# Short food supply chains, an alternative economy for sustainable food systems: a mixed approach over time

Chiffoleau Yuna, Wallet Frédéric, Prosperi Paolo, Collewet Frédéric, Morizot-Braud Françoise

► To cite this version:

Chiffoleau Yuna, Wallet Frédéric, Prosperi Paolo, Collewet Frédéric, Morizot-Braud Françoise. Short food supply chains, an alternative economy for sustainable food systems: a mixed approach over time. Agricultural and Food Economics, 2025, 13 (1), pp.66. 10.1186/s40100-025-00403-4. hal-05333442

HAL Id: hal-05333442

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05333442v1

Submitted on 27 Oct 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>

# Short food supply chains, an alternative economy for sustainable food systems: a mixed approach over time

Chiffoleau Yuna<fnref n="1" />*, D. Wallet Frédéric<fnref n="2" />, Prosperi Paolo<fnref n="3" />, Collewet Frédéric<fnref n="3" /> and Morizot-Braud Françoise<fnref n="4" />

## Abstract

Short food supply chains (SFSCs) have undergone a revival in developed countries in recent decades. Research into the economic dimension of these chains is being conducted, but further work is needed to understand how the concrete economy developed by the different types of SFSCs contributes to sustainable food systems. This article proposes to explore this question through the lessons learned from studies carried out in France since 2009, and which used mixed methods to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. As a counterpoint to the debates on the alternative nature or hybridity of SFSCs, results highlight the importance of alternative rules, created, enabled or maintained by social relationships, in contributing to an alternative economy that promotes sustainability, from agricultural practices to local development. The article opens the discussion on the value of quantifying the economic dimension of SFSCs, and on the importance of analyzing how their scaling up fits into the diversification of the economy for sustainable food systems in a context of new competition around 'local food'. Finally, practical implications arising from the results are proposed.

**Keywords:** Short food supply chains, Sustainability, Embeddedness, Economic rules, Mixed methods

## Introduction

Short food supply chains (SFSCs) which connect farmers and consumers directly or through a reduced number of intermediaries are not new to the world (Kneafsey et al. 2013). However, in recent decades they have undergone a revival in developed countries, often analyzed as a ‘quality turn’ driven by actors breaking away from the agro-industrial system (Goodman 2003). Traditional forms of SFSCs (on-farm sales, open-air markets, local food shops supplied in part directly by farmers, etc.), which are part of the history of certain countries (southern Europe in particular) but declined with the development of intensive agriculture and mass retailing, have been attracting a new interest (Kneafsey et al. 2015). In addition, at the end of the twentieth century the SFSC landscape diversified with innovative forms, often described as ‘alternative food networks’ (AFNs) (farmers’ markets, collective producers’ shops, community-supported agriculture, community gardens, etc.) (Renting et al. 2003). Whether traditional or innovative, these SFSCs are

<footnote>*Correspondence: yuna.chiffoleau@inrae.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ INRAE, UMR Innovation (CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro), 2 Place Viala, 34060 Montpellier Cedex 2, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² INRAE, UMR Agir, Chemin de Borde-Rouge - Auzeville, BP 52627, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ CIHEAM-IAMM, UMR Moisa (Univ Montpellier, CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD), 3191 Rte Mende, 34090 Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Centre d'Etude Et de Ressources Sur La Diversification, CERD, 40, Rue Des Fossés, 58 290 Moulins-Engilbert, France</footnote>
based in part on alternative rules to those that structure long supply chains. These rules
are linked to SFSCs' specific functioning and/or 'promise of difference' (e.g. new rules to
introduce direct and local supplies in public collective catering) (Le Velly 2019). There
is an abundance of literature on the sustainability of these chains, highlighting the role
of SFSCs in the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable devel-
opment (Malak-Rawlikowska et al. 2019; Chiffoleau and Dourian, 2020; Jia et al. 2023;
Petruzelli et al. 2023; Raftowicz et al. 2024). These three dimensions, however, are not
at the same level in the sense that SFSCs are basically economic activities, whether or
not they are involved in the market. In this perspective, there is a research gap on how
their economic functioning and the concrete economy they develop, through various
types of chains, contribute to sustainable food systems (UNIDO 2020).

The novelty of this article is that it analyzes SFSCs as economic processes and out-
comes that shape their contribution to sustainability. This approach is in line with the
framework recently developed by Charatsari et al. (2023), who conceptualized how
primary values related to the operation of SFSCs (managerial, economic, relational,
and organisational attributes) generate secondary values (environmental, social, ethical,
cultural). Our article capitalizes on studies using mixed methods and valuing innovative
approaches, enabling us to analyse in greater depth the economic dimension of these
chains in terms of their implications for both farms and sustainability impacts. These
studies have been carried out in France, where there is both a long history of traditional
SFSCs and the emergence of innovative types since the 2000s (Chiffoleau 2019). First
exemplified by the creation of AMAPs,<fnref n="1" /> which are French systems equivalent to Com-
munity-Supported Agriculture (CSA) (Lamine and Dubuisson 2007), innovative SFSCs
in France have expanded, for example, to direct-to-farm sourcing in collective catering,
encouraged by public policies (Perrin and Lacquement 2023), as well as in new stores
linked to supermarket chains (Rouget et al. 2016). France was also the first country in
Europe where SFSCs were officially defined (in 2009), as sales channels involving no
more than one economic intermediary between farmers and consumers (Kneafsey et al.
2015). This definition is independent of geographical distance, but the experts in these
chains, gathered in France within a national network, the RMT Alimentation locale,<fnref n="2" />
agree that the majority of these initiatives are ‘local’ (Chiffoleau 2019). This local perim-
eter is not defined in France, and actors, as also highlighted in a recent study on US
consumers (Brune et al. 2023), consider various scales. Some actors associate it with
the distance authorized by derogation in the health regulations for the marketing of
meat products, i.e. the possibility of marketing these products without health author-
ity approval to retailers located no more than 80 km from the place of production or
processing (Dedinger et al. 2021). Other actors define the local perimeter in terms of
an administrative department, a radius of 100 to 200 km or the target area of their food
policy. Whatever the definition, the flows linked to SFSCs in France are assumed by
experts to be mainly sub-national. According to the 2020 National Agricultural Census,
one fourth of French farms (n=90 024; i.e. 23,1% of farms) were selling at least a part of

<footnote n="1">¹ Association pour le Maintien d'une Agriculture Paysanne.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Réseau Mixte Technologique: national network gathering actors of research, agricultural and rural development and training, funded by the French Ministry of Agriculture and Food Sovereignty, and whose mission is to produce collective expertise, tools and methods, training content and recommendations for public action.</footnote>
their production through SFSCs (Barry 2023), showing an increase compared to 2010 (n=85 839; 17,5% of farms) (Barry 2012). Moreover, three traditional SFSCs (on-farm sales, open-air market, direct procurement to a local food shop) account for the vast majority of farm sales, yet they mainly correspond to regular, local purchases.

Using the case of France, we propose to highlight how the operation of SFSCs, as concrete embedded economic activities with specific rules (Granovetter 1985; Commons 1934), shapes their contribution to the development of sustainable food systems, from environment-friendly agricultural practices to local economic development. By doing so, we give prominence to some of the economic attributes of SFSCs that have received less attention in the literature. Finally, this research sheds a new light over the debate on the alternative nature of the economy of SFSCs, which has been discussed since their revival (Holloway et al. 2007).

Section 1 is dedicated to a literature review on the economic dimension of SFSCs, and how this dimension is connected to the contribution of SFSCs to sustainable food systems. Section 2 presents the analytical framework, the material and the methods from which we investigated the economy of SFSCs and its implications for performance and impact since 2009. Section 3 develops the results obtained from various studies carried out over time in France, which shed complementary light on the economic dimension of SFSCs and its impact. Section 4 discusses the added value and limitations of the capitalization of the studies proposed in this article. It also expands the field of research towards the economy of local food supply chains, supported as part of local food policies, and encompassing both the simple relocation of long supply chains and the scaling up of SFSCs (Brives et al. 2020; Galli et al. 2015; Guibert et al. 2022).

## Literature review

The economic dimension of short food supply chains has mainly been studied from two angles: the performance of these chains at the farm level (and, more recently, in their local area), and their organisation. We propose here a review of the research carried out from these two angles and conclude by arguing the interest of analyzing these two dimensions simultaneously, using both quantitative and qualitative data, to better understand each and to shed light on the contribution of SFSCs to the sustainability of food systems.

## A first line of work on the economic performance of SFSCs, but still little quantified

Recent years have seen a number of meta-analyses of the economic performance and impact of short food supply chains, particularly at the farm level. Based on a description of different types of SFSCs and examples from around the world, the 2020 UNIDO report highlights a number of potential benefits for farmers taking part in these chains (UNIDO 2020). These benefits include higher sales prices and added value (Thomé et al. 2021), easier access market and product differentiation (Rubacado-Palomar 2020), enhanced collaboration opportunities with consumers and other farmers (Charatsari et al. 2020), and better communication with and education of consumers regarding production activities and characteristics (Jia et al. 2023). However, the report also outlines several economic challenges for farmers. These include increased costs due to the need for new functions requiring investments in processing, transportation and sales
equipment (Mundler et al. 2020; Keech et al. 2023), as well as in workforce (Paciarotti and Torregiani 2021) and skill development (Cesaro et al. 2020) for diversifying activities and production (Aubert 2015). Additionally, farmers may face heightened competition based on their proximity to consumers and the potential exclusion of consumers with limited access to information about product characteristics (Vittersø et al. 2019). The UNIDO report also points out that these expected results and challenges may vary depending on the type of short chain. In a broad and recent literature review, Jia et al. (2023) come to same conclusions. However, other reviews also underline that the economic dimension of SFSCs is mainly assessed qualitatively (Petruzelli et al. 2023), through a small number of case studies (Chiffoleau and Dourian 2020). Chiaverina et al. (2023) confirm this finding by focusing their meta-analysis on articles that use metrics to measure the economic performance of farms selling through SFSCs. They identify 48 articles on this topic, published in English and French from 2000 to 2022. Among these 48 articles, 36 consider the farm's net or gross income, but in some cases data is obtained through surveys of very small samples (3–6 farmers), and 12 use profit satisfaction metrics. In any case, what is interesting is that this quantification of results complements the qualitative studies on the operation of farms in SFSCs, by showing, for example, the importance of salaried employment.

Another type of study that is emerging in the recent literature also quantifies the economic results of SFSCs. It measures the contribution of SFSCs to local economic development by analyzing the expenditure of their stakeholders. In a still widely quoted article, Marsden et al. (2000) had already emphasized the key role of SFSCs in rural development. In recent years, several studies have sought to measure this impact using the local multiplier method proposed by the New Economic Foundation (NEF) in the early 2000s (Sacks 2003). This method is inspired by Keynes's macro-economic approach and is based on the principle that spending in the local economy gives rise to income which, re-spent, will generate further income in the local economy. The NEF method consists to track the money spent in the local economy across three rounds of spending, which has led to it being identified as the 'LM3' (local multiplier 3) method. One of the most recent studies applying this method tracks spending in various short and long chains, generating income for 122 farms, which then spend the money back paying suppliers whose spending is also assessed. The spending is then classified according to whether it takes place within or outside a geographical area defined as 'local'. The total local expenditure over the three rounds of expenditure, divided by the initial local expenditure, constitutes the multiplier effect of local purchasing, which materializes the contribution of the chains to local economic development (Mikulić et al. 2023; Kłoczkogajewska et al. 2024). This approach also sheds light on how farms in SFSCs operate, thus leading the way to the second main line of research on the economy of SFSCs.

## A second line of research into SFSC economic organization, fuelling debates

The second angle from which the economic dimension of SFSCs is analyzed concerns their economic organization and functioning. The UNIDO 2020 report stresses the importance of describing the three key economic functions of SFSCs in order to understand their effects on producers, consumers and society: governance and coordination, logistics, and information and guarantees about the product quality attributes
(UNIDO 2020). The way in which SFSCs operate regarding these functions varies, which may influence their effects (Charatsari et al. 2023). Many scholars are interested in the logistical dimension of SFSCs, in particular the transport of goods from the farm to the consumer, as this has emerged since SFSCs’ revival as having a negative environmental impact, due to the many small-volume journeys involved (Schlich and Fleissner 2005). However, life cycle analysis leads to contrasting results, depending especially on how farmers in SFSCs operate transports (Vaillant et al. 2017; Loiseau et al. 2020; Paciarotti and Torregiani 2021). The other two key economic functions of SFSCs (governance and coordination, information and guarantees about quality) have been studied more in relation to another debate that was also launched when these chains were revived, concerning their alternative nature (Hinrichs 2000; Holloway et al. 2007). On one hand, some works focus on how prices are set and value is shared or on the interplay between practices and values, concluding that SFSCs form hybrid systems, combining mainstream economic rules and local, alternative ones (Le Velly and Dufeu, 2016; Zollet 2023). On the other hand, some studies underline how the function to guarantee the quality of products in SFSCs values geographical indications (Arfini and Mancini 2018; UNIDO 2020) as well as participatory guarantee systems. First developed for organic farming in countries of the Global South, those innovative systems combine formal and informal rules favouring learning relationships between farmers and with consumers (Loconto and Hatanaka 2018; Ninnin and Lemeilleur 2024), and have been applied to some SFSCs in France (Rodet 2012).

While the first set of works on the economic organization of SFSCs emphasizes the hybridity of rules and values to fuel the still lively, if somewhat abstract, debate on the alternative nature of these chains, the second opens up the possibility of questioning the effects of the rules adopted or created in SFSCs, along with the relationships that make these rules operate or that these rules generate. In this article, we propose to follow this second approach, while recognising the interest of quantifying the performance of farms in SFSCs in order to better understand their economic functioning and its contribution to sustainable food systems. This objective calls for mixed methods research integrating both quantitative and qualitative data to understand a phenomenon, which shows its interest to analyze SFSCs and their impacts (Boutry and Ferru 2016; Testa et al. 2020; Helgheim et al. 2024; Cirone et al. 2023). We apply these mixed methods research in a framework for analyzing SFSCs that enables us to consider their rules, the associated relationships with these rules, and their effects.

# Analytical framework and methods

## SFSCs as concrete economies embedded in relationships and rules

The principle of a concrete economy that cannot be reduced to the pursuit of individual material interest or to exchanges defined by market prices is being defended by many scholars in the social sciences. From this perspective, SFSCs are often presented as exemplary cases illustrating ‘another way’ of thinking about and implementing the production and distribution of goods and services, promoting non-market objectives and relationships (Sage 2003; Laville and Cattani 2005).

The notion of embeddedness proposed by the economic anthropologist Karl Polanyi (1944) has been widely used to describe such economic activities embedded in social
structures (Hinrichs 2000; Sonnino 2007; Chiffoleau 2009). Economic sociology, revived in the USA from the 1970s onwards, has been particularly interested in exploring relational embeddedness, showing how interpersonal relationships shape economic activities and condition their performance (Granovetter 1985). In French-speaking countries, economic sociology has focused more on their institutional embeddedness (Lévesque 2006), thereby intersecting with the programme of old institutional economics. In this economic school of thought, transactions are considered as the central unit of economic and social relations but are supposed to be guided by formal and informal institutions, understood as collective actions which control and liberate individual action (Commons 1934). Both economic sociology and institutional economics thus not only consider the role of formal and informal rules in understanding economic behaviours but also share the principle that the rules are neither set in stone nor definitive; they are the result of collective action and are subject to change (Commons 1934; Smelser and Swedberg, 2005; Lévesque 2006). In this article, we propose to combine these two schools of thought to analyze the way in which SFSCs operate, as economic organizations whose shape and impacts are influenced by interpersonal relationships and the informal and formal rules they contribute to produce and potentially modify.

## Mixed methods developed over time

In 2009, the French Minister of Agriculture set up a working group to officially define SFSCs and structure an action plan for their development. This included the introduction of specific questions on these chains in the National Agricultural Census (which takes place every 10 years), the production of technical and economic reference data by the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA, which became INRAE in 2020), and the allocation of a budget to fund R&D on these channels over several years (€1 million/year).

The first data collected in 2009 laid the foundations for a long-term analysis of SFSCs, both qualitative and quantitative, at the farm level in particular. Table 1 presents the selection of studies which our team and students conducted and which are capitalized on in this article. These studies have been chosen for three reasons: they use mixed methods, are all based on an analysis of the economic functioning of SFSCs on farms while covering different dimensions and scales of sustainability, and value the collaboration between researchers, technical advisers and farmers themselves, as well, in some cases, with salaried SFSC staff, consumers and policy-makers. In all studies, samples cover a wide variety of farmer age, and origin, farm size and age, share of SFSCs in the sales turnover, and location (rural/peri-urban).

It is important to note that the compulsory accounting documents in France are designed to meet administrative obligations rather than for economic analysis, so that they appeared inadequate for the needs of the analytical approach to producing data on SFSC performance, especially when SFSCs only represent a part of the farm's activity (accounting documents aggregate data for all outlets). Moreover, many farmers in SFSCs have a low turnover and are therefore subject to reduced accounting obligations. However, even when accounting data are not available, farmers often have management systems and record their invoices, which makes it possible to reconstruct their accounting.
<table><caption>**Table 1** List of studies conducted in France by our team and capitalized on in this article</caption><thead><tr><th>Study number</th><th>Period</th><th>Scale</th><th>Number of farms / sector</th><th>SFSC types</th><th>Collected economic data</th><th>Sources</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>2009–2010</td><td>National</td><td>207 (market gardening) (focus on 70 representative farms to collect/reconstruct complete data)<br>216 (dairy products) (focus on 70 representative farms to collect/reconstruct complete data)</td><td>All</td><td>Turnover, operating and wage costs, working hours, investments, subsidies, debts, distance for marketing (at the farm level/for the part in SFSCs)</td><td>Capt et al. (2011)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2011–2012</td><td>National</td><td>527 (market gardening, beef and dairy cattle, poultry, pig and sheep farming) (with a focus on 2 sub-samples: farms for which SFSC turnover > 50% total turnover; farms with the lowest turnover in each sector)</td><td>All</td><td>Same data as in study 1</td><td>Morizot-Braud, Gauche (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>2008–2019</td><td>Regional (South of France)</td><td>30 (market gardening, beef cattle, dairy carp, poultry farming)</td><td>All and focus on an open-air market signaling SFSC products with a color code</td><td>Turnover, operating and wage costs (at the farm level), turnover per day, number of regular customers, selling prices (for the open-air market)</td><td>Chiffoleau et al. (2016); Chiffoleau (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>2015–2019</td><td>Regional (South of France)</td><td>104 (market gardening)</td><td>All and focus on direct sales to supermarkets</td><td>% of turnover in SFSCs, selling prices, payment terms</td><td>Millet-Amrani (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>2019</td><td>National</td><td>71 (beef cattle farming)</td><td>All</td><td>Same data as study 1</td><td>CERD, Chambres d'agriculture France (2019)</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>2019, 2021, 2024</td><td>Regional (South of France)</td><td>90 (wheat-bread/pasta)</td><td>All</td><td>Turnover, operating costs, subsidies, selling prices (for SFSCs)</td><td>Chiffoleau et al. (2021); https://www.divinfood.eu</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>2019–2020</td><td>Regional (South-East of France)</td><td>34 (market gardening, beef cattle, poultry, pig, dairy carp and sheep farming)</td><td>All and focus on collective farmer shops</td><td>Turnover, farm expenses (at the farm level/ for SFSCs)</td><td>Lombion et al. (2021)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1 (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><td>Study number</td><td>Period</td><td>Scale</td><td>Number of farms / sector</td><td>SFSC types</td><td>Collected economic data</td><td>Sources</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>8</td><td>2021</td><td>Regional (East of France)</td><td>61 (beef and dairy cattle, poultry, pig farming, market gardening)</td><td>All</td><td>Turnover, operating costs (at the farm level/ for SFSCs)</td><td>CERD (2021)</td></tr></tbody></table>

This is time consuming but enabled our team to analyze the economic activity of all types of farms in SFSCs in studies 1 and 2, and not only of the biggest ones.

In the studies selected here, mixed methods were used to collect both quantitative data on the economic activity in SFSCs (e.g. turnover, operating and wage costs, selling prices, etc.), depending on the study (see Table 1), and qualitative data on farmers' backgrounds, strategies, values, farming practices and their evolution over time, the organisation of work, their cooperation relationships and also the formal and informal rules linked to the different types of SFSCs in which farms are involved. These data were collected from farmers as well as stakeholders in their environment (family members, neighbouring farmers, buyers, etc.), both to consolidate the analysis (following the triangulation method used in qualitative approaches; Olivier de Sardan 2008) and to take into account the impact indicators and processes of SFSCs that were important to them. With regard to the designs for integrating qualitative and quantitative data from mixed methods (Amalki 2016), the qualitative data were thus used along the 'exploratory design', to indicate the important quantitative data to be collected and to help interpret their numerical values ('embedded design').

In the studies capitalized on in this article, we took in account all the SFSCs in which farmers were involved, bearing in mind that a farmer in France generally uses several SFSCs (Barry 2012, 2023). In three studies, certain chains were examined in more detail: i) direct supply to supermarkets (study 4); ii) an open-air market that favors SFSCs and uses a color code to indicate SFSC products to consumers (studies 3 and 4); iii) collective farmer shops, managed by the farmers themselves, with one on duty in the shop every day (study 5).

Study 3 and study 7 used two kinds of innovative methods to complete surveys. In study 3, researchers were involved in the co-creation of the open-air market and its rules, in collaboration with policy-makers, farmers, artisans, retailers, and consumers. This co-creation was both a way to better understand the national regulation that underlies open-air markets in France and to co-develop relevant local rules with local stakeholders. Study 7 used the local multiplier 3 (LM3) method to measure the economic impact of five collective farmer shops. As highlighted in the literature review, this method has attracted interest in recent years for studying the impact of SFSCs on the local economy, and each time its use gives rise to adaptations of the method proposed by the New Economic Foundation (NEF) in 2002. In addition to what has been done in other studies, we have identified not only the geographical area in which the expenditure and re-spending took place but also the types of structure in which the expenditure was made.
# Results

## Going beyond the sales turnover to understand the SFSCs' embedded economy and its impact

The economic results of companies are traditionally assessed by their turnover, which is assumed to be proportional to their size (Gadrey and Jany-Catrice 2005). The studies cited here have sought to cover a wider range of economic data for the part of the farm business involved in SFSCs, from operating and wage costs due to these chains, price setting criteria and mechanisms to the economic conditions under which the chains operate, such as investments, subsidies, and debt, in addition to size and economic and human resources.

Given the purpose of this article, which is to examine more closely the link between the economic dimension of SFSCs and their impacts, it is not our intention to present the precise numerical results of all the studies, as developed in specific publications and reports (see Table 1). In studies 1 and 2, in which the most comprehensive accounting approach could be implemented, the gross operating surplus associated with SFSCs is mostly positive for farms, although there is a high degree of dispersion, as highlighted in the meta-analysis by Chiaverina et al. (2023). However, it takes several years for a farm, often 5 years after starting to sell through SFSCs, to generate this surplus. Moreover, small units have generally little debts and can generate a gross operating surplus as high as that of large units. We are interested here in highlighting certain results that have received less attention in the literature, and which show how the relational embeddedness of these chains shapes their impact.

One of the first interesting results to share concerns the AMAPs, the systems equivalent of the CSAs widely described in Anglo-Saxon countries (Sulistyowati et al. 2023). In France, AMAPs are often developed on a smaller scale, generally bringing together a single producer and around forty families (Lamine and Dubuisson 2007). These systems are strongly embedded in producer–consumer relationships, to the extent that these can be a source of self-exploitation for farmers, who feel obliged to meet the expectations of their customers at the expense of both their quality of life and their economic benefits (Galt 2013). Study 1 confirms this result by showing that hourly income per worker in a production-sales activity in a market gardening AMAP decreases when more than 20 different species are grown (Capt et al. 2011), while consumers may expect a wider diversity of species. Besides, the French press and critics of SFSCs have often commented on the lack of food diversity in AMAPs, particularly in winter. New initiatives in which independent farmers work together to produce a wide range of products—each specializing in a few species—have thus been analyzed in study 2 as interesting in terms of hourly income per worker. Here, embeddedness extends to relationships between farmers, which can weaken links with consumers.

Strong relationships with consumers remain essential, however, as they guarantee a steady supply of cash. Even at a low level, this was highlighted by many farmers in studies 1 to 4 especially, as a determining factor in their quality of life. In contrast to agricultural cooperatives experiencing financial difficulty on long food supply chains and in some cases no longer paying their members, some of the farmers interviewed even stressed the importance of SFSCs, and of this regular cash flow, as a way of regaining their dignity, as already shown in previous work (Chiffoleau 2012). In a sustainability perspective,
as particularly stressed in studies 3 and 4 by farmers who have diversified their outlets
towards SFSCs in recent years, this regular cash flow without payment delay is also a
guaranteed financial resource that facilitates risk-taking in favour of more sustainable
farming practices (Chiffoleau 2019; Millet-Amrani 2020).

In study 5 on the beef farming sector, farmers put an emphasis on the search for greater economic added value over the steady cash flow, which could explain the increase in the rate of on-farm processing (for carcass cutting) between studies 2 (on the beef sector) and 5. The gain in added value remains highly dependent on the distance to the slaughterhouse, nevertheless, taking in account that the logistics costs (transport of products and goods) have been estimated in study 5 at up to 30% of the turnover. In France, the number of local slaughterhouses has been falling for decades, under pressure from health standards and industrial meat lobbies (Riegel and Chartier 2024). Many farmers with strong relationships with informed consumers emphasized that long-distance transport to slaughterhouses is not only a limit in economic terms but also a threat to animal welfare. This issue has motivated French alternative farming organizations to demand the right to slaughter on the farm, which was obtained in 2021 through the right to experiment with mobile slaughter-houses. This has become a European issue as the European Commission has voted in favor of their adoption on 14 December 2023.

The quest for added value also characterizes the farms in SFSCs in the different periods of study 6. Most of these farms are former raw material producers who have developed on-farm cereal processing and direct selling in recent years, notably since the COVID-19 crisis. These farms often use old wheat varieties or minor cereals (e.g. einkorn), which are sought after by informed consumers for their taste and/or digestibility. In these cases, the use of mild processing techniques (sourdough, slow fermentation) not only produces bread and pasta that are interesting from a nutritional point of view (Dapčević-Hadnadev et al. 2022), but also makes the work less arduous (as bread keeps better, it can be produced the day before rather than overnight). On the other hand, due to minimal processing without additives, the texture and taste of these breads and pastas may vary, but strong relationships with consumers enable consumers to understand and accept the heterogeneity of the products (Chiffoleau et al. 2021). Sometimes much more expensive than the industrial products sold in supermarkets, the bread and pasta produced by farmers-bakers can also, according to our price survey in spring 2024, be affordable: 5 to 7 euros per kilo, compared with a traditional 250 g baguette often sold for between 1.10 and 1.30 euros in bakeries, which is a comparable price (while an industrial baguette in a supermarket can be as low as 39 cents). This result illustrates the ‘economy of moderation’ highlighted in economic sociology work on the quality economy (Karpik 1989), to emphasize the behavior of players who charge reasonable prices despite the high quality of their offer. This economy of moderation was also observed in study 4, without threatening the viability of the farm, which has been explained by the optimization of transport costs, for example, or by the self-production of seeds.

Study 7 sheds further light on both the relational embeddedness of SFSCs and their con-
tribution to sustainability in relation to the upstream dimension of inputs. Examination of
the accounts of 31 various farms linked to a collective farmer shop revealed low operating
costs due to the purchase of inputs (fertilizers, plant protection products), and synthetic
products in particular, reflecting agroecological practices. It also showed that 84% to 93%
of farmers' expenditure were made within a 30 km radius of the farmer collective shop, and mainly with very small and small businesses with whom relationships are also often personal, which helps to maintain and circulate economic wealth as well as trust and loyalty in the local area (Lombion et al. 2021).

## From economic rules to sustainability, convergences and divergences between SFSCs

Our analysis of the economic results of SFSCs and their sustainability impact is also based on uncovering the formal and informal rules associated with these chains and the effects these rules have on farms.

We propose highlighting a set of rules put forward in 4 SFSCs in particular: traditional open-air markets, the open-air market co-created through study 3, collective farmer shops and direct supply to supermarkets (Table 2).

The studies reveal that the formal and informal rules differ between the four types of SFSCs, despite some commonalities. One particular point of convergence is that farmers are price-makers in all four chains. This point is often emphasized in the literature as a way for farmers to capture the added value of the product, as well as to reinforce their autonomy (Piccoli et al. 2023). However, studies cited in this article show that it is not that simple, in particular because price setting remains strongly embedded in competition and control relationships with other farmers: setting prices too high can mean losing the outlet, but setting prices too low can be frowned upon by others. In addition, studies 3 and 4 in particular revealed the difficulty farmers have in setting their prices, which are often set in relation to other farmers participating in the same SFSCs and offering approximately the same level of quality (Chiffolleau 2019). In this respect, this mechanism confirms one of the underlying hypotheses of Anglo-Saxon economic sociology, according to which markets are socially constructed through relationships among producers, who observe each other's economic results (White 2002). Ultimately, setting their own prices in SFSCs does not guarantee that prices are fair for farmers and cover the production costs. In particular, the hours of work required to run a SFSC from field to customer are often underestimated by farmers, as shown in particular by studies 1 and 2, which attempted to discuss this very issue with the farmers surveyed. In this sense, the regular provision of cash in SFSCs is not called into question, but price-making does not necessarily constitute an efficient rule for taking risks in farming and, notably, for adopting more ecological practices.

The link between rules and farming practices is nonetheless a major issue, and the comparison of the four SFSCs made possible by the capitalization of the studies sheds major light on this subject. The chain with supermarkets generally differs markedly from the other three chains in that regularity of volume and quality is still the rule, as in long chains. In the case of fruits and vegetables in particular, quality is assessed by the supermarket by the appearance of the product rather than by its taste: the 'zero defect' commercial standard is imposed (Millet-Amrani 2020). According to the farmers interviewed in studies 3 and 4, this means using fertilizers and plant protection products, generally synthetic (i.e. non-organic), to ensure the expected quality or risking refusal of the supply at the farmer's own expense. When interviewed on this subject, supermarket staff emphasized that these expectations of 'perfect' products,
<table><caption>**Table 2** Formal and informal rules highlighted through our studies for four types of SFSCs</caption><thead><tr><th>SFSC type / rules regarding...</th><th>Classical open-air market</th><th>Open-air market in SFSCs</th><th>Collective farmer shops</th><th>Direct supply to supermarkets</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Entry conditions</td><td>According to the French law (Rural code), quota for fruit and vegetable farmers but generally not respected</td><td>Signing of market charter, registration as a professional but small farmers accepted without official status</td><td>Co-optation, signing of shop charter, location within geographical perimeter (&lt; 100 km)</td><td>Criteria generally defined by the local shop (not by the national chain), regularity of volume and quality (esp., zero defect in fruits and vegetables), no formal contract</td></tr><tr><td>Governance (decision-making)</td><td>Officially decision by the local authority, but in practice often by the retailers' union</td><td>Collegial committee made up of the local authority, farmers, artisans, retailers, consumers, local institutions Validation of decisions by the local authority</td><td>Collective management by farmers</td><td>Decision taken by the shop manager or department manager concerned</td></tr><tr><td>Price setting</td><td>Farmers are price-makers but generally aligned with other farmers</td><td>Farmers are price-makers but the committee questions them if the price is too high</td><td>Farmers are price-makers, the consumer price includes a commission to manage the shop (10-30%)</td><td>Farmers are price-makers as their products are loss-leader ones; low shop margin on fruits and vegetables, high on other products</td></tr><tr><td>Management of competition</td><td>None, competition is well perceived by local authorities as supposed to decrease prices</td><td>Small number of farmers (and artisans/ retailers) per product to limit competition</td><td>Small number of farmers (and artisans/ retailers) per product to limit competition</td><td>Small number of farmers supplying the shop but supermarkets put farmers in competition to find the lowest prices</td></tr><tr><td>Promotion of SFSCs</td><td>Nothing particular, open-air markets mix products from SFSCs and long chains</td><td>Color code used to signal products in SFSCs, local or not, but respecting seasonality</td><td>Presence of a farmer every day in the shop</td><td>Photo of farmers in the supermarket (not always corresponding to actual suppliers), in-store entertainment (often compulsory)</td></tr><tr><td>Exclusion conditions</td><td>Non-payment of market stall fees</td><td>Non-respect of the charter</td><td>Non-respect of the charter</td><td>Non-regularity of volume and quality</td></tr></tbody></table>
especially for fruits and vegetables, come from consumers. The consumer associations interviewed later did not confirm zero defect produce as a consumer requirement but admitted that consumers have routines that are difficult to change. Important to note, a collection of narratives that the RMT Alimentation locale organized during the Covid-19 crisis highlighted that some supermarkets removed the commercial zero defect norm to favor direct procurement from local farmers (Chiffoleau et al. 2020). While RMT experts say that most supermarkets have re-established the norm once the crisis has passed, they also acknowledge that farmers have observed greater flexibility on the part of some supermarkets since the crisis, particularly on the part of small supermarkets independent of national chains.

Open-air markets, the co-created market and collective farmer shops, on the other hand, all allow for product heterogeneity, and even promote it as a differentiating factor for the farmer or the product (e.g. the bread and pasta mentioned above). Added to the low level of competition within the chain (in the case of the co-created market and the collective farmer shop), this permission for product heterogeneity eases economic pressure on the farmer and, according to interviewees who changed their farming practices after they entered SFSCs, facilitates the adoption of practices that use fewer synthetic inputs. Two other operating rules of these SFSCs, which contrast with the direct supply to supermarket, were also highlighted as informal rules favoring the adoption of more environmentally-friendly practices, namely repeated contact with the consumer, as opposed to one-off promotional events in the supermarket, and the possibility of interacting with other farmers, including on farming techniques, during governance meetings or before an open-air market begins (as opposed to individual deliveries by farmers to the supermarket) (Chiffoleau 2019). In open-air markets, informal rules are also maintained and expressed through relationships of social pressure and learning from more ecologically advanced peers or from consumers who are well-informed about sustainability or concerned about their food supply. This result confirms the potential of inter-farm cooperation for the agroecological transition in agriculture (Lucas et al. 2019). More largely, it echoes the process of social control among peers described in other types of collegial organisations, as well as of co-learning as a source of innovation in work collectives (Lazega 2000).

In the co-created market, these relationships are strengthened by a specific system decided collectively, which involves the color-coding on the vendors' stands of SFSC products, local or not, but that respect seasonality (Chiffoleau et al. 2016). In contrast with top-down, impersonal quality signs — a characteristic of many eco-labels that may explain their low effectiveness (Yokessa and Marette 2019) —, this system is in line with participatory guarantee systems. More specifically, here, the system combines standard market rules (product labelling) and alternative rules (transparency, local and collective management). Even if the criteria underlying the color code are not very demanding in terms of sustainability, this signage gives economic and social value to vendors' efforts in favor of SFSCs (attracting and building customer loyalty). This in turn encourages farmers, especially, to produce 'better', i.e. in a more environmentally-friendly way, because they believe that this is what consumers expect from a product in SFSC—expectation confirmed at the national level in France in the 2010s (Loisel et al. 2014). Moreover, the color-coding also encourages consumers to ask questions about
production methods, thus increasing their 'soft power' over farmers in favor of transition towards more sustainable farming practices.

# Discussion

## Quantifying the economy of SFSCs to better understand their rules and impacts

The economic dimension of short food supply chains has been the subject of numerous studies questioning whether these chains are an alternative to long distribution chains, and concluding that SFSCs hybridize alternative rules with the standard rules of the dominant markets (Deverre and Lamine 2010; Le Velly 2019; Zollet 2023). Our results confirm this evidence but also go further: it is not so much the debate on the alternative nature or hybridity of SFSCs that interests us here but rather the uncovering of the nature of the SFSC rules that facilitate or block sustainability, in particular environmental sustainability, directly and/or through the relationships that create or maintain these rules. Faced with the asymmetries of power generated by developments towards an industrialised capitalist system, Commons pleaded nearly a century ago in favor of a 'reasonable capitalism' (Commons 1950) in which institutional arrangements would guide the behavior of actors so that they engage in favor of more balanced income distribution criteria. More relevant than ever, this issue is coupled today with requirements to establish what 'reasonable capitalism' could entail on an environmental level (Beau rain et al. 2010). Through their ability to develop alternative formal and informal rules to govern transactions and productive practices, SFSCs contribute to providing innova- tive avenues, confirming their role as drivers of an alternative economy for sustainable development (Galli and Brunori 2013). In the case of the studies capitalized on here, it is particularly the collective governance of the chain and the removal of commercial stand- ards on product appearance that encourage the adoption of more virtuous agricultural practices.

The quantification of costs, prices, regular cash flow, etc. in these studies, even if par- tial and imperfect given the difficulties in obtaining these data, appears to be a very effective way of gaining a better understanding of the economic activity of SFSCs, their formal and informal rules, and their impacts. It is not so much the precise numerical results that are of interest for the analysis as it is the quantification process in which the interviewee is invited to participate, by highlighting his or her own criteria for quanti- fying the performance of his or her activity. As such, this work is in line with research in political economics, which calls for broadening the evaluation of economic activi- ties and taking into account new indicators of wealth (Gadrey and Jany-Catrice 2005), put forward by the economic stakeholders themselves, and the stakeholders in their environment.

Our results also reflect another way of integrating quantitative and qualitative data in an analysis, in which quantitative data generates qualitative data and serves an explana- tory design (Amalki 2016). First, the quantification reveals the blind spots in qualitative descriptions (for example, the origin of inputs in study 7) and second, helps to question the impact of this economic activity. For example, if prices are not quantified, how can we conclude whether or not products are affordable? Mixed methods are now attract- ing interest in the social sciences but are still not widely used to analyze SFSCs (Hel- gheim et al. 2024). However, this quantification must take into account the context of
the activity, including the territorial context, so as to better consider the influence of this context on the economic results and the impacts of the activity (Lamine and Marsden 2023). A farm's location at a long distance from a slaughterhouse, for example, generates costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and harm to animal welfare.

Quantifying the economic functioning of SFSCs thus highlights the logistics domain, in which they are often presented as less efficient than long chains (Paciarotti and Torregiani 2021), calling for further research not only into the organization of the supply chain but also into the territorial context. Quantification also highlights two other areas in which SFSCs can make progress. Firstly, with a view to calculating hourly income per worker, studies 1 and 2 first showed how difficult it is for farmers to estimate all the hours spent on the many activities related to SFSCs, as mentioned above. The attempt at calculation finally reveals a high workload, which has been confirmed in many other studies (Duppé et al. 2025) and calls for further research into the organization of work in SFSCs to consolidate their economy and improve farmers' well-being. Second, while the affordability of SFSC products remains a challenge for low-budget families (Reina-Usuga et al. 2023), studies have not identified, beyond the cases of moderation economies observed in studies 3 and 4, any widely deployed strategies to reduce operating costs. This calls for further exploration of innovative SFSC business models (Cirone et al. 2023) to find new trade-offs between decent remuneration for farmers and access for all to their products. This line of research is taking on a new dimension in Europe, as numerous experiments in France are using SFSCs to develop new systems for accessing healthy, local products, with the help of membership fees and subsidies from local authorities, and are thereby inspiring other European countries (Akermann 2025). The capitalization of the studies presented here also has limitations that open the way to a broader programme of research.

## Limitations of the research and call for further work on diverse economies

The work presented here has several limitations. Although all the studies selected involved members of the co-author team and contained at least quantified economic analysis of the chains at the farm level, the surveys did not all have the same objective so that not all the dimensions addressed here were necessarily explored in each one. Utilizing the same survey grid for all the studies could have led to nuances in the analysis proposed here. In addition, capitalizing on studies carried out since 2009 enables us to take a step back and identify constant elements and variations over time, but every year farmers are subject to constraints linked to the weather, prices on international markets, decisions by elected representatives in their area or nationally, etc., which inevitably have an impact on their business. Here, these cyclical effects are smoothed out over time, even if, for example, the COVID-19 crisis has undoubtedly had an impact, not only on supermarket strategies but also on the increased competition between farms in SFSCs (Chiffoleau et al. 2020). This calls to better include these conjectural factors in future research, which may, for example, explain why farmers in study 8, when interviewed about their link with ecology, emphasized reducing waste and deposit refunds, which were not mentioned in studies 1 and 2.

Taking context into account when analyzing the economy, rules and impacts of SFSCs paves the way for a broader international research programme including the scaling up
of SFSCs and new competition around ‘local food’. The implementation of local food policies in the Global North, encouraged in France since the Loi d’avenir pour l’agriculture of 2014 and especially since the COVID-19 crisis (post-crisis economic recovery plan followed by funding for ‘food sovereignty’ strategies), is leading to the development of chains that are longer than SFSCs (i.e. with more economic intermediaries, according to the French definition) but regional, particularly for school canteens procurement. In some cases, these supply chains correspond to the scaling up of SFSCs, initially supported by groups of independent small-scale farmers, who together forge new relationships with a processor or a logistical platform, for example. The change of scale thus supports the positioning of SFSCs in the international trend towards food relocation, while strengthening cooperation which enables them to compete with larger operators in the markets. The latter can be cooperatives or agri-food companies that had previously been selling exclusively on long-distance, non-local channels. A number of studies in the Global North have focused on these actors developing ‘mid-tier value chains’ or ‘middle food systems’ (Le Velly et al. 2020), which give opportunities to medium-scale farms, which are too big for direct sales but too small to reach industrial economies of scale, to access regional quality-based markets (Lev and Stevenson 2011).

On the one hand, these studies showed how some of these mid-tier value chains manage to combine economic objectives with social and/or environmental values, thus structuring ‘values-based chains’ (Fleury et al. 2016; Ostrom et al. 2018). On the other hand, other studies have emphasized the limited capacity of some of these regional mid-tier chains to change the rules of agricultural sectors, thus questioning their impacts (Corade et al. 2022). In the last decade, SFSCs and values-based chains must compete with ‘local food’ from mid-tier chains resulting from the relocation of long chains without any changes to the standard rules concerning governance or product appearance (Guibert et al. 2022).

In addition to economic sociology and old institutional economics, and with the help of economic quantification, the contributions of the diverse economies framework could help scholars to gain a better understanding of the positions of the stakeholders who build, maintain or change the rules on transactions, work, property, business and the market (Gibson-Graham and Dombroski 2020) that are developing both in SFSCs and in these mid-tier chains that blur the boundaries between short and long chains. This analysis is important not only for public policy-makers, funders, advisers, but also for the general public, who may find it difficult to understand how the economy is evolving with the multiplication of nested markets (van der Ploeg et al. 2012). The contribution of the diverse economy framework is also to encourage a reflexive return to the role of research and the performative impact of economic studies researchers carried out in collaboration with the actors in the diversification of the economy from SFSCs (Gibson-Graham 2008), echoing the idea of an ‘other’ economy defined more by its rules and practices than by its borders (Laville and Cattani 2005).
## Conclusion

The contribution of short food supply chains to sustainable food systems has been the subject of an abundant literature but mainly through qualitative approaches, often focusing on one of the dimensions of sustainability. In this article, we start from the idea that SFSCs are first and foremost economic activities and that their impact differs according to the concrete economy they shape. Capitalizing on several studies developed since 2009 in France using mixed methods sheds light on this new analytical perspective. SFSCs constitute spaces for experimenting with original forms of coordination between supply chain actors and between producers and consumers, through the definition and use of governance mechanisms for which the logic of economic performance is not necessarily the predominant benchmark. On the contrary, the conventions that guide coordination also mobilize value systems in which social and environmental dimensions matter, and in which transaction mechanisms are not reduced to the application of formal contracts or the agreement on an exchange price.

Finally, the capitalization of studies has also made it possible to identify several good practices in the operation of SFSCs, that are now being discussed within several European projects.<fnref n="3" /> For instance, the color-coding signalling SFSC products from farmers, as well as from artisans and retailers sourcing directly from farmers, was considered an interesting good practice. Firstly, in addition to farmers, it also promotes small-scale intermediaries who often feel excluded from SFSCs. Secondly, the color code system facilitates consumers' switch to 'truly' and seasonal local food, while facilitating their participation into food system governance. Cooperation between farmers to share product ranges, the benefits of which have been quantified here, is also a practice that has attracted interest within European discussion networks, not least because it has managerial implications for farmers who would like to start a business in SFSCs. As it is difficult to generate income in the first few years of SFSC activity, specializing at the outset in a few productions while cooperating with other farmers to offer ranges that meet consumer expectations can accelerate the transition to profitability. By encouraging peer relationships, economic activity thus increases the social impact tenfold, but cooperation must be desired and organized by farmers, while the resale of colleagues' products must be transparent so as not to undermine consumer confidence. These few examples of managerial implications show not only the complexity but also the specificity of the embedded alternative economy that is being built through SFSCs.

## Abbreviations

AMAP Association pour le maintien d'une agriculture paysanne

CSA Community-supported agriculture

INRA French National Institute for Agricultural Research

INRAE French National Institute of Research for Agriculture, Food and Environment

LM3 Local multiplier 3

NEF New economic foundation

RMT Réseau mixte technologique

SFSC Short food supply chain

<footnote n="3">³ The DIVINFOOD project, which supports the co-construction of short and mid-tier food chains valuing cultivated biodiversity (https://divinfood.eu), the COREnet project, which aims to develop a European network of advisors on short food supply chains (https://shortfoodchain.eu/), and the SWITCH project, which explores, in different EU regions, innovative strategies and technologies to facilitate the transition towards healthy and sustainable diets among EU citizens (https://switchdiet.eu/).</footnote>
## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to once again thank all the farmers and other stakeholders who agreed to be interviewed during the course of the studies capitalized on here and who participated in the production of scientific knowledge, in line with a participatory research approach. They also warmly thank and congratulate 2 of their PhD students who collected data during their PhD: Agnès Bellec-Gauche and Sarah Millet-Amrani (authors included in the references). Finally, they would like to thank Shannon Harvey for her assistance with the English editing of this article.

## Author contributions

YC contributed to conceptualization, formal analysis and writing; FW, PP contributed to resources, writing and editing; LC and FMB contributed to resources and editing.

## Funding

The studies summarized in this article received support from the Compte d'affection spécial pour le développement agricole et rural (Casdar) managed by the French Ministry of Agriculture and Food Sovereignty, as well as from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Grant Agreement n°101000383 (Project DIVINFOOD). This article was written with the help of a grant from the French government managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche as part of the France 2030 programme, under the reference ANR-23-PESA-005. The discussion of good practices presented in this article has been supported by the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under the grand agreements 101060905 (Project COREnet) and 101060483 (Project SWITCH).

## Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed in this article are not publicly available due to the European General Data Personal Regulation (GDPR), but are available in anonymized and aggregated form from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

## Declarations

### Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article.

Received: 14 October 2024 Revised: 12 June 2025 Accepted: 3 September 2025

Published online: 14 October 2025

## References

* Akermann G (2025) Expérimerent la sécurité sociale de l'alimentation. Cah Nutr Diet 60(2):81-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnd.2025.03.003

* Amalki S (2016) Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods —challenges and benefits. Res J Edu Learn 5(3):288-296. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n3p288

* Arfini F, Mancini MC (2018) Synergies between localized agri-food systems and short supply chains for geographical indications in Italy. In: Kalfagianni A, Skordili S (eds) Localizing global food: short food supply chains as responses to agri-food system challenges. Routledge, London

* Aubert M (2015) The determinants of selling through a short food supply chains: an application to the French case. Journées Rech. en Sci. Soc. 9

* Barry C (2012) Un producteur sur cinq vend en circuit court. Agreste Primeur 275.

* Barry C (2023) Près d'une exploitation sur quatre vend en circuit court. Agreste Primeur 5.

* Beaurain C, Maillefert M, Petit O (2010) Capitalisme raisonnable et développement durable : quels apports possibles à partir de l'institutionnalisme de John R. Commons ? Interventions économiques 42.

* Boutry O, Ferru M (2016) Apports de la méthode mixte pour une analyse globale de la durabilité des circuits courts. Dév Durable Territoires. https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.11336

* Brives H, Heinisch C, Désolé M, Chazoule C, Vandenbroucke P (2020) Le développement de filières locales est-il gage d'une écologisation des pratiques agricoles ? Développement Durable Et Territoires 11:1. https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.16546

* Brune S, Knollenberg W, Barbieri C, Stevenson K (2023) Towards a unified definition of local food. J Rural Stud 103:103135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103135

* Brunori G, Galli F, Barjolle D, Van Broekhuizen R, Colombo L, Giampietro M, Kirwan J, Lang T, Mathijs E, Maye D et al (2016) Are local food chains more sustainable than global food chains? Considerations for assessment. Sustainability 8(5):449. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050449

* Capt D, Chiffoleau Y, Gauche A, Gervreau G, Leseigneur A et al (2011) Elaboration d'un référentiel technico-économique dans le domaine des circuits courts de commercialisation. Partie 1: Cadre d'analyse, méthodologie et synthèse des résultats légumes et produits laitiers en circuits courts. Rapport de recherche pour le Ministère de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l'Aménagement du territoire

* CERD, Chambres d'agriculture France (2019) Produire, transformer et commercialiser de la viande bovine en circuits courts. Paris, Chambres d'Agriculture France

* CERD (2021) Emballages et circuits courts. Référentiel Diversifier. CERD, Moulins-Engilbert

* Cesaro L, Dries L, Ihle R, Marongiu S, Peerlings J, Poetschki K, Schioppa A (2020) Impact of farmer's engagement in food quality schemes and short food supply chains on farm performance. Luxembourg, European Union

* Charatsari C, Kitsios F, Lioutas ED (2020) Short food supply chains: the link between participation and farmers' competencies. Renew Agric Food Syst 35(6):643-652. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000309
Charatsari C, Lioutas ED, Michailidis A, Aidonis D. De Rosa M, Partialidou M et al (2023) Facets of value emerging through the operation of short food supply chains. NJAS: Impact Agric Life Sci. https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2023.2236961

Chiaverina P, Drogué S, Jacquet F, Lev L, King R (2023) Does short food supply chain participation improve farm economic performance? A Meta-Anal Agric Econ 54(3):400–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12764

Chiffoleau Y (2009) From politics to co-operation: the dynamics of embeddedness in alternative food supply chains. Sociol Ruralis 49(3):218–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00491.x

Chiffoleau Y (2012) Circuits courts alimentaires dynamiques relationnelles et lutte contre l'exclusion en agriculture. Economie rurale 332:88–101. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.3596

Chiffoleau Y, Millet-Amrani S, Canard A (2016) From short food supply chains to sustainable agriculture in urban food systems: food democracy as a vector of transition. Agri 6(4):57. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6040057

Chiffoleau Y (2019) Les circuits courts alimentaires, entre marché et innovation sociale. Erès, Toulouse

Chiffoleau Y, Dourian T (2020) Sustainable food supply chains: is shortening the answer? A literature review for a research and innovation agenda. Sustainability 12(23):9831. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239831

Chiffoleau Y, Darrot C, Maréchal G (eds) (2020) Manger au temps du coronavirus. Enquête sur nos systèmes alimentaires. Editions Apogée, Rennes

Chiffoleau Y, Echchatbi A, Rod J, Gey J, Akermann G, Desclaux D, Jard G, Kessari M, Moinet K, Peres J, Robin MH, Samson MF (2021) Quand l'innovation sociale réoriente l'innovation technologique dans les systèmes agroalimentaires: le cas des chaînes locales autour des blés. Innov 64(1):41–63. https://doi.org/10.3917/inno.pr2.0095

Cirone F, Masotti M, Prosperi P, Bosi S, Dinelli G, Vittuari M (2023) Business strategy pathways for short food supply chains: sharing value between consumers and producers. Sustain Prod Consum 40:458–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.07.017

Commons JR (1934) Institutional economics. Macmillan, New York

Commons JR (1950) The economics of collective action. University of Wisconsin.

Corade N, Lemarié-Boutry M, Pérès S, Smith A (2022) Circuits courts de proximité: une proposition de pluralisme agricole et alimentaire. Cah Géogr Qué 67(187):23–36. https://doi.org/10.7202/1112467ar

Dapčević-Hadnađev T, Stupar A, Stevanović D, Škrobot D, Maravić N, Tomić J, Hadnađev M (2022) Ancient wheat varieties and sourdough fermentation as a tool to increase bioaccessibility of phenolics and antioxidant capacity of bread. Foods 9 11(24):3985. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11243985

Dedinger P, Parant M-F, Ory X (2021) Les produits locaux. CGAAER, Rapport n°20074, Paris.

Devere C, Lamine C (2010) Les systèmes agroalimentaires alternatifs. Une revue de travaux anglophones en sciences sociales. Econ Rur 317:57–73. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.2676

Dupé P, Dedieu B, Gasselin P, Ollivier G (2025) The work of farmers in short food supply chains: systematic literature review and research agenda. PLoS ONE 20(6):e0314175. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314175

Filippini R, Arfini F, Baldi L, Donati M (2023) Economic impact of short food supply chains: a case study in Parma (Italy). Sustainability 15(15):11557. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511557

Fleury P, Lev L, Brives H, Chazoule C, Désolé M (2016) Developing mid-tier supply chains (France) and values-based food supply chains (USA): a comparison of motivations, achievements, barriers and limitations. Agriculture (Basel) 6(3):36. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6030036

Gadrey J, Jany-Catrice F (2005) Les nouveaux indicateurs de richesse. La Découverte, Paris

Galli F, Bartolini F, Brunori G, Colombo L, Gava O, Grando S, Marescotti A (2015) Sustainability assessment of food supply chains: an application to local and global bread in Italy. Agric Food Econ 3:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-015-0039-0

Galli F, Brunori G (eds) (2013) Short Food Supply Chains as drivers of sustainable development. Evidence Document. Document developed in the framework of the FP7 project FOODLINKS (GA No. 265287). Laboratorio di studi rurali Sismondi, ISBN 978–88–90896–01–9.

Galt RE (2013) The moral economy is a double-edged sword: explaining farmers' earnings and self-exploitation in community-supported agriculture. Econ Geogr 89(4):341–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecge.12015

Gibson-Graham JK (2008) Diverse economies: performative practices for ‘other worlds’: Prog Hum Geogr 32(5):613–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132508090821

Gibson-Graham JK, Dombroski K (eds) (2020) The handbook of diverse economies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA

Goodman D (2003) The quality ‘turn’ and alternative food practices: reflections and agenda. J Rural Stud 19(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00043-8

Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91(3):481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311

Guibert C, Frayssignes J, Pouzenc M (2022) Diversité des filières longues et dynamiques de transition des systèmes agroalimentaires dans les territoires : le cas des légumineuses en région Occitanie. Géocarrefour. https://doi.org/10.4000/geocarrefour.20613

Helgheim Bl, van der Linden N, Teryokhin S (2024) Economic sustainability of local food producers: a mixed methods study. Front Sustain Food Syst 8:1342373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1342373

Hinrichs CC (2000) Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. J Rural Stud 16(3):295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00063-7

Holloway L, Kneafsey M, Venn L, Cox R, Dowler E, Tuomainen H (2007) Possible food economies: a methodological framework for exploring food production–consumption relationships. Sociol Ruralis 47(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00427.x

Jia F, Shahzadi G, Bourlakis M, John A (2023) Promoting resilient and sustainable food systems: A systematic literature review on short food supply chains. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140364

Karpik L (1989) L'économie de la qualité. Rev Fr Sociol 30(2):187–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/3321761

Keech D, Milford AB, Gillund F, Reed M (2023) Strategies and business models used by short-chain food enterprises marketing in Oslo (Norway) and Bristol (UK). Eur Countrys 15:149–166. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2023-0008
Kłoczko-Gajewska A, Malak-Rawlikowska A, Majewski E, Wilkinson A, Gorton M, Tocco B, Wąs A, Saïd M, Török Á, Veneziani M (2024) What are the economic impacts of short food supply chains? A local multiplier effect (LM3) evaluation. Eur Urban Reg Stud 31(3):281–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764231201572

Kneafsey M, Venn L, Schmutz U, Balázs B, Trenchard L, Eyden-Wood T, Bos E, Sutton G, Blackett M (2013) Short food supply chains and local food systems in the EU. A state of play of their socio-economic characteristics. JRC Sci Policy Rep. https://doi.org/10.2791/88784

Kneafsey M, Anderson H, Bartolini M, Carel D, Carrasco Sánchez R, Carroll D, Chiffoleau Y, Christensen E, Collison M, Faes van Hecke A, Hažić V, Jochum C, Krol M, Kujáni K, Locatelli M, Marechal G, Ohvril T, Ozola L, Pasgang P, Serafin R, Van der Schans J (2015) EIP-AGRI Focus Group Innovative Short Food Supply Chain management. Final report. European Commission, Brussels, 80 p.

Lamine C, Dubuisson-Quellier S (2007) Les AMAP : faire son marché autrement. Problèmes Économiques 293:1–3–9

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(47):e2206231120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206231120

Laville J-L, Cattani A (eds) (2005) Dictionnaire de l'autre économie. Desclée de Brouwer, Paris

Lazega E (2000) Rule enforcement among peers: a lateral control regime. Organ Stud 21(1):193–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840600211003

Le Velly R (2019) Allowing for the projective dimension of agency in analysing alternative food networks. Sociol Ruralis 59(1):2–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12217

Le Velly R, Dufeu I (2016) Alternative food networks as “market agencements”: exploring their multiple hybridities. J Rural Stud 43:173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrstud.2015.11.015

Le Velly R, Désolé M, Chazoule C (2020) Reprendre la main sur le marché : la construction de circuits intermédiés innovants pour la viande bovine. Revue Française De Socio-Economie 24:129–147. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfse.024.0129

Lev L, Stevenson GW (2011) Acting collectively to develop mid-scale food value chains. J Agric Food Syst Commun Dev 1:119–128. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.014.014

Lévesque B (2006) La sociologie économique : genèse, actualité et évaluation. Revue Interventions Économiques. https://doi.org/10.4000/interventionseconomiques.737

Loconto A, Hatanaka M (2018) Participatory guarantee systems: alternative ways of defining, measuring and assessing ‘sustainability’. Sociol Rural 58:412–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12187

Loiseau E, Colin M, Alaphilippe A, Coste G, Roux P (2020) To what extent are short food supply chains (SFSCs) environmentally friendly? Application to French apple distribution using life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 276:124166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124166

Loisel JP, François M, Chiffoleau Y, Herault-Fournier C, Sirieix L, Costa S (2014) La consommation alimentaire en circuits courts. Gret, Paris

Lombion J, Collewet L, Chiffoleau Y, Vandenbulcke M (2021) Impact économique des magasins de producteurs en Luberon. Rapport de recherche, INRAE, Trame. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03727242

Lucas V, Gasselin P, Van Der Ploeg JD (2019) Local inter-farm cooperation: a hidden potential for the agroecological transition in northern agricultures. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 43:145–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1509168

Malak-Rawlikowska A, Majewski E, Wąs A, Borgen SO, Csillag P, Donati M, Freeman R, Hoàng V, Lecoeur JL, Mancini MC et al (2019) Measuring the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of short food supply chains. Sustainability 11(15):4004. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154004

Marsden T, Banks J, Bristow G (2000) Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in rural development. Sociol Ruralis 40:424–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00158

Mikulić D, Lovrinčević Ž, Keček D (2023) Economic effects of food supply chain re-localization on the Croatian economy. Agric Food Econ 11(1):36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-023-00281-8

Millet-Amrani S (2020) Nouveaux marchés, nouvelles pratiques ? Le rôle des circuits courts dans l'écologisation des pratiques agricoles. Thèse de doctorat en économie, Université Montpellier 1/Institut Agro, Montpellier, France

Morizot-Braud F, Gauche A (2016) Références sur les circuits courts de commercialisation (RCC). Innov agron 49:59–68. https://doi.org/10.15454/1.4622760419837153E12

Mundler P, Jean-Gagnon J (2020) Short food supply chains, labor productivity and fair earnings: an impossible equation? Renew Agric Food Syst 35(6):697–709. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000358

Ninnin P, Lemeilleur S (2024) Common property regimes in participatory guarantee systems (PGS): sharing responsibility in the collective management of organic labels. Glob Environ Chang 86:102856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102856

Olivier de Sardan JP (2008) La rigueur du qualitatif. Les contraintes empiriques de l'interprétation socio-anthropologique. Academia-Bruylant, Louvain-La-Neuve.

Ostrom M, De Master K, Noe E, Schermer M (2018) Values-based food chains from a transatlantic perspective: Exploring a middle tier of agri-food system development. Int J Soc Agric Food. https://doi.org/10.48416/ijjsaf.v24i1.112

Paciarotti C, Torregiani F (2021) The logistics of the short food supply chain: a literature review. Sustain Prod Consum 26:428–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.002

Perrin C, Lacquement G (2023) Initiatives et politiques alimentaires territoriales : de nouvelles relations villes-campagnes ? Ann Geogr 749(1–2):5–13. https://doi.org/10.3917/ag.749.0005

Petruzelli M, Ihle R, Colitti S, Vittuari M (2023) The role of short food supply chains in advancing the global agenda for sustainable food systems transitions. Cities 141:104496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.02.001

Piccoli A, Vittori F, Uleri F (2023) Unmaking capitalism through community empowerment: findings from Italian agricultural experiences. J Rural Stud 101:103064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrstud.2023.103064

Polanyi K (1944) The great transformation. Farrar & Rinehart, New York

Raftowicz M, Solarz K, Dradrach A (2024) Short food supply chains as a practical implication of sustainable development ideas. Sustainability 16(7):2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072910
Reina-Usuga L, Parra-López C, de Haro-Giménez T, Carmona-Torres C (2023) Sustainability assessment of territorial short food supply chains versus large-scale food distribution: the case of Colombia and Spain. Land Use Policy 126:106529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106529

Renting H, Marsden TK, Banks J (2003) Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role short food supply chains in rural development. Environ Plan 35:393–411. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3510

Riegel J, Chartier A (2024) Des éleveurs et éleveuses dans l'abattoir : un commun de travail aux effets systémiques. Revue De L'Organisation Responsable 19(2):37–55. https://doi.org/10.3917/ror.192.0037

Rodet D (2012) Des dispositifs de jugement pour et par les consommateurs ? Les systèmes participatifs de garantie du commerce équitable, de l'agriculture biologique et des Amap. Revue Française De Socio-Économie 2(10):199–217. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfse.010.0199

Rouget N, Lescureux F, Letniowska-Swiat S, Schmitt G, Heude J, Pfirsch T (2016) Innover pour nourrir la ville : comment un intermédiaire de la grande distribution renouvelle la pratique des circuits courts (O'Tera dans le Nord-Pas-de-Calais). Ann Geogr 712:642–665. https://doi.org/10.3917/ag.712.0642

Rucabado-Palomar T, Cuéllar-Padilla M (2020) Short food supply chains for local food: a difficult path. Renew Agric Food Syst 35(2):182–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174217051800039X

Sacks J. (2003) The Money Trail: Measuring Your Impact on the Local Economy Using LM3. New Economics Foundation.

Sage C (2003) Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’ networks in south-west Ireland. J Rural Stud 19(1):47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00044-X

Schlich E, Fleissner U (2005) The ecology of scale: assessment of regional energy turnover and comparison with global food. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:219–223. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.09.180.9

Smelser NJ, Swedberg R (2005) The Handbook of Economic Sociology, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ

Sonnino S (2007) The power of place: embeddedness and local food systems in Italy and the UK. Anthropol Food S2. https://doi.org/10.4000/aof.454

Sulistyowati CA, Afiff SA, Baiquni M, Siscawati M (2023) Challenges and potential solutions in developing community supported agriculture: a literature review. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 47(6):834–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2023.2187002

Testa R, Galati A, Schifani G, Crescimanno M, Trapani AMD, Migliore G (2020) Are alternative food networks winning strategies to increase organic SMEs profitability? Evidence from a case study. Int J Globalisation Small Bus 11(1):65–82. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2020.105583

Thomé KM, Cappellesso G, Ramos ELA, de Lima Duarte SC (2021) Food supply chains and short food supply chains: Coexistence conceptual framework. J Clean Prod 278:123207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123207

UNIDO (2020) Short Food Supply Chains for Promoting Local Food on Local Markets. United Nations Ind. Dev. Organ. 1–56.

Vaillant L, Gonçalves A, Raton G, Blanquart C (2017) Transport et logistique des circuits courts alimentaires de proximité : la diversité des trajectoires d'innovation. Innovations 54:123–147. https://doi.org/10.3917/inno.pr1.0018

van der Ploeg JD, Jingzhong Y, Schneider S (2012) Rural development through the construction of new, nested, markets: comparative perspectives from China, Brazil and the European Union. J Peasant Stud 39(1):133–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.652619

Vittersø G, Torjusen H, Laitala K, Tocco B, Biasini B, Csillag P, de Labarre MD, Lecoeur J-L, Maj A, Majewski E, Malak-Rawlikowska A, Menozzi D, Török A, Wavresky P (2019) Short food supply chains and their contributions to sustainability: participants’ views and perceptions from 12 European cases. Sustainability 11:4800. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174800

White HC (2002) Markets from networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Socioeconomic models of production
Yokessa M, Marette SS (2019) A review of eco-labels and their economic impact. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 13(1-
2):119–163. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000107

Zollet S (2023) Hybrid food networks and sustainability transitions: shared and contested values and practices in food re-localisation and re-socialisation. Sociol Ruralis 63(1):117–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12391

**Publisher’s Note**

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