove discipline in materia di promozione dell’energia rinnovabile e regolazione del mercato elettrico, in Nuova giur. civ. com., 2022, p. 1202;
Casa R., Agricoltura di precisione, Bologna, 2017; European Commission, Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems Towards the Future – A Foresight Paper, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Luxembourg, 2016;
Casadei E, L’impresa e azienda agricola, in Irti N. (ed.), Manuale di diritto agrario italiano, Turin, 1978, pp. 55-86;
Casadei E., La nozione di impresa agricola dopo la riforma del 2001, in Riv. dir. agr., 2009, I;
Casale F., Scambio e mutualità nella società cooperativa, Milano, 2005, p. 18;
Casarotto G., Profili sistematici della prelazione agraria, in Uno studio e due note in tema di prelazione agraria, in Riv. dir. civ., 1976, II, p. 400;
Chiusoli R., La riforma del diritto societario per le cooperative, Milano, 2003, p. 42;
D’Alonzo R., La composizione negoziata nell’era del D.Lgs. 136 del 2024, in Dirittodellacrisi.it, September 30, 2024;
D’Avanzo W., Smart Farming. La quarta rivoluzione industriale e la digitalizzazione del settore agricolo, in Dir. Agroalim., 2022, 2, p. 279-299;
De Gaetano D., Non è esclusa dal fallimento l’impresa agricola che svolga anche attività di carattere commerciale, in IUS, Crisi d’impresa, 29 aprile 2022;
Faini F., Pietropaoli S., Scienza giuridica e tecnologie informatiche. Temi e problemi, Torino, 2021;
Farolfi A., Le novità del D.L. 118/2021: considerazioni sparse “a prima lettura”, in Dirittodellacrisi.it, September 6, 2021;
Ferrari M., Fattori di produzione, innovazione e distribuzione di valore nella filiera agroalimentare, Milan, 2023;
Franco S. – Senni S., La funzione sociale delle attività agricole, Lazio Region – University of Tuscia, Quaderni d’informazione socio-economica, 2005, p. 15;
Gallo P., DLT, Blockchain e Smart Contract, in M. Cian – C. Sandei (a cura di), Diritto del Fintech, Padova, 2020, p. 137 ss.;
Gambino A.M. – Bomprezzi C., Blockchain e criptovalute, in Finocchiaro G. – Falce V. (ed.), Fintech: diritti, concorrenza, regole. Le operazioni di finanziamento tecnologico, Bologna, 2019, p. 276 ff.;
Garilli C., Natura sinallagmatica dei rapporti mutualistici e rimedi contrattuali, in Le società, 2024, p. 169;
Genco R., Iengo M., Morara P. L., Mutualità: un approccio giuridico, in Quaderni della Fondazione Ivano Barberini, 2023, p. 2;
Germanò A., L’impresa agricola, in Manuale di diritto agrario, 8th ed., Turin, 2016;
Gernone C., Digitalizzazione dell’agricoltura e cooperative agricole, in Dir. giur. agr. alim amb., no. 2025;
Ghedini A.; Russotto M.L., L’istituto della composizione negoziata della crisi, in Dirittodellacrisi.it, October 19, 2021;
Giuffrida G., Le cooperative agricole (natura giuridica), Milan, 1981;
Giuffrida G., Le società cooperative, in Trattato breve di diritto agrario italiano e comunitario, edited by Costato, 3rd ed., Padua, 2003, p. 284 ff:
Goldoni M., L’articolo 2135 del Codice civile, in Tratt. Costato, 3rd ed., Padua, 2003, p. 188;
Goldoni M., Commentary on Article 1 of Legislative Decree No. 228 of May 18, 2001, in Riv. dir. agr., 2001, I, p. 213 ff;
Iorio A., Alcune riflessioni sulle misure urgenti: un forte vento di maestrale soffia sulla riforma!, in Dirittodellacrisi.it, October 1, 2021;
Jannarelli A., L’impresa agricola, in Buonocore V. (ed.), Trattato di diritto commerciale, Turin, 2008;
Lattanzi P., L’agricoltura di fronte alla sfida della digitalizzazione. Opportunità e rischi di una nuova rivoluzione, in Riv. dir. agr., 2017, 4, p. 555;
Leone L., Big data e intelligenza artificiale nell’agricoltura europea 4.0: una lettura etico-giuridica, in Dir. Agrol., 2024, p. 505;
Leuzzi S., Allerta e composizione negoziata nel sistema concorsuale ridisegnato dal D.L. n.118 del 2021, in Dirittodellacrisi.it, September 27, 2021;
Liccardo P., Neoliberismo concorsuale e le svalutazioni competitive: il mercato delle regole, in Ilfallimentarista.it, 2021;
Marasà G., L’odierno significato della mutualità prevalente nelle cooperative, in Società, banche e crisi di impresa, Liber amicorum Pietro Abbadessa, 2, 2014, p. 2001 et seq.;
Masi P., Impresa agricola, ibidem, 1987, II;
Masi P., L’impresa agricola tra diritto agrario e diritto commerciale, in Riv. dir. civ., 1983, II;
Massart A., entry Cooperative agricole, in Noviss. Dig. It. Appendice, Turin, 1981, p. 78;
Matera P. – Benincampi A., voce Blockchain, in Dig discipl. priv. sez. comm., agg. IX, Turin, 2022, p. 24;
Maugeri M., Smart Contracts e disciplina dei contratti – Smart Contracts and Contract Law, Bologna, 2021;
Maugeri M., Smart contracts e disciplina dei contratti, in Oss. dir. civ. e comm., 2020, p. 382 ss.;
Miribung G., Cooperation and Shared Responsibility, in Trattato breve di diritto agrario e dell’Unione Europea, Milan, 2023, p. 278;
Montanari F., Chlebicka A., Szalbo G., Amat L.et al., Study of the Best Ways for Producer Organisations to Be Formed, Carry Out Their Activities and Be Supported, Final Report, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2762/034412;
O’Lerary D.E., Configuring blockchain architectures for transaction information in blockchain consortiums: The case of accounting and supply chain systems, in Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 24, 2017, p. 138-147;
Panzani L., Il D.L. “Pagni” ovvero la lezione (positiva) del covid, in Dirittodellacrisi.it, August 25, 2021;
Parizzi M., La cooperativa agricola, Ferrara, 1978;
Pellegrini, T., Gli smart contract, in E. Battelli (a cura di), Diritto privato digitale, p. 261;
Petrelli G., I profili della mutualità nella riforma delle società cooperative, CNN Studio n. 5308/I, 2004, https://notariato.it/wp-content/uploads/5308.pdf;
Piras A., Profili mutualistici della governance delle società cooperative, in Società, banche e crisi di impresa, Liber amicorum Pietro Abbadessa, 2, 2014, p. 2023 et seq.
Remotti G., Blockchain smart contract. Un primo inquadramento, in ODCC, 2020, p. 189 ss.;
Rijswijk K. – Bulten W. – Klerkx L.W.A. – Dessein J.- Debruyne L. – Brunori G. , : Digitalisation: Economic and Social Impacts in Rural Areas: Digital Transformation of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Areas, Wageningen, 2020, p. 6;
Rocchi E., Cooperativa a mutualità prevalente. Criteri per la definizione della prevalenza. Requisiti delle Cooperative a mutualità prevalente, in Società cooperative, edited by Presti, Commentario Marchetti-Bianchi-Ghezzi-Notari, Milan, 2006, p. 27 et seq;
Rolandi S., The Role of Digitalization in the EU Farm to Fork Strategy: Between Explicit and Implicit References. What Legislative Actions in Four Years? in Riv. dir agr., 2024, 1, p. 636-658;
Rossi R., La cooperativa di conduzione agraria (Premessa per una nozione giuridica autonoma), Naples, 1979;
Santangeli F., Il D.L. 118/2021. Spunti per la conversione, in Dirittodellacrisi.it, September 21, 2021;
Santangeli F., Le finalità della composizione negoziata per le soluzioni della crisi d’impresa, in Dirittodellacrisi.it, January 4, 2022;
Scandola S., La “piattaformizzazione” dell’agricoltura tra rischi e benefici: prime riflessioni, in Quaderni della Riv. dir. alim., 2023, 1, p. 72-91;
Schiaehli S., Biodegradable microsensors for food monitoring, 2017, in hitps://phys.org/news/2017-09-biodegradable-microsensors-food. Html.
Schrijver R., Precision Agriculture and The Future of Farming in Europe, Scientific Foresight Study, EPRS (European Parliamentary Research Service), Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA), Brussels, 2016.
Sironi M., Riflessioni civilistiche in materia di attività agricole connesse, in Agricoltura, No. 4, 1 July 2005, p. 227;
Soto I. et al., The Contribution of Precision Agriculture Technologies to Farm Productivity and The Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the EU, EUR 29320 EN, Luxembourg, 2019:
Tatarano M.C., La nuova impresa cooperativa, Milano, 2011, p. 538;
Tedioli F. Agricoltura sociale e l’impresa agricola multifunzionale, in Cons. Agr., No.11/2021, pp.7-12
Tedioli F., Agrivoltaico avanzato: innovazione, sostenibilità e regolamentazione per il futuro dell’energia rurale, in Riv. per la consulenza in agr., n. 100/2025, p. 12;
Tedioli F., La produzione di energia da fonti rinnovabili quale attività connessa a quella agricola, n Riv. per la consulenza in agr., n. 53/2020.
Tonalini, Prelazione agraria e società agricole, in Riv. Notariato, 2022, p. 637;
Travia N., Profili internazionali del diritto degli smart contract, in R. Battaglini e M.T. Giordano (a cura di), Blockchain e smart contract, p. 389 ss.
Tripoli M., Schmidhuber J., Emerging Opportunities for the Application of Blockchain in the Agri-food Industry, FAO and ICTSD: Rome and Geneva, 2018,
Verrucoli P., Cooperative in the Enciclopedia del Diritto, Vol. X, Milan, 1962, p. 549;
Versaci G., La regolazione dei dati per l’agricoltura di precisione tra questioni generali ed esigenze settoriali, in Dir. Agroal. 2024, p. 619.