British Food Journal

Sustainability as business strategy in community supported agriculture: Social,

environmental and economic benefits for producers and consumers
Daniele Eckert Matzembacher, Fábio Bittencourt Meira,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Daniele Eckert Matzembacher, Fábio Bittencourt Meira, (2018) "Sustainability as business strategy
in community supported agriculture: Social, environmental and economic benefits for producers and
consumers", British Food Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2018-0207
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2018-0207
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 04 December 2018, At: 12:22 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
Token:Eprints:HvRchxP2wdvs76FQiJVq:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

Community
Sustainability as business supported
strategy in community agriculture

supported agriculture
Social, environmental and economic benefits
for producers and consumers Received 31 March 2018
Revised 28 August 2018
Daniele Eckert Matzembacher and Fábio Bittencourt Meira Accepted 12 September 2018

Business School, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,

Porto Alegre, Brazil
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how sustainability integrates the business strategy of
Brazilian community supported agriculture (CSA) initiatives, and to understand the social, environmental and
economic benefits to producers and consumers.
Design/methodology/approach – A case study was carried out through participant observation, using the
techniques of ethnography, in addition to in-depth interviews and access to secondary data. Follow-up was
carried out over two years and six months with two CSA initiatives.
Findings – The results indicated that the analyzed CSA activities address, in an integrated way, the social,
environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability by promoting healthy diet, sustainable
agriculture and social transformation to producers and consumers. Producers have their sales guaranteed
due to previous consumers’ association; they also receive higher incomes, avoiding the rural exodus.
In addition, their work conditions do not harm their health and the diversified production meets the
consumption of their family group, increasing farmers’ autonomy. Regarding consumers, there is a strong
emphasis on education for sustainability. It occurs primarily through face-to-face contact among
participants, at times of basket withdrawal, follow-up visits to production and interaction events at
farmers’ place. Exchanges of information, recipes, cooking classes, newsletters and internet interactions are
also important. As these outputs, verified in a real situation, integrate the mission and the business
proposal of these CSAs initiatives, it is possible to conclude that, in these analyzed situations, sustainability
is incorporated into a business strategy. Sustainability is a structural component of the strategy, with
practices in different levels of the business activity.
Research limitations/implications – As an exploratory study, the findings cannot be extrapolated to
broader populations. To improve generalization, it would be beneficial to broaden the sample and pursue
comparative research between countries and regions. Also, studies should examine which incentive
structures and programs would relate more to better outcomes in education for sustainability and
behavior chances.
Practical implications – From a managerial point of view, this study contributes by presenting emerging
businesses in Brazil, which incorporated sustainability in their strategy, contributing with the need pointed
out by Robinson (2004) to provide innovative and creative solutions toward sustainability. It also presents
some alternatives to achieve objectives of the 2030 Agenda, especially objective 2 (related to food security)
and 12 (improve sustainable production and consumption systems). This study also contributes by
elucidating alternatives to promote education for sustainable consumption, presenting cases where
consumers reported a more sustainable behavior.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the literature by filling the gap pointed out by
Arzu and Erkan (2010), Nakamba, Chan and Sharmina (2017), Rossi et al. (2017) and Searcy (2016) about
addressing all three dimensions of sustainability in an integrated way, by analyzing CSA
initiatives (a need indicated by Brown and Miller, 2008), especially evaluating empirical
cases of sustainability insertion in the business strategy, as proposed by Claro, Claro and Amâncio
(2008) and Franceschelli, Santoro and Candelo (2018). This study also responded to the need pointed out by
Benites Lázaro and Gremaud (2016) to further understand the insertion of sustainability in the context of
Latin America.
Keywords Education for sustainability, Healthy food, Sustainability, Community shared agriculture, British Food Journal
Community-supported agriculture, Short supply chain © Emerald Publishing Limited
0007-070X
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/BFJ-03-2018-0207
 BFJ 1. Introduction
Humanity is experiencing unprecedented complexities related to production and
consumption systems, each with its own ecological, economic and social dimensions
without a single cause or a simple solution (Abson et al., 2016; Govindan, 2018; Mangla et al.,
2017). The relevance of this situation to the business area stems from a widespread
perception in society that humans are threatened as a species due to the current mode of
production and consumption, which, in addition to the population increase, are destroying
nature, depleting natural resources and threatening the conditions of life on the planet
(Notarnicola et al., 2017).
Agricultural activities are one of the major causes of environmental degradation
(Foley et al., 2011). The globalized conventional food system has contributed to enhance
productivity, but also generated economic uncertainties, with negative environmental,
economic and social effects (Helms, 2004; Van der Ploeg, 2010). Some of the environmental
problems relate to land, energy, fresh water use and pollution (Beretta et al., 2013),
greenhouse effect (Dorward, 2012) and methane emissions (Graham-Rowe et al., 2014). The
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

activity also faces social and economic problems, in which small producers are generally the
most affected. There are reports of rural exodus (Van Der Ploeg, 2010; Otero, 2013), social
and economic exclusion, reduction of production for self-consumption leading to increased
food insecurity, loss of autonomy, regional disarticulation of development processes and
bad health conditions due to the use of agrochemicals (Sacco dos Anjos et al., 2010). There is
a growing concern about the future of farming at the rural–urban interface (Sharp et al.,
2002). Food loss and food waste also emerge as relevant economic, environmental and social
problems in food systems (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015).
The current discussion is about how to promote a sustainable development, i.e. balancing
economic, environmental and social aspects (Elkington, 2012). Recently, a new agenda
integrated such efforts: Post 2015 Sustainable Development Agenda (2030 Agenda). Many
countries adopted it worldwide. The 2030 Agenda addresses areas of crucial importance to
humanity and to the planet. Most of the stated objectives are intertwined with business,
especially objective 12, that seeks to ensure sustainable production and consumption
patterns (UN General Assembly, 2015).
Food systems are also “at the heart” of the 2030 Agenda, since objective 2 seeks to end
hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
(UN General Assembly, 2015). Therefore, improving food production and consumption
system appears in every discourse about sustainable development (Notarnicola et al., 2017;
Schacht et al., 2010; Verain et al., 2015). The promotion of education in food issues (Dimitri
et al., 2016) also integrates such efforts.
The private sector, as the main driver of economic activity and an important source of
creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship, must be involved in the attempt to achieve
greater sustainability (Robinson, 2004). To become truly sustainable, companies need to
adopt a broad set of practices that address all three dimensions: social, environmental and
economic (Cagliano et al., 2016). Companies that involve sustainability in their strategy can
create a business opportunity, achieving better quality of life for communities and saving
natural resources (Claro et al., 2008; Franceschelli et al., 2018). Therefore, the adoption of
sustainable practices should be aligned with business strategy.
Since sustainability in business management in Latin America is a new topic that had a
growing development in recent years, there are still few studies about this (Benites Lázaro
and Gremaud, 2016). Moreover, there is a need to address all three dimensions of
sustainability in an integrated manner (Arzu and Erman, 2010; Nakamba et al., 2017;
Searcy, 2016).
In this sense, community supported agriculture (CSA) programs have recently gained
attention due to their potential on influencing food lifestyle behaviors and health outcomes.
 In a recent article, Rossi, Allen, Woods and Davis (2017) and Rossi, Woods and Allen (2017) Community
investigated the relation between CSA participation and behavioral change. They identified supported
potential benefits and changes to shareholders in relation to fresh vs processed food agriculture
consumption, food prepared at home vs food prepared away from home, food purchasing
behavior and interest in nutrition, and self-reported health outcomes. According to Rossi,
Allen, Woods and Davis (2017) and Rossi, Woods and Allen (2017), many researchers have
considered the virtual impact of CSA on economic, social and environmental relations, but
evaluated these dimensions in a non-integrated way.
Considering that CSA activities have less than a decade of operation in Brazil (Eckert,
2016), it is interesting to investigate how such initiatives can bring a potential change
toward a more sustainable production and consumption. Moreover, the increasing demand
in local food consumption calls for a better understanding of these businesses (Niemi and
Pekkanen, 2016). As proposed by Brown and Miller (2008), more studies on the many
aspects of CSA are obviously needed, especially considering its potential environmental and
social impacts.
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

Some questions emerge from this: How does sustainability integrate the business
strategy of Brazilian CSA initiatives? Which are the social, economic and environmental
benefits to producers and consumers? The relevance on understanding this phenomenon
that surrounds developing countries, conducting this study in Brazil, is because the country
responds to the largest economy in Latin America, according to the International Monetary
Fund (2017).
The rest of this paper structures as follows. Section 2 reviews the theoretical background
on sustainability strategy and CSA activities. Section 3 explains the methodology and
presents the case under study. Section 4 presents the findings from the case study.
Section 5 discusses the findings and, finally, Section 6 concludes with implications for
theory and practice.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Sustainability strategy
Discussions about sustainability in companies generally address the triple bottom line
concept. Proposed by Elkington (2012), this concept considers sustainability as the
integration between environmental, social and economic dimensions. Most companies have
adopted sustainability initiatives motivated, essentially, by compliance with current
legislation. However, some companies are voluntarily introducing practices to increase their
social, environmental and economic performance, in addition to what is legally required.
Kiron et al. (2012) conducted a study that proved that several companies have been
expanding their sustainability actions. This result may indicate that companies are seeing
positive results related to the adoption of such initiatives in business. However, even if
managers recognize the importance of sustainability, they rarely consider this thematic in
organizational strategy (Kiron et al., 2012).
Claro et al. (2008) affirm that managers must rethink organizational strategies, effectively
inserting sustainability into their business. According to Engert et al. (2016), to incorporate
sustainability effectively into organizational strategy, managers need to consider all its
three dimensions, at the same time, in their strategic decision-making processes. In this
study, the promotion of shorter supply chains, regional and organic/agro ecology food,
healthy diets and consumer awareness and education about sustainability as main activities
are considered aligned to the business strategy.
Shorter supply chains, regional and organic/agro ecological food represent one major
attribute for sustainable food systems (Doernberg et al., 2016; Scalvedi and Saba, 2018;
Zsolnai, 2002). One of the characteristic features of the local food sector is its reliance upon
different set of food chain outputs from those customarily associated with more
 BFJ conventional agro-food products chain (Morris and Buller, 2003). The promotion of
healthy diets also plays an important role in shaping sustainable food systems (Scalvedi
and Saba, 2018).
Since reflexive and conscious consumption is considerate one of the key agents for
change toward sustainable food systems (Vittersø and Tangeland, 2015), it is necessary to
inform, to educate and to raise consumers’ awareness about sustainability practices
(Göbel et al., 2015; Kulikovskaja and Aschemann-Witzel, 2017). In this sense, healthy eating
messages are useful to increase consumer awareness and knowledge of creating healthier
meals and making healthier food choices (Goh et al., 2017).
Regarding the role of sustainability in organizations strategies, there is not one single
linear path in the adoption of actions and sustainability tools. However, social,
environmental and economic objectives can interact in several different sustainability
strategies. Some organizations understand sustainability as a structural component of their
activity. In these cases, sustainability pattern is complex and integrate sustainability
practices at different levels of the organization. A second strategy characterizes those
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

organizations whose sustainable activities are mainly centered on production process and
final product, with relevant positive externalities. Finally, sustainability also cannot be
integrated in the business strategies and just understood as an external pressure
(Coppola and Ianuario, 2017).

2.2 CSA
CSA is a business strategy in which consumers associate producers as members, before the
planting begins. As part of the association, they obtain shares in the farm and receive a
portion of whatever food is cropped each week of the growing season. Generally, they share
the costs and risks inherent to production process (Brown and Miller, 2008; Ernst and
Woods, 2013; Groh and Mcfadden, 1997; Henderson and Van 2007). Consumers’ membership
is described as “shareholders,” “members” or “subscribers.” In a CSA, usually producers and
consumers dismiss intermediaries, seeking to create a direct relationship between farmers
and those who eat their food (Cone and Myhre, 2000). Generally, the basic rule is that all
products have to be fresh, seasoned and locally grown. Many activities are also
pesticide-free, but it is not a requirement. The typical consumer basket is composed of
vegetables, herbs and fruits, which vary according to the season. Eventually, other products
are included (Brown and Miller, 2008; CSA Brazil, 2018; Groh and Mcfadden, 1997;
Henderson and Van, 2007).
Its most salient goals address concerns about the quality of the food supply and the
survival of small farms (Cone and Myhre, 2000). The CSA developed an innovative
approach to deal with food safety and to address sustainability, which establishes
consumer’s trust and guarantees that products are indeed safe, sometimes organically
grown and produced in an environmentally friendly way (Krul and Ho, 2017). CSA
programs are transforming the way people relate to food and agriculture, since participants
are embedded in a broader political economic transformation, even being just slightly
conscious about it (Rossi, Allen, Woods and Davis, 2017; Rossi, Woods and Allen, 2017). For
example, indicators of the development of a local food supply relate positively to the farm’s
financial performance (Ahearn et al., 2018). Farmers’ markets are considerate important for
rebuilding local food system (Brown and Miller, 2008). For some of these questions, it is
considered as a form of ethical consumerism, organized by a nexus of ideological discourses,
romantic idealizations and unconventional marketplace practices and relationship
(Thompson and Coskuner-Balli, 2007).
In such initiatives, consumers generally have different motivations to engage, for
example, some willingness to support local agriculture (Sproul et al., 2015; Hashem et al.,
2018) and the search for healthy and quality food through agro ecological/organic
 consumption, and to know the origin of the food (Cone and Myhre, 2000; Cox et al., 2008; Community
Eckert, 2016). Also, reasons for buying local and organic food through box schemes include supported
a strong political motivation to change the current food system, as shown by the strong agriculture
influence of an anti-globalization or anti-capitalism factor and the desire to support small
farmers (Cone, and Myhre, 2000; Cox et al., 2008; Hashem et al., 2018).
Surprisingly, even though price is relevant on the definition of people’s participation is
CSA groups (Kolodinsky and Pelch, 1997), it is substantially less relevant to the engage
(Cone, and Myhre, 2000). Often, CSA consumers may be willing to pay more for quality,
since they tend to be upper-middle class consumers with above-average incomes and some
interest in buying higher quality or local food (Ernst and Woods, 2013). However, it is also
possible to find studies that indicate differently, with the majority of participants receiving
below the national average (see Cox et al., 2008). Lazell (2016) and Graham-Rowe et al. (2014)
propose that consumers are mainly motivated by financial reasons, so this is still a
controversial point.
In many CSA initiatives, consumers participate in the management of the activity. In
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

this sense, several studies indicate that this action lead to a better financial performance
and business success (Brown and Miller, 2008). Moreover, CSA might also increase
profitability due to the bypassing of the intermediaries of the existing farm-to-market
system (Sharp et al., 2002).
There is also evidence that CSA educate consumers (Brown and Miller, 2008) toward a
change of lifestyle behavior, since engaged consumers usually decrease the consumption of
processed food and increase fruit and vegetable consumption, and Also prepare their meals
at home more often, and change their purchasing behavior according to food seasonality
and self-report health outcomes (Allen, 2016; Rossi, Allen, Woods and Davis, 2017; Rossi,
Woods and Allen, 2017; Russell and Zepeda, 2008). There is also the emergence of an
altruistic behavior supporting the decision around sustainable choices, besides the gain in
cooking abilities to prepare and consume CSA products. Daily consumption of fruits and
vegetables was found to be positively associated with a longer rate of survival and lower
rate of overall mortality, and to a decrease in the burden of several chronicle diseases
(Bellavia et al., 2013; Boeing et al., 2012). Personal contact and advertising are important for
membership and for such positive outcomes (Kolodinsky and Pelch, 1997), perhaps leading
to more radical changes in the production and consumption relation (Cox et al., 2008).
In fact, food education (e.g. information, simple recipes and cooking classes) is important
(Göbel et al., 2015; Kulikovskaja and Aschemann-Witzel, 2017) to foster the purchase and
consumption of healthy food (Rodier et al., 2017). Good communication is a hallmark of
successful CSA farms. Some CSAs communications include recipe ideas with their weekly
deliveries, since, in some cases, crops could be unfamiliar to consumers (Ernst and Woods,
2013). Therefore, education for sustainable consumption is expected to be implied in all CSA
endeavors and it is a topic that also deserves to be deeply researched.

3. Materials and methods

This research is a case study, carried out through participant observation, using the
techniques of ethnography, in-depth interviews and access to secondary data. Follow-up
was carried out over two years and six months with two groups of CSAs located in Brazil.
The study was performed in six steps, described in Table I.
During the research, a field diary was carried out and, except for stage 1, where only
notes were allowed, all the 32 interviews were recorded and content analyzed. Moreover,
photos and videos were taken, with more than a thousand records, later reduced to 324 files.
Data were explored through a descriptive analysis (Angrosino, 2009), as the process of
decomposing data flow serves the ethnographic study by seeking to understand the
patterns and regularities that emerge from them, in order to capture which behaviors are
 BFJ Period Stage

September 2015 In-depth interview with three consumers (CSA 1 founder group and two other
consumers who volunteered in CSA management)
September 2015 Participant observation and in-depth interviews during two days when consumers
camped on one of the CSA farmers
October 2015 Housing with one of the producers, monitoring the production process, transporting
and delivering the CSA baskets to consumers, as well as managing activities related to
CSA. In-depth interview with CSA’s three producers and 20 consumers were made
November Bi-weekly follow-up by telephone with producer and consumers who participate in the
2015–March 2016 management of the CSA groups. Participation as listener of management meetings via
internet and participation of the CSA WhatsApp group (with producers and
consumers). Access to secondary data, such as all CSA emails, CSA website, Facebook
posts and articles in newspapers and television about the analyzed CSA group
April 2016 Participant observation and in-depth interviews with producer
Table I. May 2016–February Monthly follow-up by telephone or internet with producer and consumers participating
Research stages 2018 in the management of the CSA group. Access to secondary data
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

shared by the members of the group. It is possible to evaluate the statements made by the
people, to analyze individual and collective activities, to observe the spontaneity of the
situations, to seek consistencies and inconsistencies in the information, among others.
The results of the survey were presented to one producer and two consumers who manage
the group, aiming to capture the latest impressions and updates with those involved.
Table II summarizes the information on the two groups of the analyzed CSA.

4. Case study of CSA in Brazil

Both investigated CSA initiatives operate as cooperatives of producers and consumers of
agro ecological, local and seasonal food products. They have a short supply chain, without
intermediaries in the process. Both CSA have begun by consumers initiative, who carry
out most of the “issues,” such as strategy, finance, logistics and communication
management, as well as the assistance of production planning.
Concerning the reasons given to the adherence in these CSAs, most consumers pointed
out a searching for health and quality of life through agro ecological food consumption, and
the desire of meeting people that share the values of a common lifestyle. There are also
motivations linked to the support of local agro ecological production, the proximity to
farmers and the very rural environment.
Many consumers demonstrate a critical stance on the conventional agriculture.
This critic shows itself as symbolic through their speeches. For example, Consumer 8

CSA group/information CSA 1 CSA 2

Start of business January 2015 November 2015

Number of producers 4 3
Number of participating 110 120 families
households/consumers
Delivered products Weekly basket with organic vegetables Weekly basket with organic vegetables
and fruits, predominantly leafy and fruits, predominantly leafy
Types of baskets offered Family ( four people) and individual Family ( four people) and individual
(two people) (two people)
Table II. Delivery Home delivery or consumer withdraws Home delivery or consumer withdraws
Analyzed CSA groups Group management Carried out by consumers – volunteers Carried out by consumers – volunteers
 understands CSA as a “resistance to unbridled capitalism, because its goal is to promote Community
more sustainable and libertarian alternatives to the mass food consumption model.” For supported
Consumer 10, CSA is a “more sustainable movement against mass consumption that brings agriculture
with it the characteristic of being a community where everyone can share opinions and
experiences.” The consumer that founded CSA 1 says “the CSA is a movement of resistance
to agribusiness, agrochemicals, poisoned food, brokers and exploitation of the farmer’s
work” (Founder).
Both CSAs have three pillars in their business, which are part of the company’s mission:
healthy eating, sustainable agriculture and social transformation. One of the consumers who
founded CSA 1 explains:
Healthy food is because all food of the CSA is agro ecological. We cannot talk about organic,
because we do not have the certification, so we say that we are in the agro ecological transition.
Sustainable is in terms of preserving the environment, not using pesticides, taking care of the soil
and water. The objective of the CSA, in relation to the producer, is the social transformation.
In relation to the consumer, healthy eating and social transformation (Founder).
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

In this sense, consumer reports and the interactions observed through the research indicate
that their participation in CSA groups strengthens some aspects related to their material
and social reproduction. Adopting a diet free of pesticides or other chemicals promotes
human health and it is the main benefit perceived by consumers. In addition, knowing the
origin, accompanying food production and the construction of a sense of community around
food are some benefits perceived by consumers through CSA engagement.
Some consumers relate changes in their eating habits toward a healthier diet because of their
CSA engagement. Some of them report eating more fruits and vegetables, adapting food to the
ingredients received in the baskets. As they incorporated new foods into the diet, they started to
cook and eat more in the domestic environment and learned new ways of preparing food
through interactions with producers and other consumers. They even say that participation in
the CSA allowed them to expand knowledge about the production and consumption of food that
they would not have acquired in a conventional market relationship.
For example, recently, a new member of the group has indicated, via Whatsapp, that she
is pleased to be part of CSA because of the learning she is acquiring: “Hey Founder, how
nice, I’m so happy to be in this new world. I did not know any of this and I feel alienated.
In fact, I really was, but now I want to know more about it, how enriching it is to participate
in this community” (Consumer J). There are also reports of a new sense of appreciation for
preparing food. For example, in another conversation observed among the Whatsapp group,
one of the consumers wrote:
I have already received baskets full of food and some with a few, but the love for the food received
does not change. I can go to the supermarket and buy carrots and huge lettuce, but strangely, they
do not bring me the same feeling. I learned that what we feel when we eat is as important as what
we eat (Consumer K).
There is a deep unconcern about price level or financial advantage, since most of the
members do not compare CSA prices with conventional retail channels. They do not know if
the products received are expensive or not, and they say that their engagement is beyond
financial motivation. In both CSAs, it seems like they still attend a very specific consumer
niche, since these consumers are probably more aware of health, social and environmental
issues, which can be explained by their high level of education. In fact, both CSAs’
associates are people with high academic and professional profiles, most of them graduated
or post graduated.
A minority of the consumers reported to compare prices with other supply chain
channels. Those people said that participating in CSA groups allows cost reduction on the
purchase of these agro ecological foods. The group’s managers, who conduct price
 BFJ comparisons, explained that CSA offers products with lower value compared to the
traditional channels of agro ecological products.
Although the combined weekly delivery has a minimum of seven products, when the
farmer is able to harvest more than this minimum, these products go to consumers’ baskets.
None of the products goes in plastic bags. Likewise, in the case of any unforeseen event that
makes it impossible to harvest, fewer items or no food will be sent, which is the risk assumed
previously by all consumers. In fact, the group is keen to make it clear to new consumers
that participating in a CSA group is an assumed commitment to the producer. This is
because the association is supposed to finance in advance the agricultural activity, but also
to accept eventual losses of the harvest.
Another point that deserves a highlight, as CSA producers point out, is that these
consumers are less concerned with products’ appearance compared to the other selling
channels, since they concern more about the way this food is produced. One of the
producers showed small carrots accepted in the CSA that are normally discarded in the
conventional market channels. She affirms: “They [consumers of CSA] eat what is healthy,
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

not what is beautiful” (Producer 3). According to them, there is a significant reduction in
food waste compared to the traditional channels in which they participated before.
At CSA, the loss is almost nil in terms of product aesthetics, since consumers do not reject
non-standard products. In Plate 1, it is possible to see a small carrot that goes into
the consumer basket. In traditional channels, especially in retail, this carrot would be
discarded for not meeting quality requirements in terms of size and aesthetics, despite
having its nutritional quality preserved.
Several moments of interaction among CSA participants were important for these
results. One of the ways for producer and consumer to interact is weekly visits of production
monitoring and technical support, carried out by consumers. Although producers are
primarily responsible for the production process, and have a strong guidance from Brazilian

Plate 1.
Carrot accepted by
CSA consumers that
would be discarded in
traditional retail due
to its imperfect
appearance
 Government entities regarding the production method regularity and other technical issues, Community
consumers are also involved in this production planning and monitoring. supported
Another form of interaction between participants occurs at the delivery points. In these
moments, it is possible to perceive a strong integration between consumers who, instead of
agriculture
just withdrawing the basket, participate in conversational groups, some for the whole time
of the delivery. Participants, especially those in management, report that they consider
interaction essential for CSA success. Therefore, they seek propose parallel activities to
attract consumers to the basket’s delivery place, instead of receiving it at home. They also
try to bring collective activities and free lectures (most taught by the consumers) and
encourage participation through emails. Lectures about nutrition, urban gardens, agro
ecology, frugivorism and leadership have already been held. Among the collective
activities carried out, it was possible to check as well yoga classes, samba classes, seed
exchange and others.
In the accompanied deliveries, it was possible to observe a recurring practice among
several consumers: conversations about the food theme and a constant exchange of recipes
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

for the products delivered that week. These two practices move Whatsapp and Facebook
groups in a very intense way in the days that follow the basket delivery. Some consumers
send pictures of the “unknown” foods received to question other consumers. Then, several
people suggest recipes. In addition, in these virtual groups, consumers send pictures of food
and also praise, criticize, suggest things, inform about activities related to CSA that occur in
the city, among others, with an intense daily movement.
The major interaction among CSA participants occurs when consumers visits the
farmer that they fund. This visit is a moment of celebration (camping, campfire, festive
meals) as well as an opportunity to get to know the place and production methods while
visiting the field with the farmer. This activity can last a day or a weekend. It occurred, on
average, every three months in the follow-up period. There is a large presence of children.
In one of the observed events, a consumer commented that he was very fond of these
visits. It gave him personal satisfaction and assurance about the origin of the food that he
and his family were receiving, noticing that the farmer showed and explained everything
in his plantation. During one of the events, it was possible to follow a lecture organized by
consumers on the theme “live food,” which aroused great interest from all those present.
This group also prepared many types of juices and taught the best ways of preparing and
using the nutrients.
Several consumers emphasize the importance of this interaction with producers and
other consumers. For example, one of the consumers explained she was very happy at CSA,
especially for the quality of food, the basket received, the events and the friends she made.
Another consumer explained that the advantage of participating in CSA is the interaction
between people:
[…] it is a different group; everyone connects on the same subject. I think it is cool, because in the
supermarket, you have to go alone, buy and you do not know anything else. Here, we exchange
ideas, interact, learn a lot, we even exchange recipes. For the first time, I learned how to make the
banana navel, because the group gave me good tips on how to prepare it. Therefore, there is a lot of
things happening in the city that we get to know through the group (Consumer 14).
Consumer 3 affirmed: “When you approach the producer, it triggers a lot of other things. We
understand how it [food] comes to our table and the difficulties that the person [producer]
has” (Consumer 3). In fact, several consumers reported that, by participating on CSA groups,
they learn a lot and develop more sustainable consumption habits, not only in relation to
food, but, somehow, to other aspects of their lives.
The agricultural production process is an important aspect of CSA’s activities. Producers
in both CSAs use low technology, since most of their work is manual. Different from the
monoculture, there are a high variety of food produced by the same farmer. They use
 BFJ manure and leaves as organic fertilizers, the producer makes weeds and monitor daily,
instead of using chemicals to eliminate weeds. In addition, they use natural syrups to protect
the planting and ward off possible invaders as opposed to the use of pesticides. There is no
certification process. A relationship of trust is established between producers and
consumers, mostly because of their close interaction.
In relation to farmers, several issues relates to financial, environmental and social
dimensions of sustainability. There is the sharing of productive risks with consumers and
producers can predict demand in advance due to consumers’ prior association, avoiding
losses due to the lack of commercialization. Consumers’ acceptance and appreciation of
imperfect food appearance regarding aesthetic standards are also important. In addition,
they work in conditions that do not harm their health, and the diversified production meets
the consumption of their family group, increasing farmers’ autonomy.
Farmer’s superior remuneration compared to traditional marketing channels also
emerged as an important positive output. For example, regarding remuneration, Producer 1
said: “The CSA pays more than the others and the money is guaranteed, it is sacred, you can
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

count on it” (Producer 1). Other producers, with no exception, also explained that the CSA
had so far been the activity that best paid them in the rural environment.
The information provided indicates that the CSA strengthens the economic conditions of
these farmers, avoiding rural exodus.

5. Discussion
These two CSA businesses analyzed were designed to solve social and environmental
problems and to be financially viable, contributing to the three dimensions of
sustainability proposed by Elkington (2012). Sustainability appears in the purposes and
pillars of action of both CSA activities (healthy diet, sustainable agriculture and social
transformation to producers and consumers) and this discourse occurs in real situations,
in practice. Therefore, based on the propositions of Claro et al. (2008) and Engert et al.
(2016), it is possible to say that sustainability incorporates into their organizational
strategy discourse.
Sustainability in these cases are a structural component of their activity, with practices
at different levels of the business activity (Coppola and Ianuario, 2017). The sustainability
strategy of both CSAs analyzed is divided in two interconnected strategies: operational
practice and educational program. Short supply chain, regional and agro ecological food and
the promotion of healthy diets (Doernberg et al., 2016; Morris and Buller, 2003; Scalvedi and
Saba, 2018; Zsolnai, 2002) related to their operational strategy. Information and awareness
toward a reflexive and conscious consumption (Göbel et al., 2015; Goh et al., 2017;
Kulikovskaja and Aschemann-Witzel, 2017; Vittersø and Tangeland, 2015) are part of their
educational program.
Both CSAs operate as the groups described in the main literature: consumers
membership, risks sharing with producers and weekly shares (Brown and Miller, 2008;
Cone and Myhre, 2000; Ernst and Woods, 2013; Groh and Mcfadden, 1997; Henderson and
Van, 2007). Products are agro ecological, fresh, seasoned and locally grown (Brown and
Miller, 2008; CSA Brazil, 2018; Groh and Mcfadden, 1997; Henderson and Van, 2007).
Motivations for consumers’ participation found in this study are consistent with findings
from Cone and Myhre (2000), Cox et al. (2008), Eckert (2016), Ernst and Woods (2013),
Hashem et al. (2018), Sproul et al. (2015) and Vassalos et al. (2017), mostly related to health
concerns and lifestyle value sharing. The profile of CSA’s consumers arouses interest: high
qualification and income, not focusing their motivation to engage on financial issues (Cone
and Myhre, 2000). This finding contradicts the propositions by Kolodinsky and Pelch (1997)
that the CSA reaches lower income publics and the propositions from Lazell (2016) and
Graham-Rowe et al. (2014) that consumers motivate themselves mainly by financial reasons.
 The strong critique on capitalism and the conventional mode of production and Community
distribution were strongly emphasized by consumers, consistent with Cone and Myhre’s supported
(2000), Cox et al.’s (2008) and Hashem et al.’s (2018) propositions. Consumers fell engaged in a agriculture
political economic transformation (Rossi, Allen, Woods and Davis, 2017; Rossi, Woods and
Allen, 2017). In fact, producers and consumers perceive their CSA engagement as a more
ethical business, with a more romanticized vision (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli, 2007).
However, this view overlooks the fact that the CSA, in the cases analyzed, reaches only a
specific part of the consumers population and still do not include the most vulnerable
populations, who are generally those who suffer from food insecurity, nutritional deficiency
and have difficult access to food.
Questions regarding the misinformation about risk division, non-choice of products that
are received and non-standard appearance have not yet reached lower income consumers
because even though it has a lower price, the participation in the CSA is not attractive for
them. These findings indicate that consumer awareness and understanding of the business
proposal are fundamental to these initiatives. Therefore, actions regarding consumers’
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

education are necessary, as mentioned by Dimitri et al. (2016), Göbel et al. (2015),
Kulikovskaja and Aschemann-Witzel (2017) and Rodier et al. (2017), and should be
prioritized. Education and awareness raising should occur in the dissemination of the CSA’s
actions to attract consumers, informing about possible health, environmental, social and
financial benefits. This might arouse the attention of the lower income public, who needs to
be better informed about CSA’s benefits.
In relation to the effects from the CSA business strategy for sustainability (Kiron et al.,
2012), it is possible to perceive benefits related to social, economic and environmental
dimensions. First, these CSA seem to address concerns about the quality of the food supply
(Cone and Myhre, 2000; Krul and Ho, 2017). Products are agro ecological grown and
produced in an environmentally friendly way (Krul and Ho, 2017). The acceptance of
products that do not meet the market aesthetic standards avoid food loss and food waste
(Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2015).
These CSA help to develop a local foods supply, with positive results regarding farm
financial performance (Ahearn et al., 2018; Brown and Miller, 2008). This may relate to some
aspects already identified in literature, such as the bypassing of the intermediaries of the
existing farm-to-market system (Sharp et al., 2002) and the establishment of consumers trust
(Krul and Ho, 2017) through personal contact (Kolodinsky and Pelch, 1997). In addition, the
fact that the prior association of consumers allows forecasting the demand avoids resources
and food losses due to lack of sales. As a result, this helps to address the problem of the
survival of small farms (Cone and Myhre, 2000) and avoids the problem of rural exodus
pointed by Van Der Ploeg (2010) and Otero (2013). It is also possible to evaluate the lower
price as an economic benefit for engaged consumers.
These CSA programs have a potential to influence lifestyle behaviors and health
outcomes, as consumers have indicated that they adopt healthier habits and more
sustainable behaviors. CSA consumers began to eat organic and free pesticides food, to eat
more fruits and vegetables, to cook and eat more in the domestic environment, incorporating
new foods that were not consumed, and began to value the food consumed. Moreover, they
reported paying more attention and appreciation to the act of feeding.
This healthier and more sustainable behavior reported by CSA consumers are extended
to other issues in their lives, since they reported to start worrying about sustainable
consumption behavior on other issues. These results are similar to those found by Allen
(2016), Brown and Miller (2008), Doernberg et al. (2016), Rossi, Allen, Woods and Davis
(2017), Rossi, Woods and Allen (2017) and Russell and Zepeda (2008). In fact, they are found
to be extraordinarily relevant because the promotion of dietary health is a public health
priority in many countries, since research shows that the majority of children do not
 BFJ consume the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables (Rossi, Allen, Woods and Davis,
2017; Rossi, Woods and Allen, 2017). Encourage programs to improve these rates are needed
( Jones et al., 2017). The analyzed CSA groups were able to encourage and increase the
consumption rate of these foods, especially working in education of adults and their
children, who actively participate with their parents on the activities carried out in these
CSAs groups.
In terms of education for sustainability, some mechanisms promote consumer education
that leads to this behavior change. In the analyzed situation, it was identified that education
for sustainability occurs through a series of interaction mechanisms, which promote
awareness, search for new knowledge and behavior change. Education for sustainability
occurs primarily through face-to-face contact among participants. Also exchanges of
information, simple recipes and cooking classes are important, as found by Ernst
and Woods (2013), Rodier et al. (2017) and newsletters as found by Rossi, Allen, Woods and
Davis (2017) and Rossi, Woods and Allen (2017). Together, the general conversations, the
exchanges of recipes and experiences generate bonds of respect and trust that facilitate
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

interaction and end up generating friendship. This bond between people plays an important
role in this process. Some of these consumers already have a more critical view and are
engaged in other food movements related to sustainability. They end up informing, helping
to raise awareness, educating and influencing other consumers in their behavioral changes.
In this sense, the shortening of the food supply chain plays an essential role in the process of
consumer education, once it allows this rapprochement between participants.
Consumer education for sustainability in this CSAs groups also seems to occur based on
practice, experiencing a real situation. When consumers visit the farmer’s plantation and
experiment small-scale farming, they visualize the difficulties that the farmer faces, the
resources used and the origin of the food. It may contribute to education and changes in
behaviors and consumption attitudes, such as eating habits, accepting non-standard
products, preference of seasonal crops, among others. Doernberg et al. (2016) identified
similar results.
Another novelty that seems to contribute to consumer education is daily internet
interactions through the participation in CSA Whatsapp and Facebook groups. Krul and Ho
(2017) found China’s CSAs are active internet users, and it is common for farms to maintain
a website or blog and post regular updates. In the present case, this participation plays an
important role, even if it is extensive to face-to-face contact. However, interaction over
internet seems to complement the main process of education, being subdued to the creation
of social ties.
Considering that local food buyers have a more pronounced interest in health
(Chen, 2013) and sustainability (Giampietri et al., 2016), and that CSA farmers and
administrators can enhance value through facilitated delivery of emotional and social
benefits (Mirosa and Lawson, 2012), education for sustainability can be used, in addition to
promotion of education and awareness, as a way to attract and retain consumers in such
initiatives, increase the reach of business that promote sustainability in food systems.
According to Pole and Kumar (2015), farmers could inform a group of consumers about the
connection between the distance food travels and their freshness, not just in terms of
appearance but also in terms of preserving nutrients. Some possibilities that we also suggest
are to inform about production methods, food losses and waste-related issues, such as
clarify that products with non-standard appearance have the nutritional value and quality
of the other, and inform about the importance of stimulating local commerce for regional
economic, social and environmental development.
Therefore, considering its positive aspects, the CSA activities evaluated appear as one
of the possible alternatives that help to deal with problems related to the three dimensions
of sustainability and food systems (Abson et al., 2016; Govindan, 2018; Mangla et al., 2017;
 Notarnicola et al., 2017). They can promote more sustainable food systems and Community
help to partially address some of the problems identified by (Beretta et al., 2013; Dorward, supported
2012; Graham-Rowe et al., 2014; Foley et al., 2011; Helms, 2004; Notarnicola et al., 2017; agriculture
Sacco dos Anjos et al., 2010; Schacht et al., 2010; Sharp et al., 2002; Van der Ploeg, 2010;
Verain et al., 2015).

6. Final remarks
The aim of this paper was to investigate how sustainability integrates the business strategy
of Brazilian CSA initiatives, and to understand the social, environmental and economic
benefits to producers and consumers. The results address social, environmental and
economic dimensions of sustainability by promoting healthy diet, sustainable agriculture
and social transformation to producers and consumers, with emphasis on its education
activities for sustainable consumption. As these outputs, verified in a real situation,
integrate the mission and the business proposal of these CSAS, it is possible to say that in
these analyzed cases sustainability incorporates their organizational strategy.
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

The contribution to the literature was achieved by filling the gap pointed out by Arzu
and Erman (2010), Nakamba et al. (2017), Rossi, Allen, Woods and Davis (2017), Rossi,
Woods and Allen (2017) and Searcy (2016) to address all three dimensions of sustainability
in an integrated manner in CSA initiatives (need indicated by Brown and Miller, 2008).
Especially evaluating empirical cases of insertion of sustainability in the business strategy,
as proposed by Claro et al. (2008) and Franceschelli et al. (2018). This study also responded to
the need pointed out by Benites Lázaro and Gremaud (2016) to understand further the
insertion of sustainability in the context of Latin America.
From a managerial point of view, this study contributes by presenting emerging
businesses in Brazil, which incorporated sustainability in their strategy, contributing with
the need pointed out by Robinson (2004) to provide innovative and creative solutions toward
sustainability. It also presented some alternatives to achieve objectives of 2030 Agenda,
especially objective 2 (related to food security) and 12 (improve sustainable production and
consumption systems) of the UN General Assembly (2015). This study also contributes by
elucidating alternatives to promote education for sustainable consumption, presenting cases
where a more sustainable behavior is verified and reported by consumers. Some authors
propose that there is a need of more education about agriculture in schools and higher
education (e.g. see Worsley et al., 2015). However, this learning context in CSA is relevant
since it transcends the classroom and reaches the business environment by presenting a real
situation, analyzing food systems.
One limitation of this study relates to the fact that, as an exploratory study, findings
cannot be extrapolated to broader populations. To improve generalization, it would also be
beneficial to broaden the sample and pursue comparative research between industries,
countries and regions. Finally, the degree of CSA members educations will be influenced by
the extent CSA providers develop novel approaches to program awareness and
implementation. Therefore, studies should examine what types of incentive structures
and programs would relate more to education for sustainability and behavior chances.

References
Abson, D.J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, H.,
Abernethy, P., Ives, C.D., Jager, N.W. and Lang, D.J. (2016), “Leverage points for sustainability
transformation”, Ambio, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 30-39.
Ahearn, M.C., Liang, K. and Goetz, S. (2018), “Farm business financial performance in local foods value
chains”, Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 470-488, available at: https://doi.org/10.
1108/AFR-08-2017-0071
 BFJ Allen, J.E. IV, Rossi, J., Woods, T.A. and Davis, A.F. (2017), “Do community supported agriculture
programmes encourage change to food lifestyle behaviours and health outcomes? New evidence
from shareholders”, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 70-82.
Angrosino, M. (2009), Etnografia e observação participante: coleção pesquisa qualitativa, Bookman Editora,
Porto Alegre.
Arzu, G.A. and Erman, T.E. (2010), “Supply chain performance measurement: a literature review”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 17, pp. 5137-5155.
Aschemann-Witzel, J., de Hooge, I., Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T. and Oostindjer, M. (2015), “Consumer-
related food waste: causes and potential for action”, Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 6457-6477.
Bellavia, A., Larsson, S.C., Bottai, M., Wolk, A. and Orsini, N. (2013), “Fruit and vegetable consumption
and all-cause mortality: a dose-response analysis”, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 454-459.
Benites Lázaro, L.L. and Gremaud, A.P. (2016), “A responsabilidade social empresarial e
sustentabilidade na America Latina: Brasil e México”, Revista de Administração da
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Vol. 9 No. 1.

Beretta, C., Stoessel, F., Baier, U. and Hellweg, S. (2013), “Quantifying food losses and the potential for
reduction in Switzerland”, Waste Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 764-773.
Boeing, H., Bechthold, A., Bub, A., Ellinger, S., Haller, D., Kroke, A., Leschik-Bonnet, E., Müller, M.J.,
Oberritter, H., Schulze, M. and Stehle, P. (2012), “Critical review: vegetables and fruit in the
prevention of chronic diseases”, European Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 637-663.
Brown, C. and Miller, S. (2008), “The impacts of local markets: a review of research on farmers markets
and community supported agriculture (CSA)”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 1298-1302.
Cagliano, R., Caniato, F.F. and Worley, C.G. (2016), “A pathway towards truly sustainable food supply
chains: balancing motivation, strategy, and impact”, Organizing Supply Chain Processes
for Sustainable Innovation in the Agri-food Industry, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley,
pp. 287-318.
Chen, W. (2013), “Perceived value in community supported agriculture (CSA): a preliminary
conceptualization, measurement, and nomological validity”, British Food Journal, Vol. 115
No. 10, pp. 1428-1453.
Claro, P.B.O., Claro, D.P. and Amâncio, R. (2008), “Entendendo o conceito de sustentabilidade nas
organizações”, Revista de Administração-RAUSP, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 289-300, available at: out./
nov./dez
Cone, C.A. and Myhre, A. (2000), “Community-supported agriculture: a sustainable alternative to
industrial agriculture?”, Human Organization, pp. 187-197.
Coppola, A. and Ianuario, S. (2017), “Environmental and social sustainability in producer organizations’
strategies”, British Food Journal, Vol. 119 No. 8, pp. 1732-1747.
Cox, R., Holloway, L., Venn, L., Dowler, L., Hein, J.R., Kneafsey, M. and Tuomainen, H. (2008), “Common
ground? Motivations for participation in a community-supported agriculture scheme”, Local
Environment, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 203-218.
CSA Brazil (2018), “Community supported agriculture in Brazil”, available at: http://csabrasil.org
(accessed March 2018).
Dimitri, C., Oberholtzer, L. and Pressman, A. (2016), “Urban agriculture: connecting producers with
consumers”, British Food Journal, Vol. 118 No. 3, pp. 603-617.
Doernberg, A., Zasada, I., Bruszewska, K., Skoczowski, B. and Piorr, A. (2016), “Potentials and
limitations of regional organic food supply: a qualitative analysis of two food chain types in the
Berlin metropolitan region”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 11, pp. 1125-1135.
Dorward, L.J. (2012), “Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the
food system (including the food chain)? A comment”, Food Policy, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 463-466.
 Eckert, D. (2016), “A mercantilização em contramovimento: relações de reciprocidade e coesão social na Community
agricultura sustentada pela comunidade em minas gerais”, masters dissertation, Universidade supported
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Escola de Administração, Programa de Pós-Graduação
em Administração, Porto Alegre. agriculture
Elkington, J. (2012), Sustentabilidade: Canibais com Garfo e Faca, M. Books do Brasil Editora Ltda, São Paulo.
Engert, S., Rauter, R. and Baumgartner, R.J. (2016), “Exploring the integration of corporate
sustainability into strategic management: a literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 2833-2850.
Ernst, M. and Woods, T. (2013), Community Supported Agriculture, UK Department of Agricultural
Economics, Lexington, KY.
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M. and Balzer, C.
(2011), “Solutions for a cultivated planet”, Nature, Vol. 478 No. 7369, p. 337.
Franceschelli, M.V., Santoro, G. and Candelo, E. (2018), “Business model innovation for sustainability:
a food start-up case study”, British Food Journal, Vol. 120 No. 10, pp. 2483-2494, available at:
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2018-0049
Giampietri, E., Finco, A. and Del Giudice, T. (2016), “Exploring consumers’ behaviour towards short
food supply chains”, British Food Journal, Vol. 118 No. 3, pp. 618-631.
Göbel, C., Langen, N., Blumenthal, A., Teitscheid, P. and Ritter, G. (2015), “Cutting food waste through
cooperation along the food supply chain”, Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1429-1445.
Goh, L.M.L., Wong, A.X.Y., Ang, G.Y. and Tan, A.S.L. (2017), “Effectiveness of nutrition
education accompanied by cooking demonstration”, British Food Journal, Vol. 119 No. 5,
pp. 1052-1066.
Govindan, K. (2018), “Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: a conceptual
framework”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 195, pp. 419-431.
Graham-Rowe, E., Jessop, D.C. and Sparks, P. (2014), “Identifying motivations and barriers
to minimising household food waste”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 84 No. 1,
pp. 15-23.
Groh, T. and Mcfadden, S. (1997/98), Farms of Tomorrow Revisited. Community Supported Farms, Farm
Supported Communities, Biodynamic Farming & Gardening Association, Kimberton, p. 312.
Hashem, S., Migliore, G., Schifani, G., Schimmenti, E. and Padel, S. (2018), “Motives for buying local,
organic food through English box schemes”, British Food Journal, Vol. 120 No. 7, pp. 1600-1614,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2017-0426
Helms, M. (2004), “Food sustainability, food security and the environment”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 106 No. 5, pp. 380-387.
Henderson, E. and Van, E.R. (2007), Sharing the Harvest: A Citizen’s Guide to Community Supported
Agriculture, Chelsea Green Publishing.
International Monetary Fund (2017), “Report for selected countries and subjects”, World Economic
Outlook Database, April 2015, available at: www.imf.org (accessed November 2017).
Jones, M., Pitt, H., Oxford, L., Bray, I., Kimberlee, R. and Orme, J. (2017), “Association between food for
life, a whole setting healthy and sustainable food programme, and primary school children’s
consumption of fruit and vegetables: a cross-sectional study in England”, International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 639-654.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K. and Velken, I.V.S. (2012), “Sustainability nears a tipping point”,
MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 69-74.
Kolodinsky, J.M. and Pelch, L.L. (1997), “Factors influencing the decision to join a community
supported agriculture (CSA) farm”, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 10 Nos 2-3,
pp. 129-141.
Krul, K. and Ho, P. (2017), “Alternative approaches to food: community supported agriculture in urban
China”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 844-860.
 BFJ Kulikovskaja, V. and Aschemann-Witzel, J. (2017), “Food waste avoidance actions in food retailing: the
case of Denmark”, Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1-18.
Lazell, J. (2016), “Consumer food waste behaviour in universities: sharing as a means of prevention”,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 430-439.
Mangla, S.K., Govindan, K. and Luthra, S. (2017), “Prioritizing the barriers to achieve sustainable
consumption and production trends in supply chains using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 151, pp. 509-525.
Mirosa, M. and Lawson, R. (2012), “Revealing the lifestyles of local food consumers”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 114 No. 6, pp. 816-825.
Morris, C. and Buller, H. (2003), “The local food sector: a preliminary assessment of its form and impact
in Gloucestershire”, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 No. 8, pp. 559-566.
Nakamba, C.C., Chan, P.W. and Sharmina, M. (2017), “How does social sustainability feature in studies
of supply chain management? A review and research agenda”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 522-541.
Niemi, P. and Pekkanen, P. (2016), “Estimating the business potential for operators in a local food
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

supply chain”, British Food Journal, Vol. 118 No. 11, pp. 2815-2827.
Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G., Renzulli, P.A., Castellani, V. and Sala, S. (2017), “Environmental impacts of
food consumption in Europe”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140 No. 2, pp. 753-765.
Otero, G. (2013), “El régimen alimentario neoliberal y su crisis: estado, agroempresas multinacionales y
biotecnología”, Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología, Vol. 17, pp. 49-78.
Pole, A. and Kumar, A. (2015), “Segmenting CSA members by motivation: anything but two peas in a
pod”, British Food Journal, Vol. 117 No. 5, pp. 1488-1505.
Robinson, J. (2004), “Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development”,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 369-384.
Rodier, F., Durif, F. and Ertz, M. (2017), “Food deserts: is it only about a limited access?”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 119 No. 7, pp. 1495-1510.
Rossi, J., Allen, J.E., Woods, T.A. and Davis, A.F. (2017), “CSA shareholder food lifestyle
behaviors: a comparison across consumer groups”, Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 855-869.
Rossi, J.J., Woods, T.A. and Allen, J.E. (2017), “Impacts of a community supported agriculture (CSA)
voucher program on food lifestyle behaviors: evidence from an employer-sponsored pilot
program”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 9, p. 1543.
Russell, W.S. and Zepeda, L. (2008), “The adaptive consumer: shifting attitudes, behavior change
and CSA membership renewal”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 136-148.
Sacco dos Anjos, F., Caldas, N.V. and Hirai, W.G. (2010), “Mudanças nas práticas de autoconsumo
dos produtores familiares: estudo de caso no sul do Brasil”, Agroalimentaria, Vol. 16 No. 30,
pp. 115-125.
Scalvedi, M.L. and Saba, A. (2018), “Exploring local and organic food consumption in a holistic
sustainability view”, British Food Journal, Vol. 120 No. 4, pp. 749-762.
Schacht, K., Leal Filho, W., Koppe, W., Struksnaes, G. and Busch-Stockfisch, M. (2010), “Sustainability as a
new paradigm regarding food consumption”, British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 5, pp. 476-488.
Searcy, C. (2016), “Measuring enterprise sustainability”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 120-133.
Sharp, J., Imerman, E. and Peters, G. (2002), “Community supported agriculture (CSA):
building community among farmers and non-farmers”, Journal of Extension, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 1-6.
Sproul, T.W., Kropp, J.D. and Barr, K.D. (2015), “The pricing of community supported
agriculture shares: evidence from New England”, Agricultural Finance Review, Vol. 75 No. 3,
pp. 313-329.
 Thompson, C.J. and Coskuner-Balli, G. (2007), “Enchanting ethical consumerism: the case of community Community
supported agriculture”, Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 275-303. supported
UN General Assembly (2015), “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable agriculture
Development”, A/RES/70/1, October 21, available at: www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?
symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed August 2, 2018).
Van Der Ploeg, J.D. (2010), “The food crisis, industrialized farming and the imperial regime”, Journal of
Agrarian Change, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 98-106.
Vassalos, M., Gao, Z. and Zhang, L. (2017), “Factors affecting current and future CSA participation”,
Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 478-492.
Verain, M.C., Dagevos, H. and Antonides, G. (2015), “Sustainable food consumption. Product choice of
curtailment?”, Appetite, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 375-384.
Vittersø, G. and Tangeland, T. (2015), “The role of consumers in transitions towards sustainable
food consumption: the case of organic food in Norway”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 92
No. 7, pp. 91-99.
Worsley, A., Wang, W. and Ridley, S. (2015), “Australian adults’ knowledge of Australian agriculture”,
Downloaded by 143.54.116.182 At 12:22 04 December 2018 (PT)

British Food Journal, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 400-411.

Zsolnai, L. (2002), “Green business or community economy?”, International Journal of Social Economics,
Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 652-662.

Further reading
Mangla, S.K., Govindan, K. and Luthra, S. (2016), “Critical success factors for reverse logistics in Indian
industries: a structural model”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 129 No. 25, pp. 608-621.

Corresponding author
Daniele Eckert Matzembacher can be contacted at: daniele_eckert@yahoo.com.br

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com