Next Article in Journal
A Hybrid Modeling Approach for Estimating the Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticide Drift in Sangamon County, Illinois
Next Article in Special Issue
Long-Time Assessment of the Organic Farmer’s Market in Granada (Spain)
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Blockchain on the Administrative Efficiency of Provincial Governments Based on the Data Envelopment Analysis–Tobit Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Local Wild Food Plants and Food Products in a Multi-Cultural Region: An Exploratory Study among Diverse Ethnic Groups in Bessarabia, Southern Moldova
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 7
10.3390/su16072910
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Short Food Supply Chains as a Practical Implication of Sustainable Development Ideas

by
Magdalena Raftowicz
1,
Krzysztof Solarz
2,* and
Agnieszka Dradrach
3
1
Institute of Spatial Management, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, 50-357 Wrocław, Poland
2
Doctoral School, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, 50-357 Wrocław, Poland
3
Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, 50-357 Wrocław, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(7), 2910; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072910
Submission received: 13 February 2024 / Revised: 18 March 2024 / Accepted: 28 March 2024 / Published: 30 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Sustainable Food Systems—Local and Alternative Solutions for Global Challenges)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The subject of this article is the issue of short food supply chains. The research problem formulated in the paper aims to address whether short food supply chains ensure the sustainable development of rural areas and whether they are being displaced by longer chains for narrowly defined economic reasons. The research was conducted based on a critical analysis of literature on short food supply chains and statistical data. The findings of the research indicate that short food supply chains are a necessary condition for the sustainable development of rural areas. Unfortunately, there is a conflict between the pursuit of narrowly defined economic efficiency of farms and the preservation of the social potential of rural areas, which stems from the fact that the principle of price competition does not favor the development of local supply markets, especially when it comes to high-quality food.

1. Introduction

Analyzing the literature on the subject and tracking current socio-economic trends and political challenges, it can be argued that sustainable development is currently threatened. This is due, among other factors, to rapid economic growth initiated by the industrial revolution, which began in the 18th century. On the one hand, this revolution has acted as a driving force for the economic development of nations, but on the other hand, it has contributed to overloading the natural environmental systems of our planet, which has intensified since the end of the 20th century. This is evidenced by the continuously increasing environmental pollution and excessive consumption of natural resources, both renewable and non-renewable. The global climate crisis is a result of, among other things, climate change, loss of biodiversity, excessive agricultural land use, water consumption, ocean acidification, and depletion of the ozone layer [1]. Additionally, the European Commission adds to this list deforestation, burning of fossil fuels, and livestock farming. Concerns are also raised about the scale of global resource waste, including food, as well as the growing deficit of resources (both renewable and non-renewable) due to excessive consumption [2].
The changing conditions of management have particularly severe consequences in agriculture and the food economy. The ongoing processes of globalization and land and capital concentration, which have resulted in the entry of large retail chains and discount stores demanding goods with standardized characteristics in large quantities, have, on the one hand, forced the modernization of rural areas, but on the other hand, have largely deprived them of their proper traditions and local character. Competition from large monoculture-focused farms and the dominance of global networks in the agri-food sector have put small farms in a difficult situation, unable to increase their productivity. This has led to a radical change in agriculture from a “peasant model” to a “mega-enterprise” farm. The intensive and concentrated agriculture that dominates in Europe and the United States today cannot be considered a sustainable model because it forces farmers to change their approach to nature.
Although industrial agriculture has many advantages, primarily increased productivity, its criticism most often concerns economic (due to the monopolization of production by a group of large, specialized farms, which can lead to price increases), environmental (depletion and pollution of soils and water, reduction of biodiversity in crop ecosystems), and socio-cultural aspects (decrease in the number of small farms leading to the disappearance of the traditional rural landscape).
Industrial agriculture with extended supply chains primarily focuses on measurable parameters such as efficiency, productivity, and financial surplus on the farm. Its main assumptions are centralization of activities, high competition, and dominance over nature. The negative consequences of concentration and industrialization of agriculture include the gradual disappearance of low-input farms producing high-quality food in line with the principles of sustainable development. Faced with such processes, new solutions are sought to stabilize the socio-economic situation in rural areas, especially those that ensure stable and continuous cooperation between farmers and consumers. Such a model is characteristic of short food supply chains.
The main goals of the paper are to systematize knowledge about short food supply chains and to examine the impact of short food supply chains on sustainable development. The research problem formulated in the paper is to answer the question of whether short food supply chains ensure the sustainable development of rural areas and whether short food supply chains are displaced by long chains for narrowly defined economic reasons.
The goals formulated in this manner shaped the structure of the article. Section 2 presents the literature review concerning SFSCs, while Section 3 outlines the materials and methods. The main part of the article is Section 4, which describes the results of the research and the discussion, divided into three parts focusing on the impact of SFSCs on economic, environmental, and social aspects. The final Section 5 summarizes the considerations.
The paper complements a research gap regarding the cognitive aspects of sustainable development related to the issue of short food supply chains.

2. Literature Review

In agriculture, since the dawn of civilization and throughout nearly 99% of human history, meeting food needs occurred in a traditional manner, through direct contact between producer and consumer [3]. The first descriptions of short food supply chains date back to antiquity when local farmers gathered at Roman agoras to sell their goods [4]. As K. Polanyi notes: “The typical local market on which housewives depend for some of their needs, and growers of grain or vegetables as well as local craftsmen offer their wares for sale, shows as to its form indifference to time and place. Gatherings of this kind are not only fairly general in primitive societies, but remain almost unchanged right up to the middle of the eighteenth century in the most advanced countries of Western Europe” [5].
Only the era of the commercial revolution, resulting from state interventionism, disrupted this order. Over the subsequent centuries, the development of the market economy led to enormous socio-economic changes. This was also influenced by geographic discoveries, which permanently altered international trade and thus contributed to the lengthening of supply chains. Division of labor and continuous technological progress, as well as the development of transportation, also contributed to the weakening of local markets. With the onset of the agricultural revolution in the 19th century, the significance of sales in short food supply chains steadily declined [6].
The culmination of this change occurred in the post-World War II period when direct sales of agricultural products, especially in highly developed countries, began to gradually disappear. Starting from the 1960s, the structure of food supply chains also began to change. With the beginning of the 21st century, as processes of land and capital concentration intensified, coupled with the mechanization and specialization of agriculture, and the popularity of hypermarkets and supermarkets, direct sales from producers practically vanished from the market, giving way to long food supply chains [7].
Research on the issues of short food supply chains was reintroduced in the late 20th century in the United Kingdom with the emergence of the concept of alternative food chains. The resurgence of the concept of short food supply chains in the 21st century was mainly driven by the crisis of the industrial agriculture model and the negative external effects (economic, social, and environmental) generated by conventional (extended) food supply systems, as well as the limited control of farmers over these chains [8].
As early as 1997, T.K. Marsden, A. Flynn, and M. Harrison [9] described changing consumer attitudes and their interest in food quality criteria, leading to intense competition among corporate retailers in the food market who developed hierarchical market positioning strategies reflecting the socio-economic and locational characteristics of different consumer groups.
Analyzing the literature from the last two decades, from 2000 to 2018, 157 articles on short food supply chains were published in international JCR journals [10], whereas in 2024, there were already 1261 articles on this topic in the WoS database [11].
Short food supply chains are most commonly referred to as small-scale, short, traditional, fair, transparent, and socially responsible, with established prestige of food producers and association with sustainable development. However, there is a lack of a coherent approach to precisely defining the descriptors of short food supply chains, hence their systematization seems necessary with a division into elements:
  • quantitative, which primarily emphasizes the number of links in the chain or the distance between the buyer and the seller [12,13,14,15],
  • qualitative, which focuses on building common values and trust in quality and/or environmental sustainability as well as organizational and cultural trade conditions [16,17].
Most researchers studying short food supply chains agree that the number of intermediaries and the distance between producers and consumers are not the only factors defining such supply chains [18]. Therefore, definitions that are both quantitative and qualitative most accurately capture the essence of short food supply chains.
Hence, it can be assumed, following A. Malak-Rawlikowska, that short food supply chains denote a distribution model based on three types of “proximity” occurring between participants in the trade exchange. These proximities are: physical, organizational, and social [19]. In the case of physical proximity, it concerns the element of local sales to limit transportation (measured in food miles). Organizational proximity relates to the number of links in the chain. The ideal situation occurs when there are direct sales or a maximum of one link, excluding retail networks. Meanwhile, social proximity is based on the assumption that interpersonal relationships determine these businesses (and vice versa) [20].
However, this definition does not fully capture the essence of short food supply chains. It is about emphasizing the economic, social, and natural aspects in short food supply chains, which reflects the concept of sustainable development, understood as meeting the economic, social, and environmental needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs [21].
According to B. Fiedor [22], this concept of sustainable development is simultaneously a theoretical, practical, normative category and a new socio-philosophical idea, which consists in defining or revising the current way of understanding the relationship between man (society), the natural environment, and the economy.
Unfortunately, as M. Strus and M. Raftowicz [23] rightly prove, the current sustainable development paradigm is not an alternative to the neoclassical paradigm, since it is only an extension of the existing paradigm, with the addition of a new development goal, namely the preservation of the ecosystem’s sustainability and supporting a new market based on the purchase and sale emission allowances and rights to the natural environment.
Therefore, short food supply chains should be identified with the process of delivering agricultural and food products while respecting the principles of sustainable development, which is based on three types of proximity: (1) physical, (2) organizational, and (3) social [7]. Nevertheless, this requires defining the sine qua non conditions for such an exchange. Physical proximity means local sales while organizational proximity involves the reduction of the number of links (there may be a maximum of one link in direct sales, but excluding retail networks operating in multiple geographically dispersed locations). Social proximity is necessary to ensure constant, ongoing, and up-to-date communication of knowledge between the producer and the consumer (based on trust), including information about the source of the product. From this perspective, effective direct communication provides the opportunity to acquire knowledge about the producer and the origin of the product. This is because consumers can see and appreciate the history associated with the product, which enhances the value of the goods and fosters long-term loyalty to the products. An advantage of direct communication for the producer is the ability to receive quick feedback regarding consumer satisfaction with the product or service. The differences between long and short supply chains in the context of sustainable development are presented in Table 1.

3. Materials and Methods

The research was conducted based on a critical analysis of literature regarding short food supply chains and statistical data from the World Resources Institute, European Parliament, European Commission, ADEME (available online), and Ministry of Agriculture in Poland.
The scope of the literature review primarily focused on articles published in the Web of Science database, covering the years 2000–2021, with keywords related to “short food supply chains” or “SFSC”, supplemented with selected items from Polish and French literature.
The selection process involved choosing only those articles that addressed the issue of sustainable development.
Critical literature assessment was employed in the research, involving a thorough understanding, evaluation, and interpretation of information in the context of the economic, environmental, and social benefits of short food supply chains.
Deduction, induction, and reduction methods were adopted in interpreting the results. Deduction is understood as a process of logical inference in which conclusions are drawn from general assumptions or theories. Induction is interpreted as a process of logical inference in which general principles are drawn based on observation and analysis of specific cases or data. Reduction is defined as a process of analysis in which complex phenomena are simplified to examine elements.
The research problems formulated in the study were to answer the questions of (1) whether short food supply chains ensure sustainable development in rural areas, (2) whether short food supply chains are displaced by long chains for narrowly defined economic reasons.

4. Results and Discussion

The literature research has shown that the implementation of the short food supply chain model has an impact on sustainable development. Below, a detailed analysis of the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of rural areas is presented.

4.1. Economic Aspects

With regard to economic aspects, analysis of the literature suggests that operating within short food supply chains primarily leads to positive income growth for farmers, optimization of organizational forms (by reducing or limiting intermediaries), and improvement in work and product quality.
These findings are supported by studies conducted under the direction of S. Martinez [24], B. Tundys [25], and A. Kawecka and M. Gębarowski [26]. They have shown that short food supply chains, which typically involve small and medium-sized farms, offer an opportunity to increase farmers’ income through further processing and fuller utilization of the farm’s potential, such as through agrotourism ventures.
Additionally, short food supply chains have a positive impact on employment growth [27]. According to statistics, a farm selling through short food supply chains employs an average of 2.2 persons, whereas in long chains, the average is 1.4. Although producers aim to reduce labor costs through high concentration and mechanization of production, selling through short food supply chains requires additional activities such as packaging or processing products, which involves more people in the operation. Estimates conducted in the United Kingdom show that if 20% of the land were converted to organic farming in the country (as opposed to entirely agroecological), it could create as many as 73,200 jobs [28]. The difference is most noticeable in farms producing and selling wine: 4.7 annual labor units compared to 2.9 in long chains [29].
A similar example was analyzed in Quebec, where farms created an average of 4 full-time jobs per farm compared to the average of 2.5 full-time jobs [30], and in France, 0.75 full-time equivalents per hectare compared to 0.26 [29]. However, as emphasized by Y. Chiffoleau and T. Dourian [10], these calculations did not take into account the number of direct or indirect jobs created or maintained at the chain level or in a given territorial unit (e.g., activities related to agrotourism). The authors also draw attention to the fact that, considering the economic conditions of short food supply chain development, the quality of work should also be taken into account. For example, the occurrence of a high risk of “self-exploitation” has often been emphasized in community-supported agriculture (CSA) farms [31], due to the heavy workload on the farm owner and their associates, as well as the pressure exerted on farmers by consumers themselves.
Short food supply chains also influence the emergence of new agricultural holdings, especially small ones, where diversification of activities beyond the family circle takes place, without inheriting land [25]. The choice of such a business strategy is driven by the fact that entrepreneurs creating short food supply chains often possess different competencies than traditional farmers, and therefore they can establish closer relationships with customers [32].
Short food supply chains also positively impact product quality improvement, for example, by eliminating the preservation process (pasteurization, etc.), which consequently contributes to reducing the final product price [33]. Research by P. Mundler and S. Laughrea has shown that selling in short food supply chains has led to a decrease in prices of consumer-directed products by as much as 12% over 3 years [34]. According to B. Tundys [25], consumers in short food supply chains are more aware of their choices. Additionally, they have relatively broad knowledge about the essence and necessity of implementing sustainable development principles in practice, as well as being aware of changes occurring in local food production markets and the importance of consuming healthy and high-quality products [35].
On the demand side, it is noteworthy that consumers purchasing products within short food supply chains are revaluing their shopping attitudes from pro-quantity to pro-quality, allowing consumers to make new food value assessments based on their own knowledge, experience, or the image of a particular region, oriented towards traditions [36].
Research conducted by H. Renting, T.K. Marsden, and J. Banks [37] has demonstrated that in France, Italy, and Germany, there are sufficient synergies between various rural development practices to significantly enhance the value of local production systems, such as regional quality production and direct sales, which are based on long-standing cultural and gastronomic traditions. This suggests that shortening food supply chains, to some extent, leads to the emergence of new market connections founded on innovative forms of collaboration, including institutional partnerships. As a result, shortened food supply chains have the potential to create a lasting and meaningful impact on the development of rural areas within agricultural regions.
However, these potential economic benefits do not encourage widespread interest in this form of distribution by economic entities. Farmers often view participation in short food supply chains with skepticism because they do not see an opportunity for improving the competitive position of their farms in this cooperation model. The statement above, combined with the belief in the existence of strong financial and organizational barriers, effectively discourages their participation in this model [38]. There are several reasons for this state of affairs. Firstly, income growth resulting from the transition to short food supply chains may be difficult to assess because many small-scale farmers do not keep cost records. As demonstrated by K. Prymon [39], for example, in Poland (which is ranked third in the European Union in terms of agricultural area after France and Spain), there is currently no reliable, uniform system for calculating agricultural income, especially for small-scale farmers.
Secondly, according to Y. Chiffoleau and T. Dourian [10], farms operating in short food supply chains do indeed achieve higher incomes compared to those operating solely in long chains, but this is dependent on time, i.e., at least 5–7 years after the start of their operations. French studies have also shown that income growth in short food supply chains depends on the ability and willingness to engage in joint initiatives with other producers, such as collective farmers’ shops, community-supported agriculture (CSA), farmers’ markets, public (collective) procurement, etc.
In the analysis of the economic conditions of short food supply chains, it is also worth noting the presence of local market competition, the degree of specialization towards organic food (which has a stronger brand in the market), and the level of imposed margin, which is related to the issue of determining a fair price [40]. This is because it is extremely difficult for farmers to set prices for their products higher than market prices, as prices still play a significant role in the average consumer’s purchase decisions. This is also associated with a high risk of conducting business if producers’ offerings do not generate interest among actual (not just potential) consumers. Furthermore, it should also be remembered that higher seasonal profits from selling products in short food supply chains do not always offset the higher initial investment costs [41].
Research led by V. Todorovic [42] in Serbia has shown that distribution models in short food supply chains are usually very costly, especially for deliveries to less populated areas requiring long transportation distances and when “cold chain” conditions are required. This means that the development potential of short food supply chains can be seen in the utilization of innovative, intelligent logistic solutions based on new information and communication technologies such as third party logistics (3PL), home delivery services, and crowdsourcing. According to researchers, one of the most challenging areas of managing the model of short food supply chains is logistics (transportation and distribution). The main concerns related to this also include small shipment sizes and production capacities, limited technical and financial resources, and high logistic costs of transportation companies, which impose relatively high service prices [43].
Technological conditions in short food supply chains are related to the necessity of having appropriate innovative logistic solutions within food delivery systems that comply with contemporary logistic trends (digitization, eco-transport, improved delivery flexibility, responsiveness to customer demand, etc.). Such systems must also take into account the specificity of the context of locally distributed food (individualism, niche markets), especially in rapidly changing areas like technology in agriculture [44]. An example is blockchain technology, which is used to store and transmit online information about food transactions. According to many researchers, it may play an important role in the traceability and assessment of food ingredients and products [45].
A similar conclusion was reached by a team of researchers led by T. Rucabado-Palomar [16], who analyzed short food supply chains in the province of Malaga, Spain. The research showed that key elements that can enhance the potential of short food supply chains include having appropriate logistic infrastructure, which varies depending on the type (especially when dealing with seasonal products) and quantity of the sold product, the necessity of its processing, storage conditions, distribution points, and relationships with consumers.
Additionally, producers must have flexible, dynamic logistic infrastructure at their disposal, allowing them to sell their products (especially for seasonal fresh food) and smoothly adapt to market conditions. The solution to this problem can be found in implementing a cooperation model (as the most important determinant of the development of short food supply chains), which should be based on:
  • resource, infrastructure, and logistic sharing, leading to cost reduction, improved efficiency, and broader channels,
  • expanding the range of offered products and mitigating production seasonality by selling products from other farms, acting as intermediaries, or through product exchange,
  • adopting a collaborative approach and cooperating with the administration on legislative issues,
  • exchanging best practices.
It seems highly likely that creating convenient legislative solutions combined with financial incentives for collaborating farmers within operational groups would automatically catalyze the process of transitioning farmers to short food supply chain systems. An example illustrating this thesis is Poland, where since 2017, the Polish legal system has allowed agricultural producers to legally sell their products within short supply chains. Figures from the end of 2021 indicate an increased interest among farmers in sales methods based on short food supply chains, as presented in Table 2.
Extensive research on the economic aspects of the development of short food supply chains in 15 countries was conducted by S. Jarzębowski, M. Bourlakis, and A. Bezat-Jarzębowska [48]. They showed that the development of short food supply chains can be more stable if numerous barriers, mainly of an economic nature, are overcome, including:
  • difficulties in obtaining funds for investment in new technologies,
  • lack of specialized knowledge (IT, accounting, marketing, branding), market access issues,
  • lack of accessible technical support, unreliable distribution,
  • weak organization of farmers/producers compared to the professionalism expected by hotels,
  • inadequate transportation,
  • low level of customer service.

4.2. Environmental Aspects

Short food supply chains also have positive environmental implications. It is worth agreeing with J. Bertrand [49] that food production primarily serves as a sensitive gauge of environmental cleanliness. An exemplification of this thesis in the case of short food supply chains is the reduction of unnecessary packaging usage or the decrease in pollution due to the elimination of extended transportation (food miles), consideration of external effects of actions, recovery of unused resources, or eco-friendly investments.
As statistics show, global annual food losses amount to 1.3 billion tons, equivalent to 1.5 quadrillion calories. The largest food losses by weight concern fruits and vegetables (44%), roots and tubers (20%), and cereals (19%) [50]. The greatest food waste occurs in Asia, North America, and Europe, i.e., highly developed countries. On the consumption side, North America and Oceania dominate (61%), followed by Europe (52%) and the industrialized part of Asia (46%). However, food storage losses are also alarming, reaching up to 37% in South and Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, and trade and distribution losses reaching even 18% in North Africa and Western and Central Asia. The highest processing losses occur in North America and Oceania (9%) [51].
The unresolved issue of agricultural waste remains a significant concern, as it consumes vast amounts of resources such as water and contributes to the emission of gigatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, implicating both global food security and ecological safety. Food production accounts for approximately 10% of the world’s energy consumption (including usage and waste), while food waste contributes to an annual emission of 3.5 gigatons of CO2 equivalents. Additionally, 170 million tons of CO2 are emitted annually due to the production and disposal of food waste [52].
Reduction of food waste can be achieved, among other ways, through the consumption of local products. Trade in fresh products with shorter shelf lives, moderate packaging usage, flexible packaging sizes, and more conscious consumer behavior can contribute to reducing the carbon footprint. Food production also contributes to excessive water consumption (70% of withdrawals), deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and disruption of the global phosphorus and nitrogen cycles (approximately 30% contribution to soil acidification and approximately 80% contribution to water eutrophication).
Statistics show that, currently, 40% of ice-free land on Earth is used for agriculture, with almost 90% used for food production and the remainder for growing crops for biofuels and textiles [53]. Animal husbandry (per unit of mass) utilizes far more resources (land, water, fertilizers) than crop cultivation. For example, from 1 hectare of cropland, an average of 250 kg of protein can be obtained annually from wheat, while from 1 hectare of pasture, only 10 kg of protein from beef can be obtained. This is a classic example of the Pareto effect because about 80% of the world’s arable land dedicated to meat production yields only 20% of the calories consumed by humans [54], raising questions about the optimization of sustainable development goals, which so far have been dominated by the particular economic benefits of a narrow business group.
Unfortunately, large-scale monoculture farming depletes arable land and requires greater amounts of chemical pesticides. Consequently, industrial agriculture, despite significantly increasing its productivity, contributes to permanent soil erosion and water pollution. Statistics indicate that nearly 2 billion hectares of land worldwide are affected by soil degradation, accounting for 15% of the world’s arable land [55]. Global losses caused by soil erosion amount to 75 billion tons of crops and cost approximately USD 400 billion [56], exacerbating the issue of access to clean water resources.
Therefore, the positive impact of short food supply chains on the environment can also be associated with [44]:
  • Reduction in resource consumption (such as fossil fuels or packaging), limiting food waste, and conserving food,
  • Promoting less polluting production methods (e.g., organic farming),
  • Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint,
  • Decreasing energy consumption,
  • Cutting down on transportation and food miles.
Research conducted in the state of Iowa, USA, showed that a 10% increase in local food purchases would reduce harmful gas emissions in that state by over 3500 tons annually. Similarly, studies in Japan confirmed that consuming locally produced products would result in 20% energy savings for each household [57].
However, as noted by D. Gallaud and B. Laperche [58], it is the mode of production that has a greater impact on the environment than strictly the local character of production. Therefore, it is essential for changes in technological processes to reduce the negative impact on nature. For example, greenhouse vegetable production has a greater negative environmental impact than the production of field vegetables imported from elsewhere [59]. Hence, promoting the consumption of seasonal agricultural products is a crucial element in implementing the short food supply chain model.
However, as rightly pointed out by C. Aubry and Y. Chiffoleau [60], shortening supply chains is not a guarantee of sustainable development per se. Nonetheless, this idea has the potential to become an alternative that goes beyond a simple profit maximization model and aims to strengthen local interactions between food producers and consumers.
Nevertheless, significant differences can be observed in the approach to short food supply chains depending on the level of economic development of the country and ecological awareness. For instance, in Southern European countries, the approach to food quality is primarily shaped by culture, traditions, region, and climate. In Central and Eastern European countries, food quality is linked to the revitalization of rural areas’ traditions after years of collectivization. Meanwhile, in Northern and Western European countries, these criteria often relate to environmental sustainability or animal welfare [61].

4.3. Social Aspects

Short food supply chains also have a positive impact on the social sphere, and according to some researchers, this is their primary function [62]. For example, according to D. Gallaud and B. Laperche [58], short food supply chains represent a specific form of social innovation that arises from the social needs of consumers. In this context, short food supply chains can be defined as a form of economic exchange that creates social bonds, fostering cooperation (citizens, public administration, farms), transparency, and fairness among exchange participants [50]. Such forms of cooperation can contribute to deeper social transformations. This is because through short supply chains, trust and loyalty between buyers and sellers can be strengthened, thereby enhancing social capital and corporate social responsibility. Moreover, shortening links in the distribution of agricultural goods integrates two spheres—responsible consumption and cooperation—as new, desirable forms of relationships between producer and consumer.
Y. Chiffoleau [63] also analyzes short food supply chains from the perspective of “weak” or “strong” social innovation, depending on the specificity of regions. The author points out a peculiar co-evolution currently taking place in France’s economic development models, including political institutions and producer–consumer relations. Weak social innovations are especially observed in times of crises, when manifestations of economic patriotism or populism are observed. Short food supply chains act as accelerators for developing strong social innovations, which build attitudes of cooperation and reciprocity.
In the social dimension, important elements of the development of short food supply chains that positively impact this sphere include [48]:
  • Promoting more direct relationships between producers and consumers,
  • Increasing trust in the value chain,
  • Supporting social integration,
  • Revitalizing local communities,
  • Contributing to rural development (especially in marginal areas),
  • Stimulating a sense of community, conducting social education,
  • Strengthening the position of consumers and producers in the supply chain,
  • Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle.
According to Hungarian researchers [64], a significant problem in transitioning to the model of short food supply chains is also the reluctance of farmers to change their habits. The results of their research showed that nearly 60% of farmers in Hungary who participate in conventional, long chains sell their products exclusively through this channel and do not respond to potentially existing financial incentives offered by short food supply chains. This is because potential higher profits would require technological investments, which often evoke resistance, fear of change, and risk-taking. Producers also face problems related to tensions arising from making collective decisions within cooperation. This is due, among other things, to socio-cultural conditions (lack of participatory traditions, passive or selfish attitudes of some members, envy, competition, mistrust) and differences in the effect of production scale.
Therefore, it is often difficult to resolve the dilemma of whether the smallest entity in the chain should have the same influence on cooperation decisions as the largest entity. Unfortunately, few agricultural producers have soft skills such as emotional management in a group, resolving group conflicts, and communication skills [16].
Research by C. Charatsari, F. Kitsiosa, and E. Lioutas [65] showed that the positive or negative self-assessment by a farmer regarding their social competencies is a determining factor in their willingness to participate in short supply chains. This determinant is so strong that even the vision of potential economic benefits resulting from participation in direct sales (as empirically demonstrated in the literature [19]) does not influence the willingness to participate in this form of distribution. It can be inferred from this that the developmental potential of short food supply chains is not solely dependent on the expected profits from this activity but on the readiness and openness to change.
G. Belletti and A. Marescotti [66] demonstrate that even if we accurately calculate the market potential of short food supply chains, translating this into the real market is extremely difficult due to the existence of problems related to mobilizing and organizing chain participants, i.e., local producers and consumers, as well as external entities (both private and public) that could provide technical and financial assistance, visibility and public support, and finally, effective communication and promotion of initiatives. Farmers are convinced that consumers are still insufficiently motivated to permanently switch to short food supply chains [58].
The socio-cultural barriers outlined can be overcome with the aid of suitable institutional support aimed at enhancing social capital in rural areas. National or EU regulations, particularly those concerning taxation, environment, health, and veterinary standards, serve as direct stimuli for the advancement of short supply chains. To ensure the success of this endeavor, it is imperative to actively involve governmental institutions in promoting initiatives aimed at shortening food supply chains, particularly at the local level. Local governments can play a pivotal role in fostering the development of short food supply chains [67].

5. Conclusions

Based on the conducted research, it can be concluded that short food supply chains are one area where the practical implications of sustainable development principles are being sought, effectively combining economic justification, cultural conditions, social acceptance, and environmental friendliness.
The short food supply chain model goes beyond the neoclassical profit maximization model and emphasizes the development of the local food sector, fostering close relationships based on trust and communication between seller and buyer, while simultaneously reducing environmentally unfriendly long-distance transportation.
In contrast to long chains, which have so far displaced local sales from the market due to narrowly defined efficiency and profits for producers and consumers, short supply chains provide a more sustainable development of rural areas by internalizing the external costs of the global food market.
In environmental terms, they positively impact, among other things, the reduction of natural resource consumption, food waste reduction, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon footprint.
In the social dimension, they positively influence, among other things, increasing trust in the value chain, supporting social integration, stimulating a sense of community, and strengthening the position of the consumer and producer in the supply chain.
The conclusions drawn from the above considerations can be summarized into a general conclusion that short food supply chains are a necessary condition for sustainable development of rural areas.
Regrettably, we are currently witnessing unsustainable development in food supply chains. This is evidenced by the conflict between the pursuit of narrowly defined economic efficiency in farming and the preservation of the social potential of rural areas. This conflict arises from the fact that the principle of price competition does not support the development of local supply markets, especially for high-quality food. Consequently, enhancing the economic efficiency of farms often requires expanding cultivation areas and concentrating land, which epitomizes industrial agriculture and elongated food supply chains. One manifestation of this imbalance is the prevailing form of food distribution, which relies on long supply chains. There exists a feedback loop between land concentration, production, and the elongation of food supply chains.
The limitation of the study is the reliance predominantly on articles in English and the Web of Science database as well as the absence of empirical data collected directly from primary sources.
Future research on short food supply chains could benefit from exploring the diverse range of supply chain models across different geographical contexts and food sectors. By doing so, researchers could identify best practices and adaptations suitable for implementing sustainable development under varying conditions.
A practical aspect of the discussed issue is the possibility of using research results by agricultural ministries and agricultural advisory services to create policies consistent with the idea of sustainable development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.R. and K.S.; methodology, M.R. and K.S.; formal analysis, M.R. and K.S.; resources, M.R. and K.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R. and K.S.; writing—review and editing, M.R., K.S. and A.D.; supervision, M.R. and A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences (Order No. 159/2022, 27 September 2022) for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Raftowicz, M. The Climate Crisis as a Product of Globalization. SHS Web Conf. 2021, 06029, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. European Commission. Causes of Climate Change. Available online: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/causes-climate-change_en (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  3. Chaturvedi, A.; Armstrong, B.; Chaturvedi, R. Securing the food supply chain: Understanding complex interdependence through agent-based simulation. Health Technol. 2014, 4, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Holleran, C. Shopping in Ancient Rome: The Retail Trade in the Late Republic and the Principate; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Polanyi, K. The Great Transformation, The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time; Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1957; p. 66. [Google Scholar]
  6. Allaire, G.; Boyer, R. La Grande Transformation de L’agriculture; Inra-Economica: Paris, France, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  7. Raftowicz, M. Uwarunkowania Rozwoju Krótkich Łańcuchów Dostaw Żywności [Conditions for the Development of Short Food Supply Chains]; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego we Wrocławiu: Wrocław, Poland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  8. van der Ploeg, J.D.; Frouws, J. On Power and Weakness, Capacity and Impotence: Rigidity and Flexibility in Food Chains. Int. Plan. Stud. 1999, 4, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Marsden, T.K.; Flynn, A.; Harrison, M. Creating competitive space: Exploring the social and political maintenance of retail power. Environ. Plan. A 1997, 30, 481–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chiffoleau, Y.; Dourian, T. Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Is Shortening the Answer? A Literature Review for a Research and Innovation Agenda. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Web of Science. Available online: https://clarivate.com/ (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  12. Maréchal, G. Les Circuits Courts Alimentaires—Bien Manger Dans Les Territoires; Educargi Editions: Dijon, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  13. Charatsari, C.; Kitsios, F.; Stafyla, A.; Aidonis, D.; Lioutas, E.D. Antecedents of farmers’ willingness to participate in short food supply chains. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2317–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abatekassa, G.; Peterson, H.C. Market access for local food through the conventional food supply chain. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2011, 14, 41–60. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jones, P.; Comfort, D.; Hillier, D. A case study of local food and its routes to market in the UK. Br. Food J. 2004, 106, 328–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rucabado-Palomar, T.; Cuéllar-Padilla, M. Short food supply chains for local food: A difficult path. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2020, 35, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bryła, P. Regional Ethnocentrism on the Food Market as a Pattern of Sustainable Consumption. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Marsden, T.; Banks, J.; Bristow, G. Food supply chain approaches: Exploring their role in rural development. Sociol. Rural. 2000, 40, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Majewski, E.; Wąs, A.; Borgen, S.O.; Csillag, P.; Donati, M.; Freeman, R.; Hoàng, V.; Lecoeur, J.-L.; Mancini, M.C.; et al. Measuring the Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability of Short Food Supply Chains. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Uzzi, B. Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness. Adm. Sci. Q. 1997, 42, 35–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. United Nations. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. 1987. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  22. Fiedor, B. Trwały rozwój a koncepcja społecznej gospodarki rynkowej [Sustainable development and the concept of social market economy]. Pr. Nauk. Uniw. Ekon. We Wrocławiu Res. Pap. Wroc. Univ. Econ. Bus. 2011, 225, 13–29. [Google Scholar]
  23. Struś, M.; Raftowicz, M. The sustainable development paradigm versus land concentration processes. Ruch Praw. Ekon. I Socjol. Poznań J. Law Econ. Sociol. 2023, 85, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Martinez, S.; Hand, M.; Da Pra, M.; Pollack, S.; Ralston, K.; Smith, T.; Vogel, S.; Clarke, S.; Lohr, L.; Low, S.; et al. Local Food Systems Concepts, Impacts, and Issues; MPRA Paper; University Library of Munich: Munich, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tundys, B. Krótki łańcuch dostaw produktów spożywczych (SFSC)—Ujęcie teoretyczne i praktyczne [Short food supply chain (SFSC)—Theoretical and practical approach]. Stud. Ekon. Zesz. Nauk. Uniw. Ekon. W Katowicach Econ. Stud. Sci. J. Univ. Econ. Katow. 2015, 249, 94–110. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kawecka, A.; Gębarowski, M. Krótkie łańcuchy dostaw żywności—Korzyści dla konsumentów i producentów żywności [Short food supply chains—Benefits for consumers and food producers]. J. Agribus. Rural. Dev. 2015, 3, 459–466. [Google Scholar]
  27. Capt, D.; Wavresky, P. Vers un développement des circuits courts dans le domaine alimentaire en France? Importance, localisation et caractéristiques des producteurs. In Proceedings of the 5èmes Journées des Recherches en Sciences Sociales à AgroSup, Dijon, France, 8–9 December 2011. [Google Scholar]
  28. Patel, R. The Value of Nothing; Portobello: London, UK, 2009; pp. 163–171. [Google Scholar]
  29. Barry, C. Un Producteur Sur Cinq Vend en Circuit Court. Agreste Primeurs 2012, 275. Available online: http://sg-proxy02.maaf.ate.info/IMG/pdf_primeur275.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  30. Mundler, P.; Jean-Gagnon, J. Short food supply chains, labor productivity and fair earnings: An impossible equation? Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2019, 35, 697–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Galt, R.E. The moral economy is a double-edged sword: Explaining farmers’ earnings and self-exploitation in community-supported agriculture. Econ. Geogr. 2013, 89, 341–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mundler, P. Viabilité et pérennité des « petites fermes »: Enseignements tirés de deux projets de recherche. Le Courrier de L’environnement de l’INRA. 2011. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265806564_Viabilite_et_perennite_des_petites_fermes_Enseignements_tires_de_deux_projets_de_recherche (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  33. Jarzębowski, S.; Bezat, N. Zarządzanie krótkimi łańcuchami dostaw [Management of short supply chains]. Przemysł Spożywczy Food Ind. 2018, 72, 44. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mundler, P.; Laughrea, S. Les circuits courts font pousser les cheveux. Une revue critiques de la littérature sur le rôle des circuits de proximité dans la durabilité du système alimentaire. In Construire les Proximités Dan Sun Monde Global; Enjeux Territoriaux, Organisationnels et Sociétaux: Tours, France, 2015; Available online: https://asrdlf.org/pdf/PDFeve864CN2.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  35. Raftowicz, M.; Kalisiak-Mędelska, M.; Struś, M. The Implementation of CSA Model in Aquaculture Management in Poland. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hełdak, M.; Kurt Konakoğlu, S.S.; Kurtyka-Marcak, I.; Raszka, B.; Kurdoğlu, B.C. Visitors’ Perceptions towards Traditional and Regional Products in Trabzon (Turkey) and Podhale (Poland). Sustainability 2020, 12, 2362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Renting, H.; Marsden, T.K.; Banks, J. Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Struś, M.; Kalisiak-Mędelska, M.; Nadolny, M.; Kachniarz, M.; Raftowicz, M. Community-Supported Agriculture as a Perspective Model for the Development of Small Agricultural Holding in the Region. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Prymon, K. Determinanty i Kierunki Rozwoju Rachunkowości Rolniczej [Determinants and Directions of Development of Agricultural Accounting]; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego we Wrocławiu: Wrocław, Poland, 2019; p. 140. [Google Scholar]
  40. Prévost, B. Échanges alimentaires et juste prix: Un détour par l’histoire de la pensée économique pour alimenter un débat contemporain. L’Homme Et La Société 2012, 1, 35–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dufour, A.; Hérault-Fournier, C.; Lanciano, E.; Pennec, N. L’herbe Est-Elle Plus Verte Dans le Panier? Satisfaction au Travail et Intégration Professionnelle de Maraîchers Qui Commercialisent Sous Forme de Paniers. 2010. Available online: https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/haljournl/halshs-00521474.htm (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  42. Todorovic, V.; Maslaric, M.; Bojic, S.; Jokic, M.; Mircetic, D.; Nikolicic, S. Solutions for More Sustainable Distribution in the Short Food Supply Chains. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Maslaric, M.; Nikolicic, S.; Mircetic, D.; Velickovic, M. A roadmap towards improving portfolio of logistics service providers with the aim of creating sustainable short food supply chains. In Proceedings of the International May Conference on Strategic Management-IMKSM 2016, Bor, Serbia, 28–30 May 2016; pp. 196–204. [Google Scholar]
  44. Fragomeli, R.; Annunziata, A.; Punzo, G. Promoting the Transition towards Agriculture 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review on Drivers and Barriers. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dey, S.; Saha, S.; Singh, A.K.; McDonald-Maier, K. FoodSQRBlock: Digitizing Food Production and the Supply Chain with Blockchain and QR Code in the Cloud. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Produkcja i Sprzedaż Żywności w Zakładach o Małej Skali Produkcji w Świetle Obowiązujących Rozwiązań Prawnych [Production and Sale of Food in Small-Scale Production Plants in the Light of Applicable Legal Solutions]; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Poland: Warsaw, Poland, 2019.
  47. Wymagania z Zakresu Bezpieczeństwa Żywności Dla Zakładów Prowadzących Działalność MLO, RHD, SB, z Uwzględnieniem Reguły Elastyczności [Food Safety Requirements for Plants Operating MLO, RHD, SB, Taking into Account the Flexibility Rule]; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Poland: Warsaw, Poland, 2021.
  48. Jarzębowski, S.; Bourlakis, M.; Bezat-Jarzębowska, A. Short Food Supply Chains (SFSC) as Local and Sustainable Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bertrandt, J. Bezpieczeństwo żywności [Food safety]. In Bezpieczeństwo Wewnętrzne Państwa. Wybrane Zagadnienia [Internal Security of the State. Selected Issues]; Sulowski, S., Brzeziński, M., Eds.; Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa: Warsaw, Poland, 2009; p. 314. [Google Scholar]
  50. Les Circuits Courts Économiques et Solidaires, Janvier 2015. Available online: https://www.lelabo-ess.org/circuits-courts-economiques-et-solidaires-cces (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  51. World Resources Institute. 2013–2014, Report Creating a Sustainable Food Future: Interim Findings, Reducing Food Loss and Waste. 2013. Available online: https://www.wri.org/research/creating-sustainable-food-future-interim-findings (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  52. European Parliament. Food Waste: The Problem in the EU in Numbers. 2017. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20170505STO73528/food-waste-the-problem-in-the-eu-in-numbers-infographic (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  53. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; Wood, A.; DeClerck, F.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2018, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018, 360, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wiebe, K. Linking Land Quality, Agricultural Productivity, and Food Security. 2003. Available online: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/522187/aer823_1_.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  56. Pimentel, D. Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2006, 8, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Maxwell, D.; Levin, C.; Csete, J. Does Urban Agriculture Help Prevent Malnutrition? Evidence from Kampala. Food Policy 1998, 5, 411–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gallaud, D.; Laperche, B. Economie Circulaire et Dévelopment Durable, Écologie Industrielle et Circuits Courts; ISTE Editions: London, UK, 2016; Volume 5, p. 83. [Google Scholar]
  59. ADEME. 2012. Available online: https://www.ademe.fr/ (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  60. Aubry, C.; Chiffoleau, Y. Le développement des circuits courts et l’agriculture périurbaine: Histoire, évolution en cours et questions actuelles. Innov. Agron. 2009, 5, 53–67. [Google Scholar]
  61. Evola, R.S.; Peira, G.; Varese, E.; Bonadonna, A.; Vesce, E. Short Food Supply Chains in Europe: Scientific Research Directions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kneafsey, M.; Venn, L.; Schmutz, U.; Balázs, B.; Trenchard, L.; Eyden-Wood, T.; Bos, E.; Sutton, G.; Blackett, M. Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of Their Socio-Economic Characteristics. 2013. Available online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC80420 (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  63. Chiffoleau, Y. Les Circuits Courts Alimentaires. Entre Marché et Innovation Sociale; Édition Érès: Toulouse, France, 2019; p. 23. [Google Scholar]
  64. Benedek, Z.; Fertő, I.; Adrienn, M. Off to market: But which one? Understanding the participation of small-scale farmers in short food supply chains—A Hungarian case study. Agric. Hum. Values 2018, 35, 383–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Charatsari, C.; Kitsios, F.; Lioutas, E. Short food supply chains: The link between participation and farmers’ competencies. Renewable Agriculture and Food. Systems 2019, 35, 643–652. [Google Scholar]
  66. Belletti, G.; Marescotti, A. Short Food Supply Chain for Promoting Local Food on Local Markets. UNIDO. 2020, p. 45. Available online: https://suster.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/SHORT-FOOD-SUPPLY-CHAINS.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2024).
  67. Solarz, K.; Raftowicz, M.; Kachniarz, M.; Dradrach, A. Back to Locality? Demand Potential Analysis for Short Food Supply Chains. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3641. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Short and Long Supply Chains in the Context of Sustainable Development.
Table 1. Short and Long Supply Chains in the Context of Sustainable Development.
Long Food Supply ChainsShort Food Supply Chains
Physical proximityThe distance from the place of production to the place of sale occurs in geographically dispersed locations (over 100 km on average).Local sales.
Organizational proximityThere are two or more links between the producer and the consumer, sales take place through logistics centers and large-scale chains.There may be a maximum of one sales link between the producer and the consumer, but excluding retail chains operating in many geographically dispersed locations (reduction of the number of links).
Social proximityThere is no current and up-to-date communication between the producer and the consumer.There is constant, ongoing, and up-to-date communication of knowledge between the producer and the consumer.
Impact on sustainable developmentNegative.Positive.
Source: own elaboration based on [7].
Table 2. Participation of farmers in short food supply chains in Poland from 2019–2021.
Table 2. Participation of farmers in short food supply chains in Poland from 2019–2021.
Legal Forms of Short Food Supply Chains in Poland20192021
Agricultural retailing under the supervision of Veterinary Inspection468812,059
Agricultural retailing under the supervision of State Sanitary Inspection60412,059
Marginal, local, and limited activity21132230
Direct sales11,26714,361
Source: authors’ compilation based on [46,47].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Raftowicz, M.; Solarz, K.; Dradrach, A. Short Food Supply Chains as a Practical Implication of Sustainable Development Ideas. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072910

AMA Style

Raftowicz M, Solarz K, Dradrach A. Short Food Supply Chains as a Practical Implication of Sustainable Development Ideas. Sustainability. 2024; 16(7):2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072910

Chicago/Turabian Style

Raftowicz, Magdalena, Krzysztof Solarz, and Agnieszka Dradrach. 2024. "Short Food Supply Chains as a Practical Implication of Sustainable Development Ideas" Sustainability 16, no. 7: 2910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072910

APA Style

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

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop