Short food supply chains have garnered significant attention in Europe in the last two decades due to their perceived sustainability benefits compared to traditional mass food delivery systems (Majewski et al., 2020; Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019; Berná Serna et al., 2024; Vittersø et al., 2019). Short food supply chains involve a direct and shortened distribution system from producers to consumers, reducing the number of intermediaries and the physical distance between them. These chains are believed to be more socially and economically sustainable, contributing to rural development and fostering closer relationships between producers and consumers (Galli & Brunori, 2013; Ilbery & Maye, 2006; Jarzebowski et al., 2020; Renting et al., 2003).

Recently, particularly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, digital platforms have increasingly replaced traditional food delivery systems, such as direct sales in physical marketplaces. These platforms can facilitate direct connections between small-scale farmers and consumers, reducing the number of intermediaries and allowing the food market to operate within the scope of short food supply chains (Cimino et al., 2024). Integrating digital platforms in short food supply chains might offer numerous advantages, including improved information flow between supply and demand-side actors (Ciulli et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021). By leveraging digital platforms, short food supply chains can streamline operations, improve supply chain efficiency, and enhance the overall sustainability of the food distribution system (Burgess & Sunmola, 2022; Chauhan, 2020; Suali et al., 2024; Tian et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021). Additionally, digital platforms enable users and suppliers to participate in product design processes and value co-creation, fostering collaboration and innovation within the supply chain (Hein et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021).

Although the potential benefits of digitalisation in improving the efficiency and sustainability of food supply chains have been widely described in the literature, with few exceptions (Glaros et al., 2023), little social research has been conducted on the challenges and tensions caused by this transition. However, when digital platforms replace physical short food supply chains, there are several implications and changes to be expected. Reliance on digital platforms alters consumer behaviour, farmers’ decisions, and the dynamics of the entire food supply chain (Butu et al., 2020). As stated by Ciulli et al. (2020), digital platforms are characterised by network effects, with the value of the platform for one group of users depending on the size, objectives, and attitudes of another group. Such dependence creates the potential for divergence and tensions among users. Understanding these tensions and challenges is crucial for developing e-commerce governance systems and digital tools that strike a balance between technological progress and sustainable food systems.

Building on the insights and gaps identified in the literature, this study aims to address the following research question: How do digital platforms integrate the principles of short food supply chains, specifically regarding the tensions between producers and consumers, and how can these tensions be mitigated?

This article’s reminder is organised as follows. The theoretical background provides the study’s context and foundation. We then outline the study’s design, detailing the data collection process and the methodologies employed to explore the research question. The following section highlights the investigation’s key findings and their implications. In the final section, we summarise and discuss the study’s main findings, address its limitations, and suggest future research.

Background

Short food supply chain encompasses a wide array of concepts and principles, all centred around the notion of proximity between producers and consumers across three main dimensions: physical or geographic, organisational, and social (Burgess et al., 2024; Burgess et al., 2023; Galli & Brunori, 2013; Hernández et al., 2021). Physical proximity refers to the distance from the production place to the final consumer, measured with Food Miles. Organisational proximity is expressed by the number of intermediaries in the chain, and social proximity emphasises the relationship between food producers and consumers based on mutual trust and closeness of the transfer of information (Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019).

As previously stated, when effectively managed and implemented, digital platforms can leverage the network effect and create a competitive advantage in short food supply chains (Burgess & Sunmola, 2021). Nevertheless, this technological transition also brings about an intricate network of conflicts and tensions, at both the conceptual and operational levels.

The platform capitalism theory, outlined by Srnicek (2017), is a useful framework for examining conceptual conflicts and tensions in the digitalisation of short food supply chains based on the idea that digital platforms operate as economic actors that accumulate power by controlling data, infrastructure, and interactions within their ecosystems rather than as pure neutral facilitators of exchange. By combining Srnicek’s platform capitalism model with the concept of proximity in short food supply chains, it becomes clear that digitalisation does not exactly replicate traditional short food supply chains in an online environment. Instead, it creates a hybrid model whereby data-driven decision-making, algorithmic control, and platform governance gradually mediate social relations.

The principle of geographic proximity is challenged as platform logistics emphasise efficiency and scale rather than strict local integration and embeddedness. While short food supply chains traditionally emphasize place-based relationships, platforms often extend their reach beyond local markets, redefining the meaning of proximity and shifting the balance of power away from small producers toward centralised digital intermediaries.

Similarly, organisational proximity is reshaped because platforms use governance strategies that differ from the decentralised and cooperative nature of traditional short food supply chains. The ability of many platforms to collect extensive information on consumer and producer behaviour, as well as market trends, while neglecting transparency in their decision-making processes, generates information asymmetry between the platforms and their users. In line with Srnicek (2017), Zuboff (2019) describes surveillance capitalism as a system in which digital platforms extract behavioural data to predict and influence user actions, prioritising platform profitability over user interests. Besides, instead of reducing middlemen to guarantee fair value distribution, platforms may become intermediaries themselves, by setting transaction fees, controlling visibility through ranking algorithms, and influencing price structures. Oncini et al. (2020) argue that platforms represent a novel aspect of the capitalist production system, as they can extract value from economic transactions. This phenomenon is described by Srnicek (2017) as rent-seeking behaviour, with platforms extracting value from network effects while presenting themselves as neutral market enablers. In practice, small-scale producers may become increasingly dependent on platform rules and mechanisms, potentially reducing their autonomy and bargaining power, raising the question of how the value is distributed among the platform actors and who captures what share of the value (Hein et al., 2020). This perception contradicts the goal of short food supply chains, which is to foster social and economic sustainability by implementing practices that guarantee equitable distribution of value among all participants (Burgess et al., 2023; Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019). The costs and benefits of digital transactions may disproportionately favour larger, technologically proficient companies, leaving smaller traditional farmers and smaller agroecological initiatives at a disadvantage. As highlighted by Zuboff (2019), this shift can also displace or threaten existing, often regulated, local service providers, such as small shops and local markets, reducing farmers’ autonomy and increasing their economic dependence on digital platforms.

Kenney & Zysman (2016), although primarily focused on global platforms like Airbnb and Uber, discuss the impacts of digital platforms on job precarity that can be extended to smaller food platforms. Digital platforms often create fragmented work schedules and increase part-time employment without the benefits associated with traditional full-time jobs. In the context of digital short food supply chains, this trend is particularly evident among part-time workers in logistics and distribution.

Social proximity is perhaps the most defining and challenging characteristic. Short food supply chains may be included in what Forno & Graziano (2014) refer to as Sustainable Community Movement Organisations (SCMO) which emphasise solidarity and the use of ‘alternative’ forms of consumption as a means of re-embedding the economic system into social relationships. It is distinguished, among other things, by transcending the capitalist market setting by encouraging ongoing and direct relationships between producers and consumers, in which the commercial or economic exchange is primarily focused on the social relationship established rather than the commercial one. Within these initiatives, the act of purchasing is not only promoted individually but also socialised among a group of people, whether formally or informally organised. In digital environments, trust and the exchange of rich, context-specific information, which were traditionally built through face-to-face producer-consumer interactions, are increasingly mediated by algorithmic reputation systems such as customer ratings, automated recommendations, and user engagement metrics, rather than strong social relationships and a sense of community. Srnicek (2017) highlights how platforms commodify social interactions, turning trust-based relationships into quantifiable data points that feed platform algorithms. Furthermore, the growing distance between producers and consumers leads to a lack of knowledge on both sides about either cultivation, working conditions, and respective preferences, needs, and requirements (Forno et al., 2024).

While some platforms include features for sharing information about producers and their practices, the depth and authenticity of these interactions are typically less than those in direct, personal exchanges, weakening local community ties and collective action, which are the foundations for community development and local economic stimulation (De Bernardi et al., 2020; Forno et al., 2024; Freeman et al., 2023; Markelova et al., 2009; Reina-Usuga et al., 2022).

In addition to the previously mentioned conceptual tensions and challenges, the process of digitalising also has the potential to create operational tensions and conflicts among participants in short food supply chains (Mahroof et al., 2022; Nosratabadi et al., 2020).

Tensions can arise in both physical and digital short food supply chains due to differing consumer and producer expectations, motivations, and levels of commitment. On the one hand, consumers may not be consistently motivated to permanently shift to short food supply chains, which may frustrate producers and jeopardise the direct relationship’s sustainability (Lin et al., 2021; Raftowicz, 2024). As a result, many small producers may prefer to focus their businesses on specific customer groups, building a network of dedicated clients, which Butu et al. (2020) refer to as a hard-core type of buyer. Furthermore, the seasonality of agricultural production can lead to tensions between consumers and farmers. Consumers accustomed to year-round access to a diverse range of products may struggle to adjust to the seasonal availability of goods in short food supply chains.

Conflicts may also emerge due to divergent interpretations of quality, safety, and value within short food supply chains. Short food supply chains thrive on the transparency of information regarding production methods, ethical practices, and the social values embedded in the food products (Burgess et al., 2024). Consumers may learn additional information on how their food was produced, the methods used, and the specific territorial attributes based on a good and direct relationship with the producer (Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019). Because quality is determined by the relationship and confidence between consumers and producers, food quality assessment may rely on trust instead of labels (Burgess et al., 2024). In impersonal systems, such as most digital platforms, the supply chain quality management must adhere to formal standards, ideally based on third-party quality certification systems such as Organic Farming, Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) or other international standards. The implementation of these standards in short food supply chains, particularly in small-to-medium businesses, can be challenging.

Another potential tension arising from the digitalisation of short food supply chains is related to consumer claims, as the richness of communication is reduced. According to Barska & Wojciechowska-Solis (2020), the most significant disadvantages of e-commerce identified by food e-consumers include the risk of incorrectly valuing some products, as well as concerns about the selection and handling of perishables such as vegetables, eggs, and meat. Oncini et al. (2020) point out that, due to the unique characteristics of food and strict packaging and storage regulations, consumers’ options for returning products are limited. This could be one of the reasons why some customers are hesitant to buy perishable food items online (Csordás et al., 2022). The synesthetic nature of visual consumer behaviour (Butu et al., 2020) may be another reason. The cross-sensory experience of attributes such as smell and appearance can only be fully assessed through live experience, making it difficult for a platform to accurately convey these aspects.

One of the most significant challenges that can arise with the digitalisation of short food supply chains stems from the issue of digital literacy, especially when platforms employ more advanced technology. For instance, as emphasised by Burgess et al. (2024), the current utilisation of blockchain technology in food supply chains, while advantageous for traceability, poses obstacles for small and medium producers. Digitalisation can create a disparity between individuals who have access to cutting-edge technologies and those who do not. This may become apparent in various forms, including the distinction between connected and disconnected farms, as well as between small and large agricultural enterprises (European Commission, 2023). Farmers’ lack of digital skills appears to be the primary impediment to the digital transition of short food supply chains (Charatsari et al., 2024), as it affects farmers’ perceptions of the compatibility between technology and their production systems (Lioutas & Charatsari, 2020).

Methodology

The study was conducted within the broader framework of the PRR Project Agrovila (PRR-C05-i03-I-000166), which aims to establish a sustainable digital platform that operates based on the principles of short food supply chains. Data collection was conducted in four main steps. The first two steps were designed to identify the primary conceptual and operational challenges and conflicts faced by current and potential food sellers and buyers when using short food supply chains supported by Business-to-Consumer (B2C) platforms. Steps 3 and 4 were devised to examine how platforms have tackled the conceptual and operational difficulties identified in steps 1 and 2. The first step occurred from July to December 2023, during which 10 focus group discussions were conducted in five NUT III ¹ regions of the Portuguese mainland: Douro, Coimbra Region, Lisbon Metropolitan Area (LMA), Alto Alentejo, and Algarve.

Two focus group discussions took place in each region, one involving producers and another involving consumers. A total of 50 producers and 48 consumers participated in the focus groups. The participants were chosen by the local partners of the Agrovila project, using purposive sampling and considering diversity in gender, age, and educational level. Purposive sampling focusses on individuals who are easily accessible, willing to participate, and possess the necessary knowledge on the topic. Rather than surveying a large population, we concentrated on a diverse, smaller, and more accessible group that could yield valuable insights into our research. Figure 1 displays geographic distribution of the focus groups and the number of participants per focus group.

Each focus group was recorded and saved by an audio device. In step two, the focus group audio records were transcribed and imported into NVivo 12 software for qualitative content analysis.

The analysis followed a thematic coding approach, structured around the two primary types of tensions identified in the literature: conceptual tensions and operational tensions. Within the conceptual tensions, responses were further categorised based on the three dimensions of proximity in short food supply chains: geographic, organisational, and social. The coding process was conducted iteratively, by one of the authors, beginning with a predefined framework informed by existing literature on short food supply chains and platform governance. As the analysis progressed, subcategories were refined inductively to capture emerging patterns and nuances in participant responses. Statements were assigned to specific nodes based on their relevance to these categories, allowing for a systematic comparison between producers’ and consumers’ perspectives. The operational tensions included themes related to: i) expectations, motivations, and commitment; ii) logistics; iii) confidence and trust; iv) certification; v) users’ selection and continuity; vi) price-setting mechanisms; vii) consumers’ synesthetic behaviour; viii) digital literacy and internet accessibility; and ix) rules and policies. To enhance the reliability of the analysis, another author reviewed a subset of the coded data, and discrepancies were discussed to ensure consistency in categorisation.

Figure 1 Location of the focus groups by NUT II

All participants were categorised based on their typology, as either producers (P) or consumers (C), and according to the NUT III, which included Douro (D), Coimbra Region (C), Lisbon Metropolitan Area (L), Alto Alentejo (A), and Algarve (G). Furthermore, participants were assigned a number indicating their order of intervention in the discussions. For example, PD1 is the code assigned to the first participant in the producers’ focus group held in Douro.

In step three, a broad internet search using keywords such as ‘short food supply chain and ecommerce’, ‘short food supply chain platform’, and ‘digital platform and short food supply chain’ was performed to get an overview of relevant food digital platforms active at the time (June 2024). We focused only on food platforms that act as "market intermediaries" and use digital technology to mediate transactions of goods and services between supply and demand-side actors, thereby enabling a marketplace (Ciulli et al., 2020). To qualify for selection, these platforms must have been operational for a minimum of two years to exclude experimental or inactive projects, have a specific focus on fresh food products, and express a connection to at least one aspect of short food supply chains, such as locality, territory, or the encouragement of producer-consumer connectivity. A total of 35 platforms were identified and subjected to analysis.

In step four, the initial selection of platforms was refined through additional desk research and the application of more specific criteria: i) the platform should enable consumers to purchase local food; ii) it should offer an online shopfront for producers; iii) it should establish a direct personalised connection between producers and end consumers. Of the 35 platforms selected in step 3, only 17 satisfied the established criteria and underwent comprehensive analysis. The comparative analysis of the 17 selected platforms, was made around 6 main aspects, according to key characteristics relevant to short food supply chains: i) emphasis on local; ii) interaction between producers and consumers; iii) participation of users in platform management; iv) product delivery options; v) price setting and payment mechanisms; and vi) certification and traceability.

Figure 2 schematically illustrates the key stages of this research.

Figure 2 Key stages of the research

Results