πŸ•ΈοΈ Hawaii Board Interlock Analysis

Exploring governance connections among Hawaii's cooperative organizations

This analysis examines board interlocksβ€”when individuals serve on multiple cooperative boardsβ€”to understand governance networks, shared leadership, and potential coordination among Hawaii's cooperative sector. Board interlocks can indicate knowledge sharing, strategic alignment, or concentration of influence across organizations.

πŸ” Filters

πŸ“Š Dashboard

-
Companies
-
Total Officers
-
Officers on Multiple Boards

Incorporations by Year

Officers Added by Year

πŸ•ΈοΈ Interactive Network Graph

Legend:
πŸ‘€ Person (Board Member)
🏒 Active Company
Company (Other Status)
Dissolved Company

Tip: Node size indicates number of connections. Click nodes to view details. Drag to reposition. Zoom with mouse wheel.

🏒 Companies

Company Name Status Type Age Officers
Loading companies...

πŸ“‹ Officers List

Name Company Title Start Date Officer Type
Loading data...

πŸ“ˆ Key Findings

-
Max Boards
3.8%
Network Density
26
Communities Detected

Officers on Multiple Boards

Rank Name Boards
Loading interlocked people...

πŸ—ΊοΈ Geographic Analysis

Companies by Island/City

Regional Statistics

Loading geographic data...

πŸ“… Temporal & Lifecycle Analysis

Company Age Distribution

Formation vs Dissolution Timeline

Lifecycle Statistics

Loading lifecycle data...

🏭 Industry & Sector Analysis

Companies by Sector

Sector Interlocks

Loading sector data...

Network Characteristics

  • Highly Fragmented: Low density (3.8%) indicates organizations are mostly independent
  • Development Pattern: Unlike traditional corporate interlocks, this shows cooperative development activity
  • High Failure Rate: 56.7% of interlocked companies are dissolved - suggests high-risk sector
  • Sector Specialization: Agricultural (banana, coffee, taro), Energy, Food/Markets, Housing
  • Community Structure: 26 distinct communities suggest limited cross-sector connections

Data Quality Note

⚠️ Person ID Issue: The BREG database assigns different Person IDs to the same individual across different companies. This analysis correctly uses Person Name as the unique identifier. All 46 people with multiple boards have multiple Person IDs (1:1 correlation).

Comparison: Then vs Now

Historical "Big Five" (1920s)

  • Oligopolistic control
  • High network density
  • Power consolidation strategy
  • Vertical integration
  • Sugar/pineapple monopoly

Modern Cooperatives (2025)

  • Low density (3.8%)
  • Highly fragmented (26 communities)
  • Cooperative development
  • High dissolution rate (56.7%)
  • Diverse agricultural/service sectors