# Enhancing the resilience of short food supply chains: toward a relational understanding of the resilience process in the face of inflation

Yentl Deroche-Leydier

► To cite this version:

Yentl Deroche-Leydier. Enhancing the resilience of short food supply chains: toward a relational understanding of the resilience process in the face of inflation. Agricultural and Food Economics, 2025, 13 (1), pp.31. 10.1186/s40100-025-00368-4. hal-05208890

HAL Id: hal-05208890

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05208890v1

Submitted on 13 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Enhancing the resilience of short food supply chains: toward a relational understanding of the resilience process in the face of inflation

Yentl Deroche-Leydier<fnref n="1" />*

## Abstract

Short food supply chains (SFSCs) have proven their resilience during recent challenges, including the COVID-19 global pandemic. The recent rise in inflation in France has posed new challenges too. This study examines how short food supply chains in the South of France are responding to the challenges posed by inflation including rising production costs and a potentially shrinking consumer base. We propose integrating the resilience literature with the concept of embeddedness. Through this cross-fertilization, we conceptualize resilience as a dynamic process shaped by relationships and consisting of distinct stages: absorption, adaptation, and transformation. The study, based on 30 semi-structured interviews with horticultural farmers, reveals the existence of distinct phases in farmers' responses to the situation. In the early stages, farmers collectively tackled the problem of rising costs by using shared resources and social networks. During the adaptation phase, pricing strategies were adjusted, facilitated by cooperative agreements between producers in different SFSCs. In the transformation phase, farmers shifted to direct sales to reduce their dependence on unreliable retail intermediaries. SFSCs not only adapted to economic shocks but also cultivated resilient strategies that strengthened community ties. Our research highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of relationships within SFSCs, which typically begin as primarily transactional and often evolve to include elements of friendship and mutual support. Such relationships facilitate flexible and collective responses to disruptions. In addition, the study identifies shortcomings in current resilience frameworks, particularly with regard to addressing systemic challenges and the role of public policy. Future research would benefit from exploring how institutional support and territorial embeddedness can further enhance the resilience of SFSCs in different socio-economic contexts.

**Keywords:** SFSCs resilience, Inflation crisis, Relational approach, Embeddedness

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<footnote>*Correspondence:
Yentl.deroche@outlook.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ UMR Innovation, Montpellier,
France</footnote>
## Introduction

The resilience of food supply chains is becoming an increasingly important scientific and societal concern. This is due to the growing number of global crises occurring in rapid succession and to their increasingly complex consequences for these chains. Indeed, food system disruptions are expected to become increasingly frequent, largely due to the effects of global warming and an increase in geopolitical and economic instability (Pitt 2022). Furthermore, these disruptions are expected to increase not only in number but also in frequency, intensity, and diversity of impacts (Sanderson Bellamy et al. 2021). The preceding four years, which have been characterized by a series of disruptive events, provide a clear illustration of this trend. This accumulation of disruptions calls into question the resilience of food systems. Resilience in this context is defined as “the ability of the system and its components to provide sufficient, adequate, and accessible food on a sustainable basis despite various, even unforeseen, disruptions” (Tendall et al. 2015).

Short food supply chains<fnref n="1" /> (SFSCs) demonstrated considerable resilience in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has had far-reaching implications for the food system as a whole (United Nations Sustainable Development Group 2020). A number of studies highlight the factors contributing to this resilience and emphasize particularly the positive impact of a diversity of outlets: these enable farmers to remain flexible and sustain their sales while reorganizing them (Benedek et al. 2022; Uliano et al. 2023). Some authors emphasize the importance of viewing the crisis as a learning experience, thereby illuminating how SFSCs can effectively address future challenges. Indeed, resilience entails the capacity to adapt to uncertainty (Folke et al. 2010). Consequently, research on SFSCs resilience in diverse contexts offers insights into how disparate crises are navigated and leveraged as opportunities to enhance and reinforce food resilience (Craft and Pitt 2022; Pitt 2022).

Among the array of crises currently affecting SFSCs, inflation has recently emerged as a significant concern. Between early 2021 and late 2023, there was a notable surge in inflation rates across major European economies, which exerted dual pressures on farmers engaged in SFSCs. In January 2022, the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) exhibited a pronounced increase: 6.2% in Spain, 5.1% in Germany and Italy, and 3.3% in France compared to the previous year.<fnref n="2" /> As underlined by Weber et al. (2024), farmers are among the economic entities most affected by rising production costs. Notwithstanding their relative autonomy with regard to inputs, machinery, and agrochemicals (Mosadegh Sedghy et al. 2024), SFSC farmers remain vulnerable to price increases and may lose consumers as a result. Inflation may prompt consumers to seek cheaper alternatives and more conventional market avenues (Blavier et al. 2023) highlighting the need for farmers in SFSCs to pursue two key objectives: firstly, to protect their profit margins, and secondly, to foster consumer loyalty in order to guarantee the sustainability of their economic activities.

<footnote n="1">¹ In this article, we refer to SFSCs as officially defined in France by the Minister of Agriculture, namely as 'chains composed of one or fewer intermediaries between the consumer and the producer.'</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Eurostat published in February 2022: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/datab browser/view/PRC_HICP_MANR_custom_217634/bookmark/table?lang=en& bookmarkId=f26d743c-d3db-400f-8a36-1e6518743e06. Accessed on May 2024.</footnote>
In light of these considerations, the 2021 inflationary crisis can be characterized as a novel external disruption that posed a formidable challenge to the economic activity of farms. Such a crisis directly impacts economic endeavors, production processes, and especially their distribution channels and represents a significant threat to the resilience of the French food system (Tendall et al. 2015).

Building upon prior research addressing the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, our study employs a resilience-oriented lens to examine how farmers engaged in SFSCs are navigating the challenges posed by inflation. In particular, our study aims to enhance existing knowledge by examining the influence of relational/social dynamics within SFSCs. Our study demonstrates the way embeddedness of these chains fosters the resilience of food systems by mitigating the effects/impact of price increases on consumers.

The study is organized as follows: In Sect. "Literature review and theoretical background", we present the theoretical framework of the study. In Sect. "Method and data collection", we present our sample and the methods employed for the collection and analysis of the data. In Sect. "Results: characterization of the phases and actions in the resilience process", we present our results and in Sect. "Discussion" we present and discuss the conditions under which the relationships created within SFSCs contribute to the resilience of the food system. In Sect. "Conclusion", we conclude and propose new avenues for further research.

## Literature review and theoretical background

The study of the contribution of SFSCs to food system resilience is burgeoning and a diverse array of approaches is gaining traction in the literature. It is particularly noteworthy that a significant amount of attention has been dedicated to examining the resilience of farms within SFSCs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aforementioned studies reveal a plethora of factors that offer insights which can be harnessed to effectively navigate the challenges posed by inflation.

## COVID-19 crisis: highlighting SFSC resilience

The resilience of SFSCs has become a focal point of increasing attention, particularly in the wake of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and a substantial body of research now investigates the resilience of SFSCs in this context. The crisis has also prompted critical inquiries into the resilience and adaptability of supply chains (Coopmans et al. 2021; Ozdemir et al. 2022). Consequently, numerous studies elucidate number of pivotal factors that emerged during the pandemic (Ušča and Tisenkopfs 2023).

Firstly, the combination and diversification of outlets within SFSCs serve to enhance resilience. The capacity of farmers to participate in multiple supply chains fosters resilience by ensuring diverse food supply pathways (Benedek et al. 2021; Uliano et al. 2023). Secondly, researchers highlight the ability of SFSCs to respond rapidly to disruptions in both production and distribution channels (Darrot et al. 2020; Ušča and Tisenkopfs 2023). The structure of SFSCs facilitates rapid reorganization, as the presence of few intermediaries allows for swift changes. Notably, during the pandemic, there has been a significant shift by SFSCs toward e-commerce platforms, which meet rising demands by facilitating direct sales (Baptista et al. 2022). Direct engagement with clients enables agility in response to challenges supported by the shorter chains and fewer intermediaries
(Ušča and Tisenkopfs 2023). Furthermore, SFSCs promote interaction among actors, stimulating closer connections, especially between consumers and producers. This sense of connection, as well as support from consumers, helps sustain farm economic activity (Medici et al. 2021). The cultivation of trust and confidence within these chains strengthens resilience (Atalan-Helicke and Abiral 2021).

The aim of this study is to advance the existing literature by providing a fresh perspective on this phenomenon through an analysis of the current inflation crisis. In particular, our objective is to enhance our comprehension of the relational dynamics that underpin SFSC resilience, thereby contributing to an emerging research field (Chiffoleau 2009).

## Social relationships and effects on SFSC resilience

Until now, there has been little research into the resilience of SFSCs (Gori and Castellini 2023). We intend to contribute to this field by introducing a relational approach to resilience, a new and emerging perspective (Michel-Villarreal 2022). This approach links the study of SFSC resilience with social network analysis. We distinguish two approaches of embeddedness. The concept emphasizes the influence of social connections on economic activities (Granovetter 1985).

A first branch of studies focuses on structural embeddedness, examining how the structural attributes of networks shape the behaviors of actors (Hess 2004; Rodriguez et al. 2023). This approach emphasizes the SFSC characteristics of autonomy, diversity of actors and outlets, and decentralized organization as key factors that enhance resilience emerging from social structures. Chiffoleau et al. (2020) demonstrate that the diversity of outlets along a supply chain enhances its modularity and flexibility. In a more recent contribution, Jones et al. (2022) advance the argument that the diversity and decentralization of SFSCs enable the maintenance of distribution during disruptions, fostering coordination among local chains and mitigating the impact of shocks. The authors examine the diverse ways in which the structure of social networks influences resilience. Networks comprising strong ties are observed to facilitate rapid responses and provide moral support during crises. Conversely, an abundance of bridging connections (those that unite different groups) enables SFSCs to transform. These relationships, in turn, encourage the formation of new ties, resulting in a less dense and more adaptable structure. McDaniel et al. (2021) underscore the diverse impacts of structural embeddedness on local chains. They observe that a substantial bridging network promotes community learning and access to novel information sources. Furthermore, the authors find that the diversity of ties in social networks enables individuals to respond to crises in ways that they could not accomplish alone: "Existing formal and informal social networks enhanced the capacity of individual small farms to succeed in ways that would be unlikely in isolated social environments" (McDaniel et al. 2021). In another study, Hendry et al. (2018) analyze the resilience of the UK's food system in the context of Brexit. They demonstrate how the flexible social network structure of SFSCs enabled them to cope with the effects of Brexit.

A second branch focuses on works grounded in the concept of relational embeddedness. This approach examines the nature and strength of relationships between actors, firms, and organizations (Hess 2004; Gonzalez-Mon et al. 2023). Such studies elucidate the manner in which particular types of ties facilitate innovation, learning, and
adaptation in order to address a range of challenges (Gonzalez-Mon et al. 2023). Smith et al. (2016) examine the impact on both conventional and short supply chains of the 2011 flooding in Queensland, Australia. The researchers emphasize the significance of horizontal integration and the necessity for close collaboration between actors in SFSCs to enhance responsiveness, cohesion, and flexibility. Von Münchhausen et al. (2023) highlight the significance of robust relationships in fostering adaptive capacity in SFSCs. Kummer et al. (2012) bring into focus the learning effects of connections between SFSC actors. In their study of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), the researchers demonstrate that close relationships between farmers and consumers support mutual learning. The trust and confidence developed in the context of CSA enable the community to resist shocks more effectively. More recently, Michel-Villarreal (2022) further examines the role of close connections between clients and farmers in SFSCs in promoting flexibility, transparency, and redundancy with different actors assuming the same function (supplying food) to ensure its continuous maintenance, thereby facilitating risk-sharing and collaboration.

Our work is aligned with the relational embeddedness approach. In our study, we aim at identifying and understanding the role social relations play in the resilience of SFSCs. Nevertheless, while existing studies underscore the significance of social connections, they frequently adopt a capacity paradigm, offering a somewhat static view of resilience. Our objective is to shift the perspective toward a more dynamic understanding of the notion. Drawing inspiration from the research of Folke et al. (2010), we put forth a definition and analysis of resilience as a process comprising three phases: absorption, adaptation, and transformation. The objective of our study is to examine the nature, content, and evolution of SFSC producer relationships during crises. By offering a dynamic perspective of the relational/social impacts on farmer resilience, our study contributes to the existing literature on the subject by providing insights into the intricate dynamics of relationship-building processes during challenging times.

## Method and data collection

### Analysis framework: analysis of relational channels

Based on the theoretical framework of economic sociology and its core concept of embeddedness (Granovetter 1985), we postulate that relationships provide access to resources essential for economic activity (Grossetti and Barthe 2008). The entrepreneurial approach has been adopted by various studies and analyzes the relationships and resources mobilized to develop an economic activity. Studies have explored start-up development (Akermann 2015; Chapus 2020; Chapus and Nordman 2021), economic development within the informal economy (Berrou 2010), and the social and solidarity economy (Omer and Ferru 2023). These works underline the importance both of resources in the development of an economic activity and of relationships and mediation device to access these resources. We propose to analyze how a disturbance affects economic activity and how relationships play a role in this specific context of inflation. To this end, we postulate that relationships provide critical resources for the functioning of farms selling through SFSCs. Our methodology uses this analytical framework to capture the process by which resources are lost and new ones are acquired to cope with a crisis.
Mendez’s (2010) framework is used to define a process as “a set of phenomena organized over time, combining ingredients and drivers whose eventual change allows sequences to be identified”. Grossetti et al. (2011) further describe sequences as “little stories” embedded within a broader narrative. These “little stories” integrate chronological details about the effects of inflation and the types of relationships within SFSCs that are mobilized to secure resources and address specific impacts of disruption.

Different stages, from absorption to transformation, were characterized and identified by combining resources that were lost and resources that were gained in order to cope with the effects of the disruption. Based on previous work using this approach (Grossetti 2011; Akermann and Coeurquetin 2021), we identified different types of resources, categorized as material (such as furniture or materials for selling and producing vegetables) and immaterial (such as moral support, instrumental and logistical support, information, knowledge, and advice). The nature of the relationships was defined according to the type of content exchanged and the context of its creation. Professional relationships involve commercial content exchanged with professional buyers or private clients. Personal relationships involve more intimate exchanges, including friendships.

Using these elements, relational channels were defined as the paths through which resources pass from the owner to the seeker. These paths are not necessarily the shortest and take into account all the intermediary relationships required to transfer the resource (Akermann 2015). Narrative material has been found to be highly suitable for analyzing processes (Grossetti et al. 2011), and our analysis demonstrates the effective use of the relational channels approach to understanding resilience processes in coping with inflation.

## Data collection

### Sampling

Thirty qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with horticulture farmers in Occitanie, Southern France (Fig. 1), between winter 2022 and spring 2023. Participants were recruited with the assistance of French agricultural organizations that support farmers in their production and marketing activities. All interviews were conducted in person by the same interviewer.

The purposive sampling ensured a diverse range of participants, including farms that had undergone significant changes since the COVID-19 crisis and those that had undergone incremental changes. The farms are predominantly small scale, with utilized agricultural area (UAA) of less than 5 hectares. All participants distribute their products via the SFSC, with 6 farms also using Long Food Supply Chains (LFSC) (Fig. 2). Additional sampling criteria included outlet type, farm size, and farm seniority, to ensure greater diversity in our sample.

This diversity allowed us to better understand resilience processes and identify common steps taken by farmers across different challenging situations. These 30 farms completed the resilience process of absorbing, adapting, and transforming in response to inflation.

Within this group of 30 farms, 16/30 farms are over 10 years old, while 7/30 are between 3 and 5 years old. In terms of size, 14/30 have a UAA of between 2 and 5
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Localization of Occitanie</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Farm characteristics</figcaption></figure>

hectares, 9 farms have a UAA of between 0.5 and 2 hectares, and 5 farms have more than 10 hectares.

The farms use several SFSCs: half of them use between 3 and 5, 11 farms use up to 3, and 4 farms sell through more than 5 SFSCs. In terms of long supply chains, the majority uses none; six farms sell through 1 to 3 types of LFSCs (Fig. 2).

Several types of short supply chains were identified, including pre-ordered vegetable baskets, CSA groups, open-air markets, on-farm markets, and collective producer stores. Some farmers sell to organic store franchises, local shops, restaurants, and even institutional catering services. These retailers are part of SFSC, as they are the
only intermediary between producer and consumer. All sampled farmers use at least
two short-chain outlets, with a maximum of eight outlets mobilized.

Data collection

The interviews, which lasted between 40 and 180 min, were recorded and subsequently transcribed in their entirety. The objective of the interview was to ascertain the functioning of the farm prior to disruption and to examine the manner in which the farm evolved during the course of different crises. To this end, the interviews were conducted in a chronological sequence, tracing the evolution of the farms from 2019 to 2023. The interview was divided into two sections. The initial stage of the interview involved a comprehensive account of the farm's product sales and the distribution channels employed prior to a crisis. In the second part of the interview, farmers elucidated the impact of the disruptions caused by the pandemic and inflationary pressures, as well as the modifications instigated by each crisis.

The interview guide was largely comprised of prompts. This was designed to elicit detailed information regarding the resources lost by respondents during each crisis and the strategies employed to recover or identify alternative resources. Respondents were also asked to provide detailed information on the nature of the relationships through which they obtained these resources. This information included their duration and the context of the connection's creation. As certain resources were identified during the course of the interviews, the questions were modified accordingly (Grossetti et al. 2011).

Particular attention was paid to both the short- and long-term impacts of inflation. In particular, questions were asked to identify the resources lost as a result of the pressures induced by price increases. We also paid attention to the resources needed to cope and the relationships mobilized to obtain them. Following the interviews, chronological narratives were constructed for each producer, systematically organizing the information obtained during the interviews.

The narratives provided different types of information, which was analyzed using thematic coding to identify sequences and classify the data into three categories: (i) the impact of the crisis over time, (ii) the responses implemented during each period, and (iii) the relationships mobilized to support these responses. This approach allowed us to trace the steps through which supply chains were affected and with which farmers reacted during the inflation crisis by identifying the resources lost and gained during the disruption.

Results: characterization of the phases and actions in the resilience process

Absorption: limiting the increase in production and distribution costs

Effects of the crisis: sudden and sharp increase in production and distribution costs

In the initial stages of the crisis, which commenced in spring 2022 and continued into the subsequent summer, producers were confronted with a considerable increase in the cost of operating short-chain outlets. Notwithstanding the relative autonomy of SFSC farmers with regard to inputs, machinery, and agrochemicals (Mosadegh Sedghy et al. 2024), they remain vulnerable to price increases. As they reported in our study, these increases were both substantial and sudden, exerting adverse effects on farmers'
financial equilibrium. Three principal expenditure categories have been identified: fuel, fertilizers, and plants.

Firstly, the increase in energy and fuel prices had a considerable impact on farmers. The SFSC model often relies on multiple outlets, which, while providing income diversification, also introduces vulnerabilities when some outlets are located far away. In these supply chains, growers are frequently responsible for delivering their vegetables. To illustrate, Cédric<fnref n="3" /> spends four hours each Saturday traveling to sell at an open-air market in Toulouse. Consequently, fuel costs constitute a proportion of the budget allocated to the provision of short-chain outlets, and the increase in price has been considerable. Christophe, who supplies a number of organic stores (Biocoop franchises), has voiced concerns regarding the profitability of his enterprise. The increase in fuel prices raises questions about the viability of his business model, as it erodes his profit margin. Olivier highlighted the significant impact of delivery costs on his economic model, pointing out that the price of diesel for the delivery vehicle had risen to €3,000 a year. This marks an increase of €1,000 in vehicle expenses compared to previous years. The increasing prices served as a stark reminder to producers that the distances traveled could potentially offset the profits gained from these circuits. Xavier observed such report: "I have outlets that are geographically distant, so fuel has become a major expense that I had not previously considered".

In order to sell through SFSC, it is necessary to cultivate a wide variety of vegetables and maintain production areas of a sufficient size to meet the demands of numbers of outlets. In order to achieve this, all growers in our sample utilize a tractor. The rise in fuel costs subsequently affected their production capacity. David observed a 20% increase in prices between spring and the end of summer 2022. Those farmers with larger holdings, such as Daniel, who has 10 acres, were forced to consider whether to utilize the entire field this year, given the multiplication of production costs.

Concurrently, farmers utilize a variety of plant and fertilizer-based inputs. While they produce some of their plants, and fertilizer-based inputs, they also need to procure others. The production of plants is an energy-intensive process, as seeds require heat in order to germinate and grow. Furthermore, the production of fertilizer is a highly energy-consuming process too. Consequently, the costs associated with these inputs have increased, which has a direct impact on the business model of the farms. According to Laurent, the price of plants has increased by 30%, while the cost of fertilizer has risen by up to 50%. Marc described these increases as "exponential". Jacques also drew attention to the elevated costs of fertilizers.

The rise in costs has prompted farmers to re-examine their strategies, with questions being raised collectively as to whether they should reduce the variety of products they offer or opt for cheaper, lower-quality inputs. This dilemma raises concerns about the viability of their business model, their dependence on certain purchases, and their reliance on frequent deliveries.

These disruptions have made it harder to obtain essential materials like seeds, plants, and fertilizers, which are crucial for growing vegetables. Notably, these resources are in

<footnote n="3">³ Names have been changed to preserve anonymity.</footnote>
high demand during the spring, a critical period when much of the summer production is planned and initiated. In response, farmers are working to minimize these negative impacts and maintain their economic activity.

**Response: absorbing the increase to sustain economic activity and mitigate economic impacts**

The period of absorption, which spanned from spring to summer 2022, was characterized by collective efforts to mitigate the impact of rising production costs on the functioning of French SFSCs. The objective was to provide more time for adjustment, striking a delicate balance between increasing expenses and selling prices.

In the spring of 2022, with the advent of rising costs, SFSC farmers began exchanging information regarding their circumstances. Through these discussions, they came to recognize that a significant number of other farmers selling through SFSC were experiencing similar cost pressures. This mutual awareness marked the beginning of the shock absorption process.

The discussions subsequently shifted toward the mutual provision of moral support. As the discussions progressed, participants revealed more personal information and provided greater detail about the challenges they were facing. Yves underscored the importance of information exchange for newcomers seeking guidance from experienced farmers. Jordan observed that the discussions provided insight into the management of crops and investments in the context of rising costs. Jean underscored the beneficial impact of the information exchange facilitated by BioCivam's<fnref n="4" /> group, which enables members to remain apprised of price trends.

The aforementioned resources, information, and moral support were obtained and shared as a consequence of regular contact between the producers in question, or among those who are in frequent contact during professional training, or through virtual groups. Laura exemplified this collaborative information-sharing dynamic, demonstrating how a WhatsApp group is used collectively to discuss prices and strategies in accordance with market conditions. Similarly, Pascal employs WhatsApp group of peer farmers to share promotional offers from suppliers.

As a result of their interactions, it became evident to the farmers that they were inadvertently engaging in mutual assistance and shared experimentation. This is why they decided to collectively mobilize their networks to mitigate the impacts of inflation by purchasing material in a joint venture. Adrien recounted how he and his neighbors jointly invested in a seed drill, while Laura collaborated with neighboring farmers to procure materials for seedling growth. Etienne has recently become a member of an existing collective that shares machinery with neighboring farms. In 2022, Pascal and Yves each initiated a new collective aimed at leveraging bulk purchases of raw materials, including seeds and plants to reduce expenses while maintaining the diversity of vegetables needed in SFSCs.

During the absorption phase, we note that farmers obtained both tangible and intangible resources: they sought information and moral support from their peers which they

<footnote n="4">⁴ An organization of organic producers offering a range of initiatives including support for marketing and participation in the organization of supply chains, support for converting to or setting up in organic farming, promoting and raising awareness around organic farming, and technical support and guidance for producers.</footnote>
combined with more tangible resources in order to recover from the first effect of disturbances. This collaboration allowed them to discuss their challenges and initiate actions to recover the resources they had lost.

## Adaptation phase: maintaining consumers

### Effects of the crisis: gradual loss of consumers

From autumn to winter 2022, a decline in consumer demand was observed among farmers, accompanied by a continued increase in prices. This second phase of the inflationary crisis was having a significant impact on consumers. The decrease in their purchasing power prompted a shift toward purchasing cheaper products. As the decline unfolded gradually, some producers only became aware of a reduction in clientele after many consumers had already stopped visiting their outlets. Damien and David both identified this trend on their respective farms and indicate that the full extent of the situation has yet to be fully understood. Gérard also observed the decline via increasingly empty markets, which stands in contrast to the surge in demand observed during the pandemic. Some farmers posited that the diminution in clientele was due to specific attributes of the SFSC, while others put forth the hypothesis that the format of the pre-order basket, which prevents consumers from choosing their vegetables, could explain the decline in orders. Others have suggested that the SFSC is afflicted by the “expensive outlet” stereotype.

Such a loss of consumers gives rise to another indirect consequence of inflation: the question of what constitutes a “fair price” for farmers. The process of negotiating prices is intrinsic to SFSC, given its evolution in accordance with client interactions. However, the reduction in clients has prompted farmers to re-examine their pricing strategies with the aim of achieving a balance between offering consumer affordable prices and ensuring fair remuneration for themselves.

The frequency of client interactions prompted farmers to reflect on their economic models. For example, during his shift at the grower's store, Xavier found client complaints about prices, and their demands for a clear rationale for his pricing challenging. Paul, who sells through CSA baskets and wants to keep them affordable, was reluctant to raise prices.

Farmers had to balance the quality of their products, highly valued by clients purchasing through SFSCs, with the cost-effectiveness of producing them. Sandrine questioned the decision to grow cheaper produce varieties, believing this would compromise flavor, reduce client satisfaction, and ultimately hurt profits.

The declining demand is an indirect effect of inflation. This adaptation phase requires strategies to address these challenges. The key lies in stabilizing prices and ensure their transparency in order to maintain consumer's pool.

### Response: stabilizing the economic situation and the client pool

The adaptive phase begins with focusing on consumer retention in SFSCs, which involves developing a pricing strategy to keep prices from rising to levels that could discourage consumers. Many farmers acknowledged the importance of maintaining reasonable prices, particularly for staple vegetables, to keep consumers. For instance, Sandrine
pointed out that consumers consistently see certain staple vegetables as affordable and that any price increases could drive consumers away.

Open air markets, collective producer stores, and farmer's markets lead farmers to meet regularly and have frequent interactions. Farmers notably expressed their desire to preserve this collaborative environment. As a result, many respondents expressed reluctance to adopt aggressive pricing tactics. Daniel's comment reflects this mindset: "Should we be aggressive? I don't feel like it." Renaud shared a similar view, stressing the desire to avoid a "price war."

These values have motivated farmers to collaborate in retaining consumers by adopting a cooperative approach to pricing. This approach has been particularly evident in open-air markets. For example, Sandrine aligned her prices for basic vegetables with those of other farmers at the same market. Similarly, Pascal and Jacques agreed to sell lettuce at a common price of 90 cents at the open-air market, while Yves mentioned a similar arrangement for carrot prices. A similar approach was used in the producers' shop, where risks and benefits are shared among members. For instance, Thibaud admitted that he sometimes adjusted his prices to match higher ones, even if he could sell at a lower price, to avoid disadvantaging other farmers. These adaptive strategies have helped producers recover from consumer losses and provided both logistical and moral support.

Despite initial efforts, some price adjustments became unavoidable. This was particularly true in outlets where farmers operate independently, such as on-farm markets or via basket deliveries. Farmers had to discuss pricing with their consumers, explaining the fluctuations caused by challenges on the farm. The goal was to inform consumers, hoping they would understand the reasons behind price changes and remain loyal. SFSCs supported this process by facilitating meetings between producers and consumers.

Laura observed that consumers who bought directly from these outlets often asked about the farm and the farmer. François noted that he frequently had discussions with consumers "in the back of the truck" during deliveries. Sandrine found that consumers appreciated these discussions and responded positively to price adjustments. By sharing information with consumers, producers not only maintained strong connections with their consumers but also received moral support. These interactions helped reinforce their commitment to offering high-quality products at fair prices for both producers and consumers. Étienne captured this mindset by justifying lowering some prices with the remark, "I sell vegetables, not gold bars." Moreover, the frequency of these interactions, both with consumers and among producers, has paved the way for more significant changes.

## Transformation: breaking away from dependence on certain supply chains

### Effects of crisis: retailer pressure to decrease farmers' selling prices

In the final period, from winter to spring 2023, farmers entered a transformation phase to address the long-term impacts of inflationary pressures. The challenge now involved professional buyers and retailers. Despite their role in SFSCs as intermediaries, retailers do not establish the same customer relationships as do growers who sell their vegetables directly. The growers interviewed highlighted the challenges faced by their professional buyers: the lack of strong relationships with clients hinders customer loyalty. As a result,
these retailers experienced a decline in profits and attempted to offset it by pressuring producers to lower their prices, allowing retailers to keep prices attractive for consumers while maintaining their own profit margins. However, this approach reduces the value of products sold by producers, as they are forced to sell at lower-than-anticipated prices. While these intermediaries traditionally source from local producers, they also have their own suppliers offering highly competitive prices: inflation served to exacerbate the unfair competition between local producers and industrialized ones which practice lower prices.

Many farmers saw the competition as unfair, citing pressure not only on prices but also on quality standards regarding produce appearance and size. For example, Christophe mentioned meeting all of Biocoop's criteria, only to have the store demand a price of €1.80 per kilo of butternut, instead of the €2 originally agreed upon. Renaud also questioned the viability of growing courgettes at the low prices offered by Biocoop.

Many producers also reported instances of non-payment or cancellation of pre-ordered goods by professional buyers. The issue stemmed from the large quantities demanded by intermediaries. Daniel shared a frustrating experience where a plot of butternut squash was grown specifically for supermarkets and eventually not bought, leading to a great surplus. Similarly, Marc faced a setback when a franchised organic store chose to prioritize produce from central buying offices over his tomatoes, despite prior agreements on volume.

This led to a loss of income for the producers, threatening the viability of their farms and forcing them to make changes.

### Response: breaking away from dependency and diversifying outlets

To cope with these developments, farmers made significant changes to their economic models. This transformation was marked by replacing some sales outlets with others. Many farmers chose to stop selling to intermediaries that were seen as inflexible. The deterioration of relationships with retailers led to the cessation of these transactions. Some farmers shifted their focus from traditional retailers to collective shops or direct sales to consumers. Many producers, like Christophe and Marc, set up direct-to-consumer outlets, leaving professional buyers to sell via CSA. Stéphanie and Cédric sought partnerships with new local professional buyers, replacing their franchise relationships after receiving peer advice.

Not all SFSC producers can implement such changes, as they require producing a diverse range of crops in smaller volumes per variety compared to selling to professional buyers. These adjustments are made possible by the diversification of markets, which allows producers to adapt part of their business model. Additionally, the structure of some farms (Fig. 2) supports these changes, as they are not reliant on heavy investments or intensive production methods. This flexibility enables producers to adjust their production and distribution methods to meet the needs of new sales outlets. Through exchanges during training on diversified production or short supply chains, producers first learn how to adapt to SFSCs, and later, during inflationary periods, how to explore new market opportunities.

As a result, changes in farmers' business models involved changes in production methods and deeper engagement with local SFSCs. The transformation phase demonstrated
that the diversity of SFSCs allows farmers to combine different product types and access more reliable outlets, leading to fairer incomes.

The observation of these phases (summarized in the table below) raises important questions about the generalizability of resilience processes and the role of relationships in shaping these processes (Table 1).

## Discussion

### Resilience process: comparison with COVID-19 effects

The resilience process during inflation differed from that observed during the COVID-19 pandemic in two key ways. First, the collective response during the pandemic was more consumer-driven, with active participation in the creation of new SFSCs (Uliano et al. 2023). In contrast, the inflation period saw less consumer engagement in organizing responses, partly due to the gradual nature of the crisis. While the pandemic caused an immediate awareness of food supply disruptions, the impact of price increases during inflation was more gradual, resulting in a less urgent reaction from consumers. During the COVID-19 crisis, digitalization was key in sustaining SFSCs. Although studies on the resilience of SFSCs during the pandemic are limited, existing research emphasizes the critical role of technology in helping actors within these networks adapt. Studies have proven that digital tools facilitated coordination and communication, enabling SFSC actors to rapidly reorganize their distribution channels (Gori and Castellini 2023). E-commerce, in particular, allowed farmers to continue reaching consumers while maintaining social distancing measures (Baptista et al. 2022; Michel-Villarreal 2022). However, during the inflation period, direct contact with consumers became more important. This shift highlights that while logistical support was essential during the pandemic, moral support was more critical during the inflation crisis. Direct interactions fostered emotional involvement and encouraged participation in the coping process.

Despite these differences, both crises demonstrated similar patterns of resilience. Our findings indicate that strong and adaptable social networks played a key role in helping farmers cope with the challenges of inflation, much like during the global pandemic. Farmers' organizations and meeting places were invaluable in enabling quick adaptation. Our research confirms that SFSCs contribute to resilience by providing access to resources and fostering strong connections. Thanks to the direct and diverse relationships within these networks, farmers gain quick access to necessary resources. This

<table><caption>**Table 1** Summary of inflation effects and responses put in place by farmers</caption><thead><tr><td>Effects of inflation</td><td>Challenges</td><td>Responses/phase of resilience</td><td>Relationships mobilized</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sharp increase in production and distribution costs</td><td>Maintaining economic activity and absorbing the shock</td><td>Absorption: sharing information and providing moral support</td><td>Relationships between neighboring producers and peer group members</td></tr><tr><td>Gradual loss of consumers</td><td>Reducing competition between producers and stabilizing the client base</td><td>Adaptation: aligning prices and improving consumer loyalty</td><td>Relationships with producers at the same sales locations and with clients to build trust</td></tr><tr><td>Pressure from certain intermediaries</td><td>Limiting unfair competition from industrial producers</td><td>Transformation: developing more stable sales channels</td><td>Relationships between neighboring producers</td></tr></tbody></table>
finding mirrors responses/strategies observed during the pandemic. These results provide valuable insights into the role of embeddedness in resilience processes during different crises.

## Resilience process and embeddedness in SFSC

### Relational embeddedness of producing and selling activities

The inflation crisis highlighted the dynamics of SFSCs and emphasized the importance of these economic practices being embedded. As Chiffoleau (2009) illustrates, SFSCs foster “moderate friendships” through ongoing interactions and mutual support among producers, which strengthen cooperative practices. This embeddedness is not a mere by-product of professional interactions. It is, rather, actively cultivated through repeated exchanges that build trust and cooperation. The need for strong ties is particularly evident during a crisis, such as an inflationary one characterized by price pressures. In times of economic hardship, reactivating collaborative relationships that enable rapid adaptation is crucial. SFSCs foster such collaboration among farmers, encouraging and harnessing collective resilience.

The evidence presented thus far suggests that the embeddedness created by the dynamics of SFSCs plays a key role in the resilience process, ultimately leading to a phase of transformation. Our findings indicate that SFSCs promote the formation of a broad network of contacts, driven by the variety of sales points and connections with consumers. These networks allow producers to quickly mobilize resources in response to challenges during the early phases of the resilience process. In the transformation phase, SFSC networks provide farmers with access to diverse sources of information, which, combined with other shared resources, enables them to adapt their economic models, which they perceive as more resilient. This shift toward a more resilient model is consistent with the conclusions of Cardona and Lamine (2014), who suggest that farmers engaged in multiple farmer networks can diversify their knowledge and pool resources, fostering the development of innovative practices.

Our study also highlights the importance of relationships with consumers. In examining US SFSC models, (Hinrichs 2000) observed that while direct producer–consumer interactions foster trust and shared values, economic factors remain crucial in influencing consumer behavior. This indicates that relations observed in SFSCs are a complex phenomenon: social values and personal interests are held in equilibrium. Our research supports this view, showing that the formation of trust and moral support is an ongoing process, not simply granted by consumers, particularly during challenges like inflation. This dynamic nature of embeddedness also aligns with Sonnino's (2007) work, which views embeddedness as a process of co-creation rather than as a fixed state.

Flexible relationships in SFSCs enable rapid adjustments and the collective definition of fair prices, highlighting the importance of ongoing interaction in addressing emerging challenges. These flexible relationships are cultivated and sustained over time, with SFSCs facilitating long-lasting interactions between producers and consumers. In line with studies on relational enactment<fnref n="5" /> (Darnhofer et al. 2016; von Münchhausen et al.

<footnote n="5">⁵ Darnhofer et al. 2016 define an enacted relationship as “relations that are continuously remade in interaction with the past and with the current context”.</footnote>
2023), our observations support the idea that these relationships are not static but undergo a continuous process of evolution. This evolution allows them to adapt to the ever-changing circumstances of their environment.

We demonstrate that SFSCs foster adaptable relationships, enabling access to diverse resources through connection and positioning these networks as key to resilience. Our findings further reveal that relational configurations evolve over time, evidenced by shifts in commercial relationships. This depth and fluidity of connection calls for further exploration of the concept of embeddedness on broader scales, particularly its impact on local territories and network structures. We now question the effects of structural embeddedness and propose exploring the influence of territorial embeddedness.

## Evolution of relational configuration and reflections on their resilience effects

The findings of this study indicate that resilience has the effect of reshaping network structures through the reconfiguration of commercial relationships. This process involves the dissolution of some pre-existing ties and the emergence of new ones. This outcome is consistent with the findings of previous research, which demonstrate that crises can prompt significant changes in farmers' networks (Måren et al. 2022). Such changes have been demonstrated to enhance the capacity of these networks to adapt their marketing practices in response to disruptions (Gonzalez-Mon et al. 2023). In our case, the observed transformations align networks with local contexts, as farmers increasingly sell through local outlets. We then observe a blending of social and local embeddedness. The resilience process results in the reorientation of network structures, with a greater emphasis placed on locality and direct linkages. In line with Hess' (2004) work, we put forward an interpretation of this movement, which suggests that geographic proximity fosters trust and links local and social embeddedness.

Our analysis of social network evolution highlights the need to rethink how network boundaries are defined. Two key dynamics stand out. First, cooperative networks among farmers at sales points have led to the creation of niche markets (Éloire 2009). These niches are exclusively accessible to producers and prioritize product quality, resulting in the formation of tighter, denser networks. Over time, the relational configurations within these niches foster close collaboration, even among competitors (Lazega 2009; Éloire 2009). This strong social bonding helps farmers manage pricing strategies effectively. Consequently, these networks play a crucial role in responding to inflation crises, as they help mitigate price increases and reduce the loss of consumers.

Secondly, the deterioration of farmer relationships with supermarkets and franchises gives rise to questions concerning the boundaries of the network and its resilience. Indeed, supermarkets and franchises are based on a productive paradigm. This efficiency focal consequently precludes the possibility of transition within the food system (Helander et al. 2024). Furthermore, our study highlights that vertical and commercial interactions are problematic. Nevertheless, these suppliers are still major actors of supply chains, and any significant transition would require their involvement. In light of our results, we hypothesize that network formation may prioritize types of relationships that are conducive to resilience, rather than focusing on specific actors. This question echoes Sonnino's (2007) findings on the delimitation of a social network: as it is not static, the variables to consider must be clear to make the social network coherent.
In the interviews, producers rarely mentioned agricultural support organizations or institutions as sources of resources, despite their role in aiding farmers, particularly during times of disruption. We hypothesize that this omission reflects a misalignment in the targeting of public policies, suggesting that these policies may not be sufficiently recognized or valued by producers. Recent protests by European farmers may highlight this perceived lack of support. Our study's focus on social embeddedness (Hess 2004), however, limits our ability to analyze broader territorial dynamics. This constraint reduces our capacity to fully assess the role these organizations play in enhancing resilience. We propose further research on this topic below.

## Conclusion

This study highlights the critical role of SFSCs in helping farmers navigate the challenges of Europe's 2021-23 inflation crisis. Our findings emphasize that embeddedness within these short supply chains is key to fostering effective resilience. Farmers managed the crisis successfully by leveraging the social networks developed through SFSCs, under-scoring the idea that resilience is a collective and gradual process.

We observe that the resilience process unfolds in three distinct phases, each shaped by the varying impacts of inflation on farm operations. Our research demonstrates the vital role of interpersonal relationships—both among producers and between producers and consumers—in securing resources and maintaining farm operations during a crisis. SFSCs build trust and provide moral support through transparent interactions with consumers, enabling farmers to adapt to challenges. Collaboration among producers, strengthened by pre-existing relationships, aids in quickly absorbing shocks and encourages transformation within farming operations. Additionally, our findings suggest that the resilience process reshapes the structure of these networks. This transformation often results in denser and more localized networks, which further support farmers' adaptability and sustainability.

Our study has two primary limitations. First, our focus on resources and relationships may introduce a bias, as producers occasionally overlook the role of external institutions or broader networks. This focus could overemphasize the importance of local interactions, potentially leading to what Lewis et al. (2002) term “local fetishization.” Expanding the scope to include territorial dynamics would provide a more balanced perspective, allowing us to better understand the contributions of external institutions to resilience. Such an approach would also enhance our comprehension of the interplay between social and territorial embeddedness dynamics (Lamine and Marsden 2023) and their combined impact on resilience.

A second limitation of our study lies in our relational perspective, which tends to emphasize the positive impacts of relationships. While our findings demonstrate how relationships contribute to resilience, they may overlook significant constraints within the resilience process. Lazega (1994) highlights the “emotional and sensitive” nature of relationships, which can shift attention toward their positive aspects (Éloire 2009). This perspective risks obscuring challenges arising from certain relationships. Our study identified tensions around fair pricing strategies and noted the negative impact of commercial relationships with some retailers. These findings highlight the need for a more detailed investigation, supported by measurable indicators, to assess how such
connections influence the economic performance of farms. We advocate for a case study approach to examine the conditions under which different types of ties are either advantageous or restrictive. This provides an opportunity to establish clear economic performance indicators to precisely evaluate the effects of relationships on economic outcomes. This work could build on Uzzi's (1996, 1999) research, which explores how interpersonal relationships shape business performance and identifies situations where they may hinder progress.

Future research should build on this study by exploring the territorial and material conditions that influence the effectiveness of social ties in resilience processes. Additionally, greater attention should be paid to the role of organizations in fostering relationships before a crisis occurs. Many respondents highlighted the significance of collective activities facilitated by agricultural organizations. These organizations were not identified as direct providers of resources but rather as valuable platforms for networking and mutual support.

Further investigation could focus on how these organizations help maintain and strengthen relationships, thereby enhancing resilience during crises. Understanding their mechanisms of support and influence could provide critical insights into the interplay between organizational facilitation and farm resilience.

## Appendix 1

<table><thead><tr><th>Pseudos</th><th>Additional production</th><th>UAA (ha)</th><th>Farm Age (years)</th><th>SFSC Outlets</th><th>LFSC Outlets</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Adrien</td><td>Chickens</td><td>0-0.5</td><td>3-5</td><td>1</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Cédric</td><td>None</td><td>0.5-2</td><td>5-10</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Christophe</td><td>Seeds</td><td>2-5</td><td>3-5</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Claude</td><td>None</td><td>0.5-2</td><td>> 10</td><td>1-3</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Clément</td><td>None</td><td>5-10</td><td>5-10</td><td>5-8</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Damien</td><td>None</td><td>2-5</td><td>> 10</td><td>1-3</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Daniel</td><td>Livestock</td><td>2-5</td><td>> 10</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>David</td><td>None</td><td>2-5</td><td>> 10</td><td>5-8</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Etienne</td><td>Arable crops</td><td>> 20</td><td>3-5</td><td>3-5</td><td>1-3</td></tr><tr><td>François</td><td>None</td><td>0.5-2</td><td>5-10</td><td>1-3</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Françoise</td><td>Chickens</td><td>2-5</td><td>> 10</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Gérard</td><td>Arable crops</td><td>10-15</td><td>> 10</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Jacques</td><td>None</td><td>2-5</td><td>> 10</td><td>1-3</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Jean</td><td>Arable crops</td><td>2-5</td><td>> 10</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Julien</td><td>None</td><td>0.5-2</td><td>5-10</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Laura</td><td>None</td><td>0.5-2</td><td>3-5</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Laurent</td><td>None</td><td>0.5-2</td><td>> 10</td><td>1-3</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Marc</td><td>None</td><td>2-5</td><td>3-5</td><td>1-3</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Maxime</td><td>Chickens</td><td>0.5-2</td><td>> 10</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Olivier</td><td>None</td><td>2-5</td><td>1-3</td><td>8-10</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Pascal</td><td>Arable crops</td><td>10-15</td><td>> 10</td><td>3-5</td><td>1-3</td></tr><tr><td>Paul</td><td>None</td><td>2-5</td><td>> 10</td><td>1-3</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Philippe</td><td>None</td><td>2-5</td><td>> 10</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Renaud</td><td>None</td><td>> 10</td><td>> 10</td><td>5-8</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Pseudos</th><th>Additional production</th><th>UAA (ha)</th><th>Farm Age (years)</th><th>SFSC Outlets</th><th>LFSC Outlets</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sandrine</td><td>None</td><td>2-5</td><td>3-5</td><td>1-3</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Stéphane</td><td>None</td><td>0.5-2</td><td>> 10</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Stéphanie</td><td>Livestock</td><td>10-15</td><td>3-5</td><td>3-5</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Thomas</td><td>None</td><td>2-5</td><td>5-10</td><td>3-5</td><td>1-3</td></tr><tr><td>Xavier</td><td>None</td><td>0.5-2</td><td>1-3</td><td>1-3</td><td>None</td></tr><tr><td>Yves</td><td>None</td><td>2-5</td><td>> 10</td><td>1-3</td><td>None</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Yuna Chifoleau for her insightful advice. I would also like to thank the ATTER project for organizing the writing workshops, which were helpful in structuring this article.

### Author contributions

Not applicable.

### Funding

Not applicable.

### Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the fact that they imply personal information of the interviewed people but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

### Declarations

### Competing interests

Not applicable.

Received: 23 July 2024 Revised: 7 April 2025 Accepted: 19 May 2025

Published online: 01 July 2025

### References

* Akermann G, Coeurquetin P (2021) Les narrations quantifiées : une méthode qui combine entretien et analyse statistique des dynamiques biographiques. In: Méthodes d'investigation de l'alimentation et des mangeurs. Editions Quae, p 243 p.

* Akermann G (2015) L'entrepreneuriat en sciences humaines et sociales : sociologie d'un monde économique incertain. These de doctorat, Toulouse 2

* Atalan-Helicke N, Abiral B (2021) Alternative food distribution networks, resilience, and urban food security in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Agri Food Syst Commun Dev 10:89–104. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.102.021

* Baptista N, Alves H, Matos N (2022) Scoping challenges and opportunities presented by COVID-19 for the development of sustainable short food supply chains. Sustainability 14:14475. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114475

* Benedek Z, Fertő I, Galamba Marreiros C et al (2021) Farm diversification as a potential success factor for small-scale farmers constrained by COVID-related lockdown. Contributions from a survey conducted in four European countries during the first wave of COVID-19. PLoS ONE 16:e0251715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251715

* Benedek Z, Baráth L, Fertő I et al (2022) Survival strategies of producers involved in short food supply chains following the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic: a Hungarian case-study. Sociol Ruralis 62:68–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12358

* Berrou J-P (2010) Encastrement, réseaux sociaux et dynamique des micro et petites entreprises informelles en milieu urbain africain. These de doctorat, Bordeaux 4

* Blavier P, Eloire F, Finez J, Guy Y (2023) Inflation: Que sait-on ? Revue Française De Socio-Économie 30:5–27. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfse.030.0005

* Cardona A, Lamine C (2014) Chapitre 5 - Liens forts et liens faibles en agricultur. L'influence des modes d'insertion socio-professionnelle sur les changements de pratiques. In: Sociologie des grandes cultures. Éditions Quae, Versailles, pp 97–114

* Chapus Q, Nordman C (2021) You're all I need to get by? Analyzing young entrepreneurs' networks in Morocco from a "quantified narratives" method. Soc Netw 66:211–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.03.004

* Chapus Q (2020) L'émergence des "startuppers" au Maroc : institutions, trajectoires, réseaux sociaux. Phdthesis, HESAM Université

* Chifoleau Y (2009) From politics to co-operation: the dynamics of embeddedness in alternative food supply chains. Sociol Rura. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00491.x

* Chifoleau Y, Brit A-C, Monnier M et al (2020) Coexistence of supply chains in a city's food supply: a factor for resilience? Rev Agri Food Environ Stud 101:391–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-020-00120-0

* Coopmans I, Bijttebier J, Marchand F et al (2021) COVID-19 impacts on Flemish food supply chains and lessons for agri-food system resilience. Agric Syst 190:103136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103136
Craft R, Pitt H (2022) Exploring opportunities for farmers in Wales to produce foods for future markets

Darnhofer I, Lamine C, Strauss A, Mireille N (2016) The resilience of family farms: towards a relational approach. J Rural Stud 44:111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.01.013

Darrot C, Chiffoleau Y, Bodiguel L et al (2020) Les systèmes alimentaires de proximité à l'épreuve de la Covid-19. Syst Alimentaires Food Syst 2020:89–110. https://doi.org/10.15122/isbn.978-2-406-11062-0.p.0089

Éloire F (2009) Les réseaux interorganisationnels dans la restauration lilloise : une approche néo-structurale du marché et des processus sociaux. These de doctorat, Lille 1

Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B et al (2010) Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420

Gonzalez-Mon B, Bodin O, Schluter M (2023) Small-scale fisheries and agricultural trade networks are socially embedded: emerging hypotheses about responses to environmental changes. Ecol Soc 28:9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14265-280309

Gori F, Castellini A (2023) Alternative food networks and short food supply chains: a systematic literature review based on a case study approach. Sustainability 15:8140. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108140

Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91:481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311

Grossetti M (2011) Les narrations quantifiées. Terrains Travaux 19:161–182. https://doi.org/10.3917/tt.019.0161

Grossetti M, Barthe J-F (2008) Dynamique des réseaux interpersonnels et des organisations dans les créations d'entreprises. Rev Fr Sociol 49:585–612. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.493.0585

Grossetti M, Barthe J-F, Chauvac N (2011) Les chaînes relationnelles dans un suivi longitudinal d'entreprises de création récente. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique / Bulletin of Sociological Methodology 11

Helander H, Schnepf S, Stetter T et al (2024) Convenient solutions, inconvenient truths – Why supermarkets will not drive food system transformation. Ecol Econ 218:108096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108096

Hendry LC, Stevenson M, MacBryde J et al (2018) Local food supply chain resilience to constitutional change: the Brexit effect. Int J Oper Prod Manag 39:429–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2018-0184

Hess M (2004) 'Spatial' relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embedded ness. Prog Hum Geogr 28:165–186. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph479oa

Hinrichs CC (2000) Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. J Rural Stud 16:295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00063-7

Jones S, Krzywoszynska A, Maye D (2022) Resilience and transformation: lessons from the UK local food sector in the COVID-19 pandemic. Geogr J 188:209–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12428

Kummer S, Milestad R, Leitgeb F, Vogl CR (2012) Building resilience through farmers' experiments in organic agriculture: examples from Eastern Austria. SAR 1:308. https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v1n2p308

Lamine C, Marsden T (2023) Unfolding sustainability transitions in food systems: insights from UK and French trajectories. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 120:e2206231120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206231120

Lazega E (1994) Analyse de réseaux et sociologie des organisations. Rev Fr Sociol 35(2):293–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/3322036

Lazega E (2009) Théorie de la coopération entre concurrents : organisation, marché et analyse de réseaux. In: Traité de sociologie économique. Presses Universitaires de France (PUF), p 533

Lewis N, Moran W, Perrier-Cornet P, Barker J (2002) Territoriality, enterprise and réglementation in industry governance. Prog Human Geogr 26(4):433–462. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132502ph380ra

Måren IE, Wiig H, McNeal K et al (2022) Diversified farming systems: impacts and adaptive responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Norway and China. Front Sustain Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.887707

McDaniel T, Soto Mas F, Sussman AL (2021) Growing connections: local food systems and community resilience. Soc Nat Resour 34:1375–1393. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2021.1958965

Medici M, Canavari M, Castellini A (2021) Exploring the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of community-supported agriculture in Italy. J Clean Prod 316:128233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128233

Mendez A (2010) Processus. Concepts et méthode pour l'analyse temporelle en sciences sociales. Academia-Bruylant

Michel-Villarreal R (2022) Towards sustainable and resilient short food supply chains: a focus on sustainability practices and resilience capabilities using case study. Br Food J. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2021-1060

Mosadegh Sedghy B, Nematollahi M, Tajbakhsh A (2024) Market dynamics between retail channels and short food supply chains: a case of organic fruits. J Retail Consum Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103775

Omer J, Ferru M (2023) Innovations sociales et transitions: quels freins pour quelle(s) proximité(s) ? Innovations 71:217–251. https://doi.org/10.3917/inno.071.0217

Ozdemir D, Sharma M, Dhir A, Daim T (2022) Supply chain resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technol Soc 68:101847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101847

Pitt H (2022) Horticulture in the UK - Resilience to and beyond pandemic

Rodriguez T, Bonatti M, Loehr K et al (2023) Upscaling agroforestry in the tropics through actor-networks: a comparative case study of cacao farming systems in two regions of Colombia. Sustain Sci 18:1631–1648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01303-6

Sanderson Bellamy A, Furness E, Nicol P et al (2021) Shaping more resilient and just food systems: lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ambio 50:782–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01532-y

Smith K, Lawrence G, MacMahon A et al (2016) The resilience of long and short food chains: a case study of flooding in Queensland, Australia. Agric Hum Values 33:45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9603-1

Sonnino R (2007) The power of place: embeddedness and local food systems in Italy and the UK. Anthropol Food. https://doi.org/10.4000/aof.454

Tendall D, Joerin J, Kopainsky B et al (2015) Food system resilience: defining the concept. Glob Food Sec 6:17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.08.001

Uliano A, Stanco M, Nazzaro C (2023) Short food supply chain and resilience: an analysis during COVID-19 pandemic in inner areas of campania region. Sustainability 15:12721. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712721
Ušča M, Tisenkopfs T (2023a) The resilience of short food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of a direct purchasing network. *Front Sustain Food Syst.* https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1146446

Uzzi B (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. *Am Sociol Rev.* https://doi.org/10.2307/2096399

Uzzi B (1999) Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: how social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. *Am Sociol Rev* 64:481–505. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657252

von Münchhausen S, Kirwan J, Maye D et al (2023) Enacted relations and the resilience of territorially embedded production systems in Europe. Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106925

Weber IM, Lara Jauregui J, Teixeira L, Nassif Pires L (2024) Inflation in times of overlapping emergencies: systemically significant prices from an input-output perspective. *Ind Corp Chang* 33:297–341. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtad080

**Publisher’s Note**

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.