Understanding collaboration in short food supply chains: a focus on collaborative relationships, interaction mechanisms and relational benefits

Abstract

The article provides an original conceptual framework to advance the knowledge of short food supply chains (SFSCs) collaboration by bridging supply chain management approaches with empirical evidence from the agri-food sector. Through an in-depth analysis of 14 initiatives across Europe, it explores the multi-faceted nature of SFSCs collaboration, revealing a complex interplay between collaborative relationships, interaction mechanisms, and relational benefits. By identifying seven key interaction mechanisms—information sharing, decision synchronisation, goal congruence, incentive alignment, resource sharing, joint knowledge creation, and collaborative communication—the article shows how these mechanisms generate both tangible and intangible relational benefits, including fair pricing, reduced transaction costs, enhanced market knowledge, technological skills, and stronger community engagement. The findings demonstrate that SFSCs collaborations operate as dynamic ecosystems characterised by complex interdependencies among diverse actors. This diversity extends beyond traditional business-to-business (B2B) models to include business-to-consumer (B2C), consumer-to-business (C2B), and hybrid business-to-business-to-consumer (B2B2C) relationships. These varied collaborative structures facilitate mutual learning, innovation, and value co-creation, crucial for the resilience and adaptability of local food systems. The presence of robust interaction mechanisms is essential for fostering effective partnerships and generating relational benefits, even if not all mechanisms are consistently present in every type of collaborative relationships.

Introduction

Over the past decades, Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) have attracted the attention of scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. In this context, there has been increasing scholarly interest in better conceptualising and understanding SFSCs as a collaborative effort of multiple actors. For example, the European innovation partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability (EIP AGRI 2015) draws attention to the idea of “collaborative” SFSCs as those offering the most potential in terms of increasing the numbers of producers involved and the volumes of food traded. The EIP AGRI defined “collaborative activities” broadly as those in which more than one farmer, food producer, organisation or individual agree to work together for mutual benefits (p.4). Meanwhile, other studies have questioned how actors from diverse cultural, and knowledge backgrounds engage in collaborations with each other along food supply chains to reach certain shared goals (Petropoulou and Paschou 2022); Jungsberg et al. 2020). However, as Kurtsal et al. (2020) noticed, the mechanisms through which SFSCs actors get collectively organised and engage in supply chain collaborations are approached by the academic community sporadically and remain poorly understood.

Building on these observations, the article aims to disclose the nature of SFSC collaboration by uncovering its underlying mechanisms. It addresses a gap in the research of SFSCs. Despite previous research demonstrating the multifaceted benefits of SFSCs (e.g. Marsden et al. 2000; Renting et al. 2003; Kneafsey et al. 2013; EIP AGRI 2020), the precise mechanisms through which these benefits are generated remain largely unexplored. Drawing from 14 case studies of SFSC initiatives across Europe, the article identifies and examines seven key interaction mechanisms that facilitate effective SFSC collaboration and generate a broad spectrum of benefits. The analysis of interaction mechanisms aims to provide valuable insights into the dynamics of collaborative relationships within SFSCs. Furthermore, by taking a different perspective the article aims to provide evidence for economic profits and social gains emerging from SFSC collaboration. To achieve these goals the article answers the following research questions: What types of collaborative relationships are built in the field of SFSCs? How do actors involved in collaborative relationships synchronise their actions to achieve mutually beneficial partnerships? What benefits do these relationships bring to the actors involved? How are these benefits generated?

In line with EIP AGRI (2015) definition, the article focuses on the collaborative forms of SFSC. It considers SFSC collaboration as a partnership process that fosters close relationships between farmers, consumers, and other actors within and beyond the agri-food sector. By adapting “supply chain collaboration” (SCC), “interaction mechanisms” and “relational rent” concepts from the supply chain management (SCM) research into the study of SFSCs, the article aims to contribute to the theoretical development of the topic by bridging these areas with empirical evidence from the agri-food sector. This interdisciplinary approach enriches the existing body of knowledge and opens new implications for research on the SFSC collaborative dynamics.

This article is built on three assumptions. Firstly, SFSCs are composed of a diverse set of actors from the agri-food sector and beyond, working together to establish mutually beneficial partnerships, fostering synergies, innovation, sustainability, and resilience within the food system. In this sense, SFSCs collaborations are not solely centred on the farmers and the benefits they gain. SFSCs collaborations have a potential to provide benefits for all the actors involved. Secondly, SFSCs goes beyond the traditional business-to-business (B2B) relationship model and encompasses other types of collaborative structures such as business-to-consumer (B2C), consumer-to-business (C2B), and business-to-business-to-consumer (B2B2C), reflecting the variety of actors involved and underscoring the complexity and richness of interactions within SFSCs. Thirdly, unlike existing approaches that distinguish the benefits of SFSCs into economic, social, and environmental (Kneafsey et al 2013; Vittersø et al. 2018; Malak-Rawlikowska et al. 2019), this article proposes a more nuanced framework. It captures the economic profits generated through collaborative relationships but also a wider range of gains, including intangible or non-material benefits. This expanded perspective acknowledges that SFSCs offer much more than financial or environmental outcomes, recognising values like trust-building, community engagement, and cultural preservation.

The article is structured into six parts. The first part provides an overview of the main supply chain management insights relevant to SFSCs research. The second one presents the conceptual framework to approach SFSCs collaboration, while the third one describes the methods and data. The results of the analysis are provided in the fourth section. The fifth section discusses the limitations of the study. Finally, the article discloses the main conclusions from the analysis and the opportunities for further research in the field.

Conceptual framework to approach collaboration in SFSCs

The conceptual framework is grounded in insights from SCM literature, which are particularly relevant for examining collaborative dynamics within SFSCs. Notably, the concept of “relational rent”, originally developed in SCM, is applied to SFSCs to capture the value created through collaborative relationships from economic perspective but also through intangible social gains. Additionally, the framework incorporates seven interaction mechanisms identified in SCM to examine how collaboration in SFSCs fosters mutual benefits among diverse actors like farmers, consumers, and other participants along the food supply chain. The framework also adapts various types of collaborative relationships from SCM to align with the SFSCs context.

“Relational rent” concept

Supply chain collaboration (SCC) has been viewed and conceptualised differently in SCM. While some researchers approach SCC as a process (Stank et al. 2001; Sheu et al. 2006), others apply a relational approach investigating the nature of the interactions between the collaborating partners (Dyer and Singh 1998). Cao and Zhang (2011) however, combined both the process and the relational views and defined SCC as a business process where partnership represents a relationship based on the generation and appropriation of “relational rent” which brings mutual benefits to all partners.

“Relational rent” is a promising analytical concept, designed to capture the value creation in SCC. It focuses on how actors jointly generate profits and other benefits. According to Dyer and Singh (1998) the more intense the exchange relationships between the alliance partners are, the more financial profits are likely to accrue. Hu et al. (2015) revisited the definition of “relational rent” and suggested that the supernormal profits could not be limited to economical or financial revenues. They used the term “benefit” to explain that relational rents can be both tangible and intangible. While tangible rents refer to newly developed products, revenue, and codified knowledge, which are measurable, intangible rents refer to non-measurable benefits such as newly co-created knowledge, technological and managerial knowledge spillover, improved market stance, such as an increase of brand awareness, improvement of managerial competences, trust, and commitment among the actors. Following Hu et al. (2015), the SCM research, has enriched the examples of tangible and intangible rents generated in SCCs. Gulledge (2002); Garrette et al. (2009); Murphy et al. (2015), and Koponen and Julkunen (2022) have identified time-savings, cost-effectiveness, access to new markets, higher levels of product or service quality, and lower inventory costs as typical examples of tangible rents. On the other hand, the intangible ones are often manifested as access to new knowledge, expertise, technology or networks, improved reputation, and name recognition. While studying collaborative relationships in e-commerce, including in the agri-food sector, Dubelaar et al. (2005); Utami et al. (2019) and Celuch and Walz (2023) have found many examples of tangible and intangible rents for both agri-food businesses and consumers involved in a collaborative relationship. They found that if the rents for the businesses are rather economic, such as higher profit margins, those for the consumers could be both tangible such as access to more product varieties, price fairness (pricing models that give farmers greater control and a larger share of the negotiated value) and food safety and intangible such as new knowledge on food and even cooking recipes and techniques.

Research on SFSCs provides ample evidence of the multifaceted benefits these local food systems generate. For instance, public benefits may include policy-driven support for local food markets, while private benefits focus on individual farmers’ economic gains. Economic benefits centre on profitability and market access, social benefits on community building and food security, and environmental benefits on sustainability practices and reduced carbon footprints (Kneafsey et al. 2013; Vittersø et al. 2018; Malak-Rawlikowska et al. 2019; UNIDO, 2020). However, much of this evidence stems from approaches that emphasise private versus public distinctions and economic, social, or environmental categories, without exploring how these benefits are created. In contrast, this article finds the typology of tangible and intangible benefits from Hu et al. (2015) more relevant, as it provides a more nuanced understanding of SFSCs benefits.

The article also adopts a broader definition of relational rent, reframing it as “relational benefit,” which includes both tangible, measurable profits and intangible, non-measurable outcomes. This broader approach is more suitable for addressing the specifics of SFSCs and adapting the SCC approach to the scale of SFSCs and the diverse range of actors and relationships on which they are based.

“Interaction mechanisms” concept

A common agreement in SCM research is that for a SCC to be successful, it requires some forms of interaction mechanisms to ensure that the supply chain members engage in supporting actions that facilitate their collaborative efforts. Interaction mechanisms synchronise the behaviours of the partners through routine practices for the purpose of maximising values that are not achievable if partners act individually (Sridharan and Simatupang 2013; Dyer et al. 2018). Cao and Zhang (2011) define seven interaction mechanisms that make a SCC successful: information sharing, decision synchronisation, goal congruence, incentive alignment, joint knowledge creation and collaborative communication. These interaction mechanisms describe the collaborative efforts that partners need to apply to achieve common goals and mutually beneficial objectives.

To analyse SFSCs collaboration as a space for generation of relational benefits, the article illuminates the interaction mechanisms that synchronise the actions between the collaborating actors and allows them to generate these benefits. Drawing on insights from SCM research, including the work of Dyer and Singh (1998), Cao and Zhang (2011), Sridharan and Simatupang (2013), and Lee et al. (2015), this article examines the manifestation of seven key interaction mechanisms involved in the generation of relational benefits within SFSCs collaborations. These mechanisms, as described in SCM literature and evidence on some practices to identify them, are summarised in the table below (Table 1).

Table 1 Interaction mechanisms in supply chain collaboration (SCC)

By applying these seven interaction mechanisms to 14 examples of SFSCs across Europe, the objective of the article is to reveal how relational benefits are generated and to offer illustrative examples of practices that enhance relationships among actors within and beyond the agri-food sector. This approach facilitates the understanding of the types of information and resources exchanged among SFSC actors, the involvement of farmers, consumers, and other actors in the decision-making processes, the implementation of incentive schemes to encourage collaboration, and the ways in which shared knowledge fosters the creation of new products and services.

Types of collaborative relationships

The SCC concept has been applied mainly to explore B2B collaborative relationships. However, the field provides limited empirical research on other types of collaborative relationships. This is especially relevant for relationships where consumers appear as collaborators actively participating in the co-creation processes alongside businesses, leading to benefits for both (Utami et al. 2019). In relation to these observations, Ta et al. (2015) argued, that traditionally, consumers have been viewed as passive recipients of business output, engaged mostly in value exchange or value extraction, but not as active players in value creation. They call for rethinking of the SCC concept, arguing that B2C collaborations are becoming an effective alternative to existing B2B structures. For example, while studying SFSCs business models in the Netherlands, Fondse (2012) confirms that B2C examples often involve direct marketing such as on-farm shops or farmers’ markets, while B2B examples can be found in the intermediate food chains (e.g. food suppliers’ cooperatives, restaurants, schools, or catering businesses). The Smartchain H2020 project (2020) has found that B2C relationships usually involve collaborations between farmers/producers and individual consumers or communities of consumers. A typical example here is community supported agriculture (CSA) initiatives, although if the initiative collaborates with educational or other types of organisations and institutions, it can also take the form of B2B or even B2B2C relationships. Additionally, in recent years, the SCM literature started to acknowledge the rising concepts of C2B and B2B2C relationships, while trying to understand the increasing involvement of consumers in supply networks. B2B2C relationships are conceptualised as going beyond traditional B2B and B2C models. This framework integrates the collaboration between businesses (B2B) and adds a direct connection to consumers (B2C), fostering a seamless flow of products or services from the producer to the final consumer. Such collaborative relationships are particularly relevant in SFSCs, where producers work closely with intermediaries to deliver local products to consumers, emphasising transparency, trust, and efficiency across all levels of the supply chain (Barratt 2004; Badraoui et al. 2020). B2B2C relationships are noted for enhancing coordination, transparency, and information-sharing, helping businesses align their strategies to maximise value for consumers while ensuring sustainability and local engagement (Akbar et al. 2022). Such relationships support collaborative efforts by allowing businesses and consumers to interact in a more integrated way, resulting in economic benefits but also social and environmental gains, which are crucial for SFSCs (Badraoui et al. 2020; Akbar et al., 2022). In addition to that, van der Gulik (2018) conceptualise B2B2C as combining both types of B2B and B2C types, but also as a collaborative and mutually beneficial relationship between businesses and consumers within supply chains. B2B2C relationships, while complex, promote long-term sustainability and relationship-building, which are core principles of SFSCs, bridging the gap between businesses and consumers while maintaining local food systems’ social and cultural integrity (EIP AGRI, 2020). C2B collaborations are also starting to be acknowledged as partnerships, wherein customers initiate the process of demand generation (Iguchi et al. 2003). In this type of collaboration, consumers influence businesses regarding what should be produced, how it should be produced and when it should be produced (Djelassi and Decoopman 2013; Brown et al. 2019; Aspara et al. 2021). For example, Ning (2019) argued that C2B relationships involve collaboration between farmers and consumers, where farmers produce according to demand orders, which not only guarantees certain scale returns, but also gives sufficient time to prepare and guarantee product quality. Exploring the online pre-sale trade of fresh agricultural products, Han et al. (2021) found that C2B pre-sale patterns help farmers to acknowledge the consumer demand in advance, enabling them to match exactly the sales amount.

Building on this evidence from the existing research, the article defines four types of collaborative relationships in SFSCs, to demonstrate the diversity of actors involved, the roles they play and partnerships that emerge (Table 2).

Table 2 Four types of SFSCs collaborative relationships

The integration of all conceptual elements (Fig. 1) allows to provide better knowledge on the different types of collaborative relationships, to explain how actors involved in such relationships synchronise their collective actions through seven interaction mechanisms and how tangible and intangible relational benefits are generated as a result of the interactions between the actors.

Fig. 1

Conceptual framework to approach collaboration in SFSCs

Methods and data

The data used in this paper were collected in the period June–August 2022 as part of the Horizon 2020 COCOREADO project¹. As part of its research agenda, the project compiled a database of 61 innovative initiatives, showcasing examples of SFSCs across Europe. These examples were chosen for their significant evidence in enhancing farmers’ positions in food supply chains and fostering stronger connections between producers and consumers. By employing a participatory approach that engaged project partners and a diverse group of stakeholders from the agri-food sector, nominated as COCOREADO’s ambassadors, the initial list of 61 innovative initiatives was narrowed down to 14, highlighting the most inspiring examples of SFSC collaborations, bringing benefits to farmers, consumers and other actors from the agri-food sector and beyond. These 14 examples (Table 3) represent different types of SFSCs initiatives in terms of organisational forms and provide solutions to problems experienced in different national and regional food supply chains across 9 European countries. The initiatives ranged from small family agricultural and food businesses to larger farmers’ markets, cooperative supermarkets, a food delivery hub and even a regional brand of local products with high impact on regional food supply chains.

Table 3 Overview of the 14 case studies

Applying a case study approach, these 14 examples were further researched to better understand their general and collaborative characteristics. The collaborative characteristics, from which data is utilised in this article, were examined by applying the seven interaction mechanisms as defined in the SCM literature (Table 1). As every case demonstrated more than one collaborative characteristic, only those characteristics that generate relational benefits were considered for the analysis. A crucial aspect of the research was the identification of the tangible and intangible relational benefits that these initiatives delivered to the actors involved and the interaction mechanisms generating them.

We developed a two-stage methodological approach for data collection and analysis. In the first stage, we collected various types of qualitative data. The investigation into the collaborative characteristics of the 14 cases employed triangulation of several qualitative methods, including a desktop review of publicly available information, semi-structured interviews, focus groups and on-site observations. For each case study, between 1 and 10 semi-structured interviews were conducted using an interview guide to qualitatively explore collaborative characteristics across the 14 SFSCs. A total of 57 semi-structured interviews, 3 focus groups, and 4 on-site observations were conducted by local project partners. The interviews and focus groups included well-informed key actors, such as initiators, co-founders, consumers, local policymakers, and suppliers within the initiatives. In cases where specific partners could not be interviewed, information on their participation was gathered through the subjective interpretation of other involved actors and through desktop research. The interviews, focus groups, and observations were conducted in multiple local languages across the various case studies. The collected case study data were processed and analysed by local researchers with an in-depth understanding of the initiative’s context and documented in a standardised reporting template in English for each of the 14 SFSC initiatives.

To explore the collaborative characteristics of the 14 examined SFSC initiatives, we built upon the methodological guidelines provided by the Cao and Zhang (2011) framework. In line with this framework, we designed a questionnaire, adapted to the SFSCs context, to capture these characteristics within the different case studies. Each question was carefully crafted to gather empirical evidence related to specific interaction mechanisms and the associated routine practices among key informants, ensuring that the collaborative dynamics of each SFSC could be fully understood.

Information sharing was explored with questions focussing on how different partners exchanged information, the types of information shared, and the frequency of communication. The aim was to understand how transparency and open communication facilitated coordination among the actors involved. Questions about goal congruence sought to explore how partners established common objectives. This included examining how goals were agreed upon, the processes in place to ensure alignment, and how partners worked collectively to achieve their shared vision. The questions related to decision synchronisation aimed to understand the mechanisms in place for joint decision-making and how partners ensured that decisions aligned with the overall goals of the collaboration. Incentive alignment was explored by examining the mechanisms, both monetary and non-monetary, used to motivate partners to align their actions and behaviours within the collaborative framework. To understand resource sharing, the questions examined how partners shared both tangible and intangible resources within the collaboration. The objective was to understand how resource pooling contributed to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the initiative and how different actors played a role in this process. The questions about collaborative communication investigated how frequently and effectively partners communicated to facilitate coordination. They were also designed to explore the nature of communication—whether formal or informal—and how it contributed to the success of the collaboration. Finally, joint knowledge creation was examined to understand how partners co-developed new knowledge, products, or processes through their collaborative efforts. The questions aimed to capture how innovation was fostered through the exchange of ideas and expertise among the actors involved in the SFSC initiatives.

The second stage focussed on analysing the collected data. In line with the article’s objectives, the 14 reporting templates underwent a multistep coding and analytical process during the second stage. Importantly, rather than coding the raw interview transcripts, which were conducted in different languages, we chose to work with the templates to ensure the coding process was systematic, transparent, and reflective of the collaborative dynamics observed in each case, without the risk of misinterpretation due to language barriers. This approach offered several advantages. First, it allowed us to avoid inconsistencies that could arise from translating nuanced data from multiple languages, which might have led to a loss of meaning or context. By using the reporting templates, we were able to capture the critical insights in a standardised format. Second, working with the templates enabled us to maintain consistency across the analysis, ensuring that the qualitative data was comparable across all 14 cases. This method preserved the richness of the data while allowing for reliable and structured coding.

The coding and analytical approach was structured into six key steps to ensure consistency and clarity in linking collaborative relationships, relational benefits, actors who appropriate them and interaction mechanisms (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

The multistep coding and analytical approach

The first step involved classifying each of the 14 SFSCs examples based on the type of collaborative relationship (B2B, B2B2C, C2B, and B2C), as outlined in Table 2. To ensure consistency between the conceptual definitions and case classification, regular discussions were held among the authors of this article. Among the 14 examples, five were classified as B2B, three as B2B2C, four as C2B, and two as B2C. This classification established the foundation for further analysis.

Secondly, empirical examples of relational benefits achieved by actors involved in the collaborative relationships were coded. These benefits, as reported by key informants, were categorised as relational benefits if they reflected mutual contributions and synergies between actors, exceeding what any individual actor could have achieved independently. Following the conceptual framework and the empirical observations, the relational benefits were categorised as either tangible benefits (e.g. financial or economic gains such as fair pricing or reduced transaction costs) or intangible benefits (e.g. social, community-oriented, or knowledge-based improvements).

Thirdly, once relational benefits were identified, we further categorised the types of actors who appropriate these benefits. The categorisation included farmers, consumers, and other actors both within and beyond the agri-food sector. By linking relational benefits to specific actor groups, we aimed to clarify how different participants in SFSCs benefit from collaborative relationships, providing a nuanced view of value distribution across the partnerships.

Fourthly, once the relational benefits were categorised and the actors who appropriate them were identified, we systematically linked each benefit to the interaction mechanisms that generated them. We applied a structured approach to ensure each benefit could be empirically traced back to the collaborative routine practices in place. The alignment between these practices and the interaction mechanisms was crucial. We examined how specific actions among SFSCs partners contributed to the generation of relational benefits, identifying key practices driving each benefit and matching them to the relevant mechanisms. This ensured that the results accurately reflected the collaborative dynamics within each case. For example, when key informants discussed successes like improved market access or reduced transaction costs, we traced these outcomes to practices of information sharing between farmers and intermediaries. Similarly, goal congruence was evident when partners aligned their objectives to achieve pricing recognised by all as fair or to expand sales channels. It is important to note that we did not establish a strict one-to-one relationship between interaction mechanisms and relational benefits. Mechanisms like information sharing, goal congruence, and decision synchronisation were often linked to multiple relational benefits, reflecting their fundamental role in nearly all forms of collaboration. For instance, information sharing was critical to almost all observed relational benefits, fostering transparency and alignment between partners. Conversely, mechanisms like incentive alignment and collaborative communication were observed less frequently but played critical roles in specific cases, particularly when generating benefits related to cost-sharing or resource pooling.

Once the relational benefits and interaction mechanisms were matched, in the fifth step, we conducted several rounds of discussions to validate these linkages. This validation step ensured that the observed outcomes were appropriately and consistently connected to the interaction mechanisms. To further ensure consistency across cases, we cross-referenced the interaction mechanisms and their corresponding relational benefits within each type of SFSC collaborative relationship (B2B, B2B2C, C2B, and B2C).

Lastly, in the sixth step, we systematically organised the diverse examples of relational benefits into overarching categories (see Table 4) that captured both common characteristics and the variety of examples observed. Grouping these relational benefits was crucial for several reasons. First, it helped to simplify and clarify the complex data by distilling a wide range of benefits into a more manageable and understandable structure. This made it easier to identify patterns and relationships between different benefits, facilitating deeper analysis and interpretation. Second, grouping the relational benefits ensured that the analysis captured the full spectrum of tangible and intangible benefits generated by SFSCs collaborations. By organising these benefits into overarching categories, we provided a holistic view of the collaborative dynamics, highlighting the variety of ways in which SFSCs deliver value to different actors. Finally, this approach created a clear and structured framework for presenting the results. It allowed for a consistent comparison across cases and ensured that both the tangible and intangible benefits were represented comprehensively. The first category focuses on tangible benefits related to a “stronger position in food supply chains”, highlighting fair prices, diversification of products, sales channels and markets and access to unique selling points, direct access to consumers/farmers, access to high-quality and local food, and preservation of local food traditions and food self-sufficiency. The second category emphasises tangible benefits in the form of “lower transaction costs”, including reduced storage, logistic, and transport costs, predictable annual planning and consumers’ demand, centralisation of orders and variety of products available in one place. The third category uncovers intangible benefits related to “access to new knowledge and development of new skills”, such as enhanced understanding of the market, new technological skills, and enhanced knowledge of farming practices. The fourth category delves into mostly intangible relational benefits related to “stronger community engagement in SFSCs”, encompassing a strong sense of community, expanded partnerships, solidarity participation, and reciprocity.

Table 4 Overview of relational benefits linked to interaction mechanisms

Results

The results section is structured around the four categories of relational benefits identified across the four types of SFSC collaborative relationships: (1) stronger position in the food supply chain, (2) lower transaction costs, (3) access to new knowledge and skills (4) stronger community engagement in SFSCs. Within each category, tangible and intangible benefits are illuminated through examples from the examined cases, highlighting the interaction mechanisms that contribute to their creation and showcasing specific practices that synchronise and coordinate the actions of the involved actors. The results also highlight the diversity of actors involved in the examined cases: farmers, consumers, and other actors from the agri-food sector (such as restaurants, seeds supply companies, digital innovation hub and a technological company) and beyond (local municipality, ICT cluster, tourist provider) and their roles in building mutually beneficial partnership. This structured approach is aimed to provide insights into the multifaceted nature of SFSCs collaboration, captured by the diversity of relationships, actors, benefits, and interactive mechanisms.

Relational benefit category: stronger position in the food supply chain

Fair prices for farmers

All four types of collaborative relationships resulted in fairer prices for the participating farmers. Fairer prices in the context of the examined cases refer to pricing models that give farmers more control and a larger share of the negotiated value. These models focus on transparency and balance across the supply chain, ensuring that value is distributed more equitably among all actors. They do not necessarily result in higher retail prices for consumers but aim to create a fairer allocation of value between the actors. This tangible benefit is a result from the synergy between four interaction mechanisms: information sharing, goal congruence, incentive alignment and decision synchronisation.

Information sharing between partners on product availability, quality, business practices and consumer demand helps farmers better understand and target their audience. Information about the margins taken by different actors in the chain is often shared as well. In one of the B2C cases from Belgium (case 7), the farmers are transparent about their wages with the participating consumers. Goal congruence refers to setting prices based on a shared vision and objectives and ensures that all partners prioritise values beyond profit. In C2B cases, such as cooperative supermarkets (cases 8 and 10), farmers are allowed to set their prices. We also observe that price negotiations are based on a high degree of decision synchronisation. The underlying value of allowing farmers to be the ultimate price setters is very prominent in both B2C and C2B cases. In a B2B2C case from Bulgaria (case 13), we observe an incentive alignment mechanism implemented through two types of schemes to ensure fair prices for all farmers in the partnership. In the first scheme, farmers provide products to an intermediary on a consignment basis and receive payment after the products are sold. The intermediary holds the products but does not pay the farmers until a sale is made. In this arrangement, farmers act as price setters, deciding the sale price of their products. This ensures that farmers maintain direct control over the market value of their goods. This scheme offers farmers autonomy over pricing and protects them from having to sell their products at lower prices upfront. The intermediary carries the risk until the sale, allowing farmers to set fair prices. In the second scheme, farmers sell their products to the intermediary at a commercial discount, with the intermediary adding a fixed percentage to cover logistics costs. While farmers sell at a discounted rate, they still control the base price from which the discount is applied. The intermediary’s margin is a fixed percentage, ensuring transparency and preventing arbitrary price increases. This approach provides a clear and predictable pricing structure for farmers, allowing them to maintain profitability. Farmers can rely on consistent pricing that reflects the value they wish to assign to their products. Both mechanisms maintain consistent pricing for consumers set by the farmers.

Diversification of products, sales channels and markets and access to unique selling points

Across all four types of collaborative relationships, we see that farmers gain additional sales channels to reach consumers. These channels appear to be tailored to their needs and to promote local produce, thus bringing farmers a very tangible relational benefit. There are four interaction mechanisms at the basis of this benefit: goal congruence, incentive alignment, decision synchronisaton, collaborative communication. Goal congruence is often at the basis of this benefit. This is demonstrated by variety of routine practices. For example, the Danish CSA (case 14), an example of B2B2C, aims to attract more members by introducing a greater variety of products. To achieve this, they collaborate with a farm outside the city, synchronising their crop planning to offer a wider range of produce. Goal congruence also plays a crucial role in maximising production volume for all farmers involved in the examined initiatives. By sharing a common vision and belief that they are not competitors but like-minded individuals with shared problems and goals, farmers work together to increase sales. The new sales channels often imply incentive alignment. For example, in a B2B2C example from Bulgaria (case 12), a local bakery gains the opportunity to sell baked goods on an established farm, diversifying sales points and reaching more consumers. This is facilitated by aligning the bakers’ profit aspirations with the farm owner’s goal of product diversification. Collaborative communication can also play a role in creating new markets. For instance, in another of the Bulgarian cases (13), the open and coordinated communication stems from the active collaboration between farmers, an intermediary, and consumers (urban employees). The intermediary gathers data on consumer preferences and product demand from the urban employees and shares this information with the farmers. This feedback allows farmers to adjust their production to meet demand effectively. By acting as a bridge, the intermediary ensures that supply and demand are aligned, optimising the flow between them. This collaborative communication not only helps maximise sales but also ensures that the business model is sustainable, benefiting all partners involved. Decision synchronisation is also observed to be crucial. For example, within the B2C initiative (the local food box scheme in Portugal), formal contracts between management, farmers and delivery points minimise risks for all parties involved and allow for effective resource allocation.

Direct access for consumers and/or farmers

In all types of collaborative relationships, except the B2B ones, we observed that direct access is an important tangible benefit for both farmers and consumers. Two interaction mechanisms are at the basis of this benefit: information sharing and collaborative communication.

Consumers appreciate the opportunity to connect with the individuals responsible for producing their food, fostering a deeper understanding and appreciation for the agricultural process. Likewise, farmers benefit from direct feedback and consumer preferences, enabling them to tailor their production methods and product offerings to meet consumer demands more effectively. In other words, collaborative communication allows for real-time feedback and adjustments based on consumer needs. We found evidence, that farmers often use this connection as a pathway to share information about farming methods, farm life, consumer demands and expectations, while consumers have the opportunity to learn from farmers and receive additional information on products and how to prepare them. The information sharing mechanisms are manifested in various practices such as farm visits, self-harvesting and different types of platforms where farmers and consumers meet, exchange information, align expectations, and synchronise their actions regarding supply and demand based on farmers’ capabilities and consumer preferences. Collaborative communication further fosters this direct relation between farmers and consumers. For instance, in C2B example from Portugal (case 9) consumers are allowed to indicate which fruits or vegetables they don’t like so that farmers can adapt the variety of products to their wishes as much as possible. These findings highlight the importance of direct farmer-consumer engagement in promoting mutual learning within SFSCs. Beyond mere product exchange, this direct interaction serves as a conduit for the reciprocal sharing of knowledge and insights.

Increased negotiation power and access to high quality, local and often organic food for consumers and other actors from the agri-food sector and beyond

Consumers within B2C, C2B and B2B2C cases report access to a particular type of food and increased negotiation power as prominent tangible relational benefits. This benefit results of three interaction mechanisms are information sharing, goal congruence and decision synchronisation.

When other actors from the agri-food sector such as restaurants collaborate with farmers, they can also improve their position in the food supply chain by accessing fresh, organic products and influencing supply, like it is evident in one of the B2B2C examples from Bulgaria (case12). Such benefits most probably can also be observed in the B2B collaborations if taking the perspective of the end customer, however this was not the focus of the analysis. A very important interaction mechanism for obtaining these relational benefits is information sharing. When procuring food via traditional retailers the main challenge for consumers is to identify the local and organic food and to have trust in its origin based on a label. In the examined cases, this identification is done via intense sharing of information regarding variety of products, the farmers who supply them and farming methods, regardless of any labels. Some restaurants improved their access to particular type of products through regular exchange of information with the farmers on prices, quality, quantity, and time of delivery. Another powerful mechanism generating these benefits is goal congruence. In another B2B2C example from Bulgaria (case 13) we see the shared vision of farmers to provide urban dwellers with local food and of non-agri-food companies to offer their employees access to local food as part of their corporate social responsibility initiatives. In this particular case, as part of a corporate social responsibility initiative, employees of non-agri-food companies proposed a new service for farmers—to organise regular micro farmers’ markets in the company’s backyards and used them as a platform to exchange information, align expectations, and synchronise decisions regarding supply and demand based on farmers’ capabilities and consumer preferences. To maintain this shared vision some initiatives have developed practices that allow decision synchronisation. Decisions are often taken in boards of directors, general assemblies or working groups where both farmers and consumers are represented. In other cases, there are weekly informal meetings to ensure this alignment. In any case, decision synchronisation ensures that all partners are represented in making decisions related to supply chain management, thereby aligning supply with consumer preferences effectively.

Preserving local food traditions and food self-sufficiency

These tangible relational benefits were reported as prominent by actors from the agri-food sector and beyond from cases representing B2B collaborative relationships. This benefit results from 3 interaction mechanisms: goal congruence, decision synchronisation, and joint knowledge creation. For instance, creating a regional brand of local products in Slovenia (case 4) in collaboration with local farmers, helped a local municipality increase food sovereignty. This appeared as a result from decision synchronisation and joint knowledge creation among the partners, facilitated by practices that enable the exchange of knowledge and shared values. For example, the organisation of an annual local food exchange fair by the local municipality, serves as a platform for farmers, restauranteurs, tourist providers and representatives of public institutions to come together and review the goals and achievements of previous local food fairs and to take decision on how to develop the brand further. These joint efforts resulted in preserving local food traditions and developing a regional gastronomic strategy. Aligning goals for sustainability and synchronising decisions on production and service enhance mutual relational benefits for all partners involved, including agri-food actors such as restaurants and non-agri-food business such as tourist companies and a municipality.

Relational benefit category: lower transaction costs

Reduced storage, logistic and transport costs

There are two interaction mechanisms underlying this benefit: goal congruence and decision synchronisaton. Across different collaborative relationships we observed that both farmers and consumers were able to reduce their transaction costs. Supply chain functions such as storage, logistics and transport are typically prone to economies of scale. However, we observed that the more farmers collaborate with each other, with consumers and with other actors the more cost-efficient storage, logistic, and transport aspects become. For example, in one of the B2B farmers’ market in Latvia (case1), the managing body provided storage space (cellars) for farmers, thus reducing their transportation costs. Decision synchronisation was key in one of the B2B2C examples from Bulgaria (case 13), where a farming family acts as an intermediary to provide local produce to the employees of a non-agri-food company. The farmers delegate the decision-making on supply chain functions to the intermediary thus reducing transport and logistics expenses. Another tangible benefit of this mechanism is that it enables farmers to focus on their farms without being burdened by other tasks that consume significant time and resources. We found evidence that consumers may also experience lower transaction costs in some of the examined cases. This is especially relevant for the examined C2B relationships (cases 8–11), where various pre-ordering schemes are introduced to facilitate better coordination between farmers and consumers. These schemes allow to minimise or even avoid storage costs, decrease the waste of products and the transportation costs as the products are usually delivered at pick-up points to multiple consumers.

Predictable annual planning and consumers’ demand

These appear as prominent tangible relational benefits appropriated by farmers in all four types of collaborative relationships. They are generated through the synergy of four interaction mechanisms: information sharing, goal congruence, incentive alignment and decision synchronisation.

Firstly, information sharing involves various practices of data exchange. For example, in a B2C initiative from Portugal (case 6), farmers have access to the sales data from which they can extract ordering trends and customer preferences. Another B2B initiative from Slovenia (case 3) equally provides sales data of the previous year to the farmers. This allows farmers to make a better estimation and plan of how much to produce. Secondly, incentive alignment mechanisms in the case-studied examples focus on motivating supply chain partners to work together effectively by aligning their interests and goals. For instance, in a B2B2C initiative from Bulgaria (case 13), the pre-ordering system allows farmers to have a guaranteed demand from urban consumers, reducing uncertainty and enabling better planning of production. This alignment benefits the intermediary by ensuring a steady supply of fresh, locally produced food, while consumers gain consistent access to high-quality products. By sharing risks associated with fluctuating demand are distributed across partners and offering incentives like profit-sharing, the partners involved are motivated to work together, maximising value creation and market expansion. Similarly, in a C2B initiative in Portugal (case 9), incentive alignment helps farmers sell produce that would otherwise be rejected due to appearance or size. Through pre-ordering, farmers secure a market for surplus products, reducing waste and generating income. Consumers, on the other hand, benefit from having personalised product choices, as they can indicate preferences and avoid unwanted items. This approach not only reduces waste but also ensures that both farmers and consumers gain value from the exchange, aligning their goals and fostering a transparent and efficient supply chain. In both cases, incentive alignment mechanism led to sustainable models that benefit all participants, reducing risks, maximising resources, and ensuring long-term cooperation. Thirdly, minimisation of food waste is also a result of decision synchronisation. This is especially relevant for the C2B examples, based on pre-ordering systems, where the actual orders are shared upfront, and farmers can ‘make to order’, based on the availability of products. Moreover, goal congruence between partners is often achieved through long-term contracts defining common objectives in the annual plans, as it is in the example of the fresh food delivery hub (B2B case from Slovenia).

Centralisation, easy ordering, and variety of products available in one place

This tangible relational benefit is appropriated by consumers involved in B2C, C2B and B2B2C collaborative relationships. It arises from three interaction mechanisms: incentive alignment, decision synchronisation and resource sharing.

Consumers participating in B2C, C2B or B2B2C interactions can access a diverse range of products more efficiently through these platforms, reducing the time and effort required to source products from multiple local farms. The reduction of transaction costs is thus mainly referring to the ease of finding a combination of several products via one sales channel. Decision synchronisation also allows to create this benefit. In the two C2B cases of the cooperative supermarkets in Czech Republic and Spain (cases 8 and 10), members indicated that they wanted to be able to find everything that one normally buys in a supermarket in the cooperative shop, so the supply was organised according to their preferences. In another C2B example from Finland (case 11), both farmers and consumers commonly agree on a pickup place that is convenient for all.

Relational benefit category: access to new knowledge and development of new skills

Enhanced understanding of the market and marketing skills for farmers

Across all four types of collaborative relationships, farmers learn valuable information about market demand from working closely with consumers. This intangible relational benefit is often achieved through four interactive mechanisms: information sharing, resource sharing, joint knowledge creation and collaborative communication. For example, in the B2C local food box scheme initiative in Portugal (case 9), farmers bring baskets directly to consumers, allowing for valuable feedback and dialogue. This feedback helps farmers better understand consumer preferences and ultimately retain customers. Similarly, collaborative supermarkets (C2B cases 8 and 10 from Spain and the Czech Republic) provide feedback from consumers to participating farmers, enabling them to make adjustments to meet consumer needs. In a B2BC example from Bulgaria (case 13), face-to-face interactions with consumers inspired farmers to create new products and introduce themed baskets such as the “dairy basket” and “meat basket,” leading to the establishment of entirely new food brands. These examples highlight the importance of joint knowledge creation, allowing farmers and consumers to co-create innovative solutions and products. In some cases, we find evidence that resource sharing is also at play. For example, in the B2B example from Slovenia (case 2), the managing body of a locally developed brand provides free of charge trainings to improve farmers entrepreneurial skills.

New technological skills for farmers and other actors

This intangible benefit was observed in several B2B collaborations, bringing benefits for farmers, but also for other actors from the agri-food sector and beyond. It’s often achieved through three interaction mechanism: information sharing, decision synchronisation, joint knowledge creation. For example, in one of the B2B examples from Belgium (case 5), the collaborative relationships between the owners of a vertical farm and a technological company helped farmers to develop knowledge on the technical aspect of vertical farming and develop innovative solutions to technical problems. The technological company in turn, got the opportunity to test their innovations in a real-life setting and was provided with immediate feedback from the farmer. This allowed the company to further develop and improve their installations. This intangible benefit was attained through the interplay of information sharing, facilitating weekly communication among the partners and decision synchronisation on the technical aspects of the vertical farming installation. In this case, we also find a joint knowledge creation mechanism between the owners of the farm and the technological company, resulting in the co-creation of the most suitable vertical farming container. Thus, the farmers were able to optimise their production, growing a large variety of crops in one container. In another B2B example of the fresh food delivery hub in Slovenia (case 2), partnering with a digital innovation hub (DIH) and an ICT cluster granted farmers access to blockchain technology (tangible), enhancing their skills in farm process monitoring and data analysis. In turn, the DIH and the ICT cluster got the opportunity to better understand the barriers to adoption of new technologies in the agricultural sector, allowing them to tailor their solutions to meet the specific needs of farmers.

Enhanced knowledge on farming practices for consumers and other actors from the agri-food sector and beyond

In the B2C, C2B and B2B2C cases we see this intangible benefit is fostered by five interaction mechanisms: information sharing, goal congruence, incentive alignment, joint knowledge creation and collaborative communication. For example, in B2C cases, such as the Belgian CSA farm (case 7), members are engaged in self-harvesting and gain first-hand experience through direct interaction with farmers in the fields. In the C2B cases, such as in the cooperative supermarkets in Spain and the Czech Republic (cases 8 and 10) the customers are informed about the origin, production method and price of each product that is selected. Collaborative communication mechanisms can also stimulate knowledge exchange for example by organising farm visits to help purchasers of cooperative supermarkets better understand the benefits of the organic label but also demonstrate the positive impact of organic farming on the local economy and the environment. In B2B cases we also observed the benefits of exchanging knowledge on farming practices with other business actors. For example, through joint knowledge creation with farmers, a local tourist provider from an initiative in Slovenia (case 2), enhanced its understanding of local farming practices, products, and the food market, enabling them to advance gastronomic tourism in the region. In the vertical farm, a B2B initiative from Belgium (case 5), the collaboration between the farm owners with seed supplying companies allowed farmers to test new seeds and to develop their knowledge about new crop varieties. These benefits are generated due to the goal congruence between the partners to improve the seeds suited for vertical farming.

Relational benefit category: stronger community engagement in SFSCs

Strong sense of community

This intangible relational benefit for both farmers and consumers emerges as a common outcome across various examples of collaborative relationships. The cultivation of a strong sense of community is achieved through the synergy of several interaction mechanisms across various partnership types. Whether through B2C, C2B, or B2B2C relationships, the information sharing, decision synchronisation and resource sharing serve as foundational elements in fostering connections between farmers and consumers. For instance, within the B2C relationships, as seen in the Belgian CSA (case 7), both information sharing, and decision synchronisation generate this intangible relational benefit. Consumers can ask questions and participate in harvesting activities. Annual general meetings facilitate discussions on the past year and the future, ensuring transparency and inclusivity. Such interactions deepen the connection between farmers and consumers, creating a sense of belonging. In the four cases representing C2B relationships, the observed intangible relational benefit occurs for both consumers as well as for farmers. It revolves around involving customers in synchronised decision-making processes, adapting to pre-orders, organising events that not only build strong relationships but also encourage trust, transparency, and shared values among participants. For instance, the Finnish pre-ordered scheme (case 11) facilitates direct communication between consumers and farmers via social media platforms, nurturing trust, and transparency. The voluntary nature of group management and customers’ willingness to adapt and pre-order demonstrate their commitment to collaboration, further enhancing trust in the platform among participating farmers. Within B2B2C relationship, such as the Danish CSA (case 14), resource sharing contributes to this intangible relational benefit. Participants invest time and efforts in various farm activities, facilitating mutual learning between farmers and participants. This exchange of knowledge on farming practices strengthens the connection between them, fostering community building. We also observe that within the B2C and C2B examples, farms serve as important social spaces where consumers and farmers engage in meaningful interactions, fostering both agricultural knowledge exchange and development of social relationships. Transparent communication from farmers to participants further enhances the sense of community within community-supported agriculture (CSA) initiatives, effectively transforming them into vibrant social hubs. This underscores the dual role of SFSC initiatives in not only facilitating local food production but also nurturing social cohesion and community building, thus contributing to the resilience and sustainability of local food systems.

Expanded partnerships for farmers and other actors from the agri-food sector and beyond

Within one of the B2B cases from Slovenia (case 4), farmers expanded their partnerships with local restaurants and tourist businesses as part of a regional brand of local products. This tangible benefit arose from both decision synchronisation and goal congruence interaction mechanisms between the farmers and the brand’s managing body efforts to synchronise demand and supply and resulted in newly established direct distribution channels, enhanced the visibility of products and gave farmers access to new markets. In turn, establishing partnerships with farmers provided the restaurants and tourist businesses with multiple opportunities, including access to fresh and high-quality food, enhanced brand image of supporters of local communities and distinction from their competitors. In this case, the alignment of goals was also evident as all partners shared the objective of promoting local products and advancing gastronomic tourism in the region. This alignment allowed them to synchronise their efforts in promoting the regional brand, which benefitted all parties involved by enhancing visibility, increasing product demand, and preserving local food traditions. The joint commitment to supporting local food systems and boosting the region’s brand ensured that all partners worked collaboratively to achieve mutual benefits. Although this benefit was observed in only one of the examined initiatives, it allows the hypothesis that SFSC collaborations may facilitate extended partnerships that transcend traditional boundaries, fostering mutually beneficial relationships between diverse food supply chain actors. However, further research is needed in support of this assumption.

Solidarity participation and reciprocity for farmers and consumers

Within the examined cases, we find evidence of solidarity practices, such as the introduction of reciprocal financial contributions or a solidarity fund. These practices promote equity and inclusivity by reducing barriers to participation and ensuring that all partners have equal access to benefits and resources. In addition, these practices act as a catalyst for social cohesion by fostering a sense of belonging and shared goals among the partners. Solidarity participation and reciprocity appeared as intangible relational benefits for both farmers and consumers in the examined B2C and C2B cases and are results from the synergy between four interaction mechanisms: resource sharing, information sharing, joint knowledge creation and decision synchronisation. In one of the B2C examples from Belgium (case 7), the members actively contribute financially through a subscription fee, thus providing farmers with essential support at the beginning of the growing season. Members also provided tools and equipment for farming purposes and engaged with farmers in knowledge exchange on the types of produce that is grown and farming practices applied. As CSA members have diverse backgrounds, skills, and expertise (e.g. cooking, mechanics, sustainability, legal issues) and share their knowledge with each other and with the farmers, they further contribute to joint knowledge creation and facilitate collective learning and shared responsibilities within the community. In the examined C2B cases, we find examples where the management is usually performed on a voluntary basis and consumers are willing to align incentives to make their relationships with farmers sustainable. A good example here comes from the Czech Republic (case 10), where in a C2B initiative we find the allocation of a solidarity fund, formed as a solidarity act to cover membership and investment fees for farmers or consumers who wish to join the cooperative but cannot afford the initial contribution. This form of empowerment, achieved through synchronisation of decisions, creates a supportive environment where all partners feel valued and respected. In turn, this forms the foundation of strong relationships and enables effective collaboration, ultimately leading to more resilient and sustainable partnerships.

Discussion

The examined SFSCs initiatives provide evidence of the diversity of actors involved in mutually beneficial collaborative relationships. The data demonstrate that farmers not only collaborate with each other but also extend partnerships to various actors within and outside the agri-food sector. The five B2B initiatives show collaborations between farmers, public institutions, kitchens, local entrepreneurs, technological companies, and restaurants. Collaborating with these actors addresses key challenges faced by farmers in food supply chains, such as limited business skills, market access, and resources. These partnerships provide farmers with access to necessary services and opportunities to improve core functions such as transport and logistics. Actors outside the agri-food sector also offer essential support services, including logistics, marketing, and technology, helping farmers to improve supply chain management and scale up their operations. The cases further provide evidence that consumers are not merely passive participants but play pivotal roles in initiating relationships with farmers. In B2C examples, consumers sometimes pay upfront for a share of the farm’s harvest, particularly in initiatives representing CSA. This provides farmers with capital at the beginning of the season when expenses are high and income is low, while also sharing the risks of a poor growing season. In C2B cases, consumers take an even more active role, influencing agricultural production, services, and even pricing decisions. B2B2C relationships, show two distinct forms of collaboration. In one example, multiple businesses work together to enhance their reach to consumers, like farmers teaming up with logistics companies to deliver products. In other cases, consumers play a more active role, influencing new services and products, as seen in initiatives where consumers shape the supply chain by providing feedback. This growing involvement of consumers highlights their role as co-creators in SFSCs, where they not only receive products but actively bridge the production-consumption gap.

The data demonstrate that the examined SFSCs initiatives are built on exchange processes that provide relational benefits for all actors involved. These exchange processes are embedded in seven interaction mechanisms that synchronise the behaviour of the actors towards mutually beneficial collaborations. Information sharing ensures that all actors are well-informed, helping them make better decisions and facilitating smoother operations. This promotes transparency and trust among partners, essential elements for successful collaboration. Decision synchronisation allows partners to coordinate their actions more effectively, leading to more coherent and unified strategies. Goal congruence, or the establishment of shared goals among SFSCs actors, is fundamental to collaboration. When partners have aligned objectives, it focuses their efforts towards common outcomes and strengthens their commitment to the collaboration. Incentive alignment ensures that all partners’ interests and goals are aligned, motivating them to work together effectively. Resource sharing, including the sharing of knowledge, production capabilities, and distribution channels, enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of the collaboration. By leveraging each other’s strengths, partners create mutual benefits and improve overall performance. Collaborative efforts often lead to joint knowledge creation, resulting in innovative products, services, and processes. This mechanism fosters a learning environment where partners can develop new skills and capabilities, further strengthening the collaboration. Collaborative communication enables partners to coordinate their actions effectively, build trust, leverage shared resources, and, as a result, enhance overall efficiency and achieve mutually beneficial benefits.

At the same time, the results indicate that not all interaction mechanisms are present in the cases examined, nor are they equally essential for generating relational benefits. For instance, although collaborative communication is not always present, other mechanisms like information sharing and goal congruence help ensure that partners remain aligned and can address issues promptly. Similarly, decision synchronisation is not evident in all cases, yet partners still achieve success through effective information exchange and shared values. This suggests that not all seven interaction mechanisms are necessary for successful collaboration in SFSCs. The absence of certain mechanisms may be specific to the nature of SFSCs, where resource constraints, informal structures, or differing priorities make it challenging to implement all mechanisms simultaneously. This leads to the hypothesis that in SFSCs, the presence of key mechanisms—such as information sharing and goal congruence—can compensate for the absence of others, still allowing relational benefits to emerge. The lack of some mechanisms does not imply failure. Instead, SFSCs may require more flexible and adaptive collaboration models where partial implementation of interaction mechanisms foster strong relational foundations and mutual benefits. Therefore, while the ideal scenario involves all seven mechanisms, even partial application can generate significant value for all partners involved. These findings challenge the SCM view (Cao and Zhang 2011) that all mechanisms must be activated for success, suggesting instead that SFSCs can thrive with flexible, context-specific approaches. By demonstrating that partial implementation of interaction mechanisms can still yield significant outcomes, these findings add depth to the understanding of how SFSCs operate and succeed, even in less structured environments.

Among the fourteen examined SFSCs initiatives, only three presented examples of what could be termed “negative relational benefits.” These cases describe situations where collaboration between partners did not generate equal benefits for all parties or where some partners invested more effort than others, resulting in increased transaction costs for one of the partners. In these cases, the negative relational benefit seemed to arise from the absence of the resource-sharing interaction mechanism, but a more in-depth study is needed to assess the long-term impact of these partnerships on sustainability and success.

The analysis identified both tangible and intangible relational benefits across the four types of SFSCs collaborative relationships. These findings align with the work of Dubelaar et al. (2005) and Utami et al. (2019), which similarly identified a broad range of benefits in collaborative SFSCs contexts. However, this study adds depth by providing empirical evidence from diverse collaborative relationships, including B2B, B2C, C2B, and B2B2C models, highlighting the importance of both economic and social dimensions in assessing the sustainability and success of SFSCs collaborations. Additionally, the identification of seven key interaction mechanisms not only supports the theoretical frameworks proposed by scholars like Cao and Zhang (2011) and Dyer and Singh (1998), but also brings these concepts to life through concrete empirical examples from SFSCs. These examples validate the theoretical role of these mechanisms in fostering effective collaboration and relational benefits, while providing practical, real-world illustrations of how these mechanisms function within SFSCs.

However, the study has limitations. First, the findings are context-specific, based on 14 case studies from Europe, which may not fully represent SFSCs collaborations globally. This limits the generalisability of the results to different socio-economic, cultural, and regulatory environments. Second, the study does not account for external factors like market trends, policy changes, or socio-economic dynamics, which could affect the sustainability and scalability of SFSCs. These factors, such as fluctuations in demand or changes in regulations, could alter SFSCs collaboration dynamics. Lastly, the lack of longitudinal data restricts the assessment of long-term impacts and sustainability of these collaborative relationships, as the study captures only a snapshot of SFSC collaborations at a specific point in time.

Conclusions and implications for further research

The article aimed to provide an original conceptual and methodological framework bridging SCM approach with empirical evidence from the agri-food sector to advance the knowledge of SFSC collaboration. Through an in-depth qualitative analysis of 14 initiatives across Europe, the study has shed light on the multi-faceted nature of SFSC collaborations, revealing a complex interplay between collaborative relationships, interaction mechanisms, and relational benefits.

SFSC collaborations emerge as dynamic ecosystems, characterised by the participation of a diverse array of actors spanning both the agri-food sector and beyond. They involve farmers, consumers, public institutions, and private businesses within and beyond the agri-food sector (such as seed and technological companies, restaurants, tourist providers), working together to achieve mutual benefits. This finding confirms the initial assumption that SFSCs are not solely centred around farmers and their attempt to avoid intermediaries and to gain a better position in the supply chain. Instead, the diversity of actors reflects the complex interdependencies within the food system, emphasising that SFSCs function as interconnected networks rather than isolated entities. The interdependencies within food systems appear to be a critical characteristic of SFSCs collaborations, highlighting how various actors are working together to establish mutually beneficial partnerships. For instance, farmers rely on consumers for market demand, and on private businesses for technological and logistical advancements. In turn, consumers benefit from access to fresh, locally produced food, while public institutions achieve their sustainability objectives, and private businesses gain competitive advantages through collaboration.

A primary contribution of the article lies in its exploration of the interactions among diverse actors within SFSCs collaborations. By delving into the roles of farmers, consumers, public institutions, and private businesses, the study unveils the rich tapestry of relationships underpinning SFSC initiatives. Notably, the findings confirm the hypothesis that SFSCs collaboration transcends conventional B2B models, encompassing a spectrum of B2C, C2B, and hybrid B2B2C relationship models. This diversity reflects not only the varied actors involved but also underscores the richness of interactions within SFSCs. Moreover, the research demonstrates that SFSCs interactions often bring together actors with complementary skills and resources, facilitating mutual learning, knowledge acquisition, and skill development. This collaborative exchange contributes to the resilience and adaptability of the supply chain, enhancing its overall effectiveness.

Furthermore, the article highlighted the pivotal role of robust interaction mechanisms in facilitating effective SFSCs collaboration and generating relational benefits. Through information sharing, decision synchronisation, goal congruence, incentive alignment, resource sharing, joint knowledge creation, and collaborative communication, actors in SFSCs align their efforts to co-create mutually beneficial partnerships and achieve shared objectives. Importantly, the research identifies as original the finding that while not all interaction mechanisms are uniformly present in every collaboration, their partial representation is sufficient to enhance the generation of relational benefits and to foster effective partnership processes. This underscores the importance of understanding and implementing these mechanisms to maximise the potential benefits of SFSCs collaborations. Based on the analysis of the representation of the different interaction mechanisms in the examined cases, it is evident that decision synchronisation, information sharing, and goal congruence are fundamental for making SFSCs work effectively. Decision synchronisation involves coordinating planning and operational decisions among partners, optimising supply chain benefits. It is associated with effective joint decision-making processes, which help align strategies and actions across the examined SFSCs​​. Information sharing is critical for ensuring that all actors are well informed, promoting transparency and trust. It supports informed decision-making and smoother operations, facilitating the sharing of data such as inventory levels, forecasts, and marketing strategies. Goal congruence is responsible for establishing shared goals and values among partners and is fundamental for collaboration. These three interactive mechanisms form the foundation for successful SFSCs collaborations, facilitating mutual benefits and a strong collaborative environment. This finding allows the assumption that the rest of the mechanisms need to be further developed and used in different ways to bring mutual benefits for all actors involved.

The results confirm the expectation that the relational benefits generated through the interactions among SFSCs actors extend beyond immediate financial profits. These benefits include both tangible economic advantages such as fair pricing for farmers, reduced transaction costs, and access to high-quality local food and intangible benefits such as enhanced market knowledge, improved technological skills, enhanced knowledge on farming practices and stronger community engagement. The outcomes also indicate that collaborative relationships foster innovation, promote knowledge exchange, and create opportunities for expanding markets and creating new products. These findings highlight the importance of collective action, mutual support, and shared values in driving successful SFSCs collaborations. The identification of this wide spectrum of benefits highlights the multifaceted impacts of collaborative efforts on the actors in SFSCs and underscores the importance of considering both economic and social dimensions in evaluating the effectiveness and sustainability of SFSCs collaborations.

The findings allow for the identification of several implications for further research to expand the understanding of SFSCs collaboration. While the majority of the 14 examined SFSCs collaborations result in positive outcomes, some cases exhibit what might be called negative relational benefits. Understanding the implications of negative relational benefits is crucial for improving the effectiveness of SFSCs collaborations. Further research is needed to explore the long-term impacts of these negative outcomes and develop strategies to mitigate them. Investigating underlying causes, such as inadequate resource sharing or imbalanced cost distribution, would provide insights into creating more resilient and equitable collaborative frameworks. The findings provided some insights into the power dynamics among different actors in SFSCs collaborations. However, the data were limited to be analysed in detail. As it is likely that power dynamics may play a crucial role in decision-making processes and resource allocation, future research is needed to explore these dynamics to better understand how different SFSCs actors may influence the appropriation of relational benefits. Longitudinal studies that track the development and evolution of SFSCs collaborations over time can provide valuable insights into their dynamic nature. Such studies can reveal how relationships among actors change, how interaction mechanisms evolve, and how these changes impact the sustainability and resilience of SFSCs. Additionally, as it seems that technology is playing an increasing role in facilitating collaboration within SFSCs, further research is needed to examine the impact of digital platforms, blockchain technology, e-commerce solutions, and other technological innovations on enhancing coordination and improving supply chain efficiency. Further research should delve deeper into the specific roles and contributions of various actors within SFSCs collaborations. Understanding how each actor (farmers, consumers, public institutions, private businesses, etc.) influences the collaboration process and outcomes, as well as the power dynamics between these actors, can provide valuable insights for optimising these partnerships.