The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, n.d.) adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to meet current needs without compromising future generations' ability to meet their needs. At the heart of these SDGs is sustainability. The first is to have decent work and economic growth such as creating sustainable jobs. Another is having responsible consumption and production by reducing waste and using renewable energy. The last sustainability goal relates to supply chains and their climate action by reducing their carbon footprint (United Nations, n.d.). Pagell and Wu (2009) argue that sustainable supply chains should at least be carbon neutral and not harm social systems but still create a profit that would allow businesses to run continuously. Also, Sisco et al. (2010) defined supply chain sustainability as “the management of environmental, social, and economic impacts, and the encouragement of good governance practices, throughout the lifecycles of goods and services” (p. 7). This definition resonates with the widely used concept called the “triple bottom line approach” that takes environmental, economic, and social dimensions as the minimum threshold for achieving sustainability (Elkington and Rowlands, 1999; Seuring and Müller, 2008).

Sustainable supply chain drivers can be both internal and external. Governmental policies and regulations play a significant role in promoting sustainable business practices (Raut et al., 2019). Also, pressures from society (expectations from consumers and civil society) and industry (competitors) can be important forces in driving sustainable practices in supply chains (Sajjad et al., 2015; Emamisaleh and Rahmani, 2017). For example, Oxfam's global campaign against the disproportionate power imbalance in the global coffee supply chain led to the launch of the Fair-Trade system and other sustainable programs in the coffee industry (Barrientos, 2006; Macdonald, 2007). Also, in 2004, Starbucks launched a sourcing approach called “Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) to promote economically, socially, and environmentally coffee growing practices (Starbucks, 2020). Internally, management commitment, operational and economic benefits can drive various sustainable practices (Emamisaleh and Rahmani, 2017; Sajjad et al., 2020). Many global companies have applied Corporate Social Responsibility (C.S.R.) as their business model to apply social and ethical practices (Lindgreen and Swaen, 2010). The blockchain technology is another important initiative aimed at overcoming transparency and traceability issues and enhancing environmental sustainability in the global food supply chains (Friedman and Ormiston, 2022).

Malak-Rawlikowska et al. (2019) provide three-proximity criteria to define SFSCs. First, SFSCs must have close geographical proximity from where food is produced to where it will be consumed, and this is measured using food miles (Coelho et al., 2018; Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019). The second proximity is organizational, meaning the number of actors within the chain should consist of one or no intermediaries between the initial producer and the end consumer (Chiffoleau et al., 2016). Lastly is social proximity, which is the knowledge and information that is shared by the producer to create a relationship with the end consumer (Marsden et al., 2002). Social proximity focuses on the relationships that are created during the chains and how the consumers feel about the producers, whereas geographical proximity only focuses on the distance the food has gone to reach the end consumer. The later description lacks specifics of the proximities, such as the distance of food miles for geographical proximity, as well as the level of the relationships created between producer and end consumer for social proximity (Marsden et al., 2002; Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019). Though other research has suggested that local food or SFSCs can achieve geographical proximity by traveling a few miles within the city or state or even traveling up to 400 miles (Martinez, 2010; Coelho et al., 2018).

SFSCs can take various definitions, including alternative food networks and local food systems. Indeed “Alternative food networks” is an umbrella term to refer to SFSCs, box schemes, which are usually subscription-based, farmers' markets, and community gardens (Kessari et al., 2020). Local food systems, like SFSCs, look at geographical proximity as a determining factor. Typically, their end consumers are farmers' markets, restaurants, and retailers. Local food systems also consider the population of the community for choosing distance; if it is densely populated, the distance to be considered a local food system is much smaller than that of a spread out, less dense area (Uchanski et al., 2018). In this study, we opted to use SFSCs vis-à-vis alternative food networks as we believe such chains need to be conceptualized as a complement rather than an alternative to longer food supply chains. SFSCs would include sales occurring at farmers' markets, retailers, and restaurants if the food sold comes right from the producer but follows the geographical proximity.

There have been studies attempting to provide empirical evidence about the sustainability of SFSCs. However, the findings are context-specific and diverse. For example, Malak-Rawlikowska et al. (2019) studied the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of SFSCs in Europe in relation to the long food supply chains (LFSCs) or conventional food supply chains. Within economic sustainability, their study found that SFSCs can receive higher prices for their products in comparison to LFSCs. Schmitt et al. (2017) found similar results in European SFSCs in terms of their ability to get higher prices. For environmental sustainability, Malak-Rawlikowska et al. (2019) looked at food miles from production to consumer and the CO₂ that is produced. The study concluded that though some SFSCs create lower levels of CO₂ or food miles, LFSCs, on average, create less of an environmental impact as they can transport and produce larger amounts of food at once. Lastly, for social sustainability, the study looked at labor to production, gender equality, bargaining power, prices, the quantity they can sell, labor hours, and contract ability (Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019). For labor to production, due to the smaller batches in SFSCs, more labor is required per product in comparison to LFSCs. As for gender equality in labor, SFSCs tend to have more diverse employment overall. LFSCs typically have better chances of getting contracts and creating more products (Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019).

One of the recent projects that documents desired sustainable practices in SFSCs is the Short supply chain Knowledge and Innovation Network (SKIN, n.d.); its Good Practice Repository provides empirical evidence from 24 European countries, the US, and Armenia. The sustainable practices encompass various food sectors such as fresh dairy, fresh meat, fruits, processed dairy, processed meat, processed other, and vegetables (SKIN, n.d.). The main indicators used to measure economic sustainability include profitability, local employment generation, economic uncertainty reduction, training and coaching initiatives, synergies with other sectors, markets/events/initiatives for multiple producers locally, and preservation and valorization of small farms (Vittersø et al., 2019; Jarzebowski et al., 2020; SKIN, n.d.). Environmental sustainability practices can be measured through greenhouse (GHG) emissions, energy use, carbon footprint, ecological soundness of production methods, food miles, and food waste (Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019; Vittersø et al., 2019). These studies cite several sustainable practices including Házikó, a catering business in Budapest that uses bicycle delivery to reduce its emissions and use environmentally friendly packaging, and Hello Fresh, a company that helps with reducing food miles and food waste by working closely with producers. With social sustainability, SFSCs are considered very important in creating strong connection between producers and consumers, building trust/sense of community, promoting community education, and recognizing of producers (SKIN, n.d.). Labor to production, gender equality, bargaining power, and other chain performance indicators are considered critical to evaluate the sustainability of SFSCs (Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019).

When COVID-19 occurred, it had differential effects on SFSCs and LFSCs. Initially, lockdowns caused by the pandemic forced hotels, restaurants, and schools to shut down affecting the distribution of food supplies. This increased sales occurring at grocery stores as at home meals became one of the very few options to get food and due to lockdown measures; this affected farmers' markets and on-farm stand sales (Thilmany et al., 2021; Weersink et al., 2021). The pandemic also required food producers and processors to change how they packaged foods as people wanted some foods in larger quantities. The pandemic also changed what foods people were buying, such as people deciding to bake with the extra time they had. People also started storing foods that can last longer, which resulted in empty shelves for products such as flour and frozen goods (Weersink et al., 2021). During this time, many producers saw a decrease in supply due to a shift in demand.

In Canada, chicken production in May and June of 2020 decreased 6 and 7% respectively, and dairy also decreased around the same time. Another issue that occurred due to COVID-19 was the increase in prices, with beef increasing by around 10%, whereas milk saw consistent pricing due to the supply management system used in Canada (Weersink et al., 2021). During the Pandemic, there were not only issues within the production but also in other parts of the chains. One issue was the difficulty of transporting food to and from the United States due to increased border restrictions (Hobbs, 2020). Also, labor shortages affected food distribution due to the regulations put on travel throughout the pandemic. It also affected processing due to workers being ill or even just having to isolate due to COVID exposures (Hobbs, 2020). Despite the disruptions in global food supply chains due to COVID-19, this may have benefitted SFSCs in some ways. For example, the shift to more online sales during lockdowns created another option for producers in SFSCs to increase sales and expand their reach beyond on-farm sales and customer base (Weersink et al., 2021).

Table 1 summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants in the semi-structured survey from the four Atlantic Provinces. Many participants were between the ages of 46–65 (43%) and 26-45 (33%), and 59% were males. Of the participants, about 78% were owners of the farm business. In addition, many participants (56%) held a “University Degree, Certificate or Diploma” or an “Advanced University Degree” (Graduate) and participants were from New Brunswick (56%). Most of the participants had 1 to 10 employees for their farm business (79%) and a farm income of $100,000 or more (52%).

Most farm businesses were involved in fruits or vegetables (58%) and sold their products in small towns or rural areas (68%). The farm businesses implemented different farming systems–conventional (31%), organic (23%), Integrated Pest management (IPM) (22%), and other (23%). “Direct on-farm sales” (to individual consumers) was the most commonly used distribution channel (84%), followed by “Direct off-farm” sales at farmers' markets (63%) and delivery to the consumer (58%). Likewise, 59% of the participants reported having sold via small retailers (Table 2). The fact that most farm business in Atlantic Canada choose direct on-farm delivery may be attributed its benefits for consumers in terms of the quality and quantity of food purchased, as indicated by Loiseau et al. (2020), in the context of France. Studies elsewhere also documented direct-selling, specifically on-farm sales, as a preferred outlet choice for SFSCs (e.g., Chiffoleau and Dourian, 2020; Jarzebowski et al., 2020).

The participants were asked to share the farthest distance their primary product could travel before selling it to a buyer; the median and mean values food could travel were reported at 65 km and mean 83 km, respectively. Apparently, the food miles of SFSCs in Atlantic Provinces are relatively modest but higher than most SFSCs in Europe (Coley et al., 2009; Vaillant et al., 2017). However, the empirical literature is inconclusive regarding the environmental sustainability of such practices. Some studies indicated that direct-on-farm sales might contribute to increased carbon footprints because it forces buyers to drive to farms and buy smaller quantities (Coley et al., 2009); this means that LFSCs may have an overall lower food mile and carbon footprint per unit than SFSCs (Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019). Also, it should be noted that other factors such as the level of technology used in production and distribution systems may have greater environmental impact than food miles per se (Coley et al., 2009; Mundler and Rumpus, 2012).

Regarding packaging material, only 12.5% of the respondents reported using non-recyclable material. The remaining 87.5% either used no packaging (14%), recyclable plastic (30%), or other recyclables such as glasses and cardboard (44%). About 72% of the participants in SFSCs reported that they had never (38%), rarely (20%), or sometimes (14%) used a cooling system that required fuel consumption. About 78% reported having used transportation that required fuel consumption. Most of the farm businesses (69%) used organic farming, IPM, or other farming systems. The overwhelming majority of farm businesses use compostable or recyclable packaging material made of plastic, glass, and cardboard. The use of chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers is minimal; only 31% of the farm businesses use conventional farming. Some farms use predator insects and culture control to manage pests, pasture rotations, green fertilizers, low-carbon couriers, and locally sourced inputs.

Table 3 summarizes the main source of information and level of trust among participants in SFSCs. Most farm businesses in the study (88%) used social media as the primary method to build their relationships with customer/consumer. However, the overwhelming majority of producers did have no to some influence on the activities of intermediaries or buyers. Likewise, farm-to-farm collaborations are less prevalent. As a result, most farm businesses were either unable to judge or had little or some level of trust in other farm businesses participating in SFSCs. Also, the level of trust between farm businesses and their customers ranges from fair to complete in the Atlantic Provinces SFSCs.

SFSCs in Atlantic Provinces achieved higher social sustainability scores compared to studies elsewhere, such as in Europe (Jarzebowski et al., 2020). The strong social factor within SFSCs could serve as an effective marketing tool to receive recognition as a producer and create a trusted relationship between consumers and producers (Schmitt et al., 2017). In addition, farm businesses in the study agree that they supply trusted products that care for consumers' wellbeing and create strong social connections. This finding mirrors that of Maas et al. (2022), who looked at the value of SFSCs from the perspective of Atlantic Canadian consumers. Studies in Europe also provide support about the role of SFSCs in generating local employment (Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019; Jarzebowski et al., 2020).

Relatively, the economic sustainability dimension received lower scores compared to the social sustainability dimension. In fact, this was reflected in the qualitative responses, which cited economic incentives and longer payback periods as the main obstacles to implementing sustainable production and distribution practices. Yet, compared to the European context, SFSCs in Atlantic Canada provide reasonable economic benefits for the farm businesses. This is perhaps because consumers in the Atlantic region tend to have a higher value of SFSCs as helping the local economy, safe and fresh; as a result, consumers are willing to pay more to encourage farm business in SFSCs (Maas et al., 2022). According to the farm businesses, SFSCs contribute greatly to generate local employment and link their activities with other local businesses in different sectors. SFSCs in the study are considered as a source of regular and assured payments by establishing long-term relationships with their individual and industrial customers. Farm businesses in Atlantic Canada consider the price received and overall profitability generally “good”; however, the view that SFSCs achieve premium prices (Schmitt et al., 2017; Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019) is inconclusive, especially compared to the high capital cost required to implement sustainable practices.

Regarding the environmental dimension, most farm businesses agree that their current production and distribution systems create little to no food waste and are making efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, over two-thirds of farm businesses applied farming practices that are more sustainable such as organic agriculture, IPM, and other sustainable practices such as regenerative agriculture, hydroponics systems, and Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) (Table 4).

Factor analysis was carried out using the oblique rotation technique and principal components extraction to understand the underlying economic, social, and environmental sustainability factors in SFSCs. All the multi-scale items loaded above 0.5. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), sampling adequacy, test for the social, economic, and environmental dimensions reported at 0.70, 0.66, and 0.56, respectively, which are all above the minimum acceptable value of 0.5; likewise, Bartlett's Test of sphericity was reported at p < 0.001. Both tests confirmed the suitability of the data for factor analysis. Thus, the multi-item scales, measured on a five-point Likert scale, were subjected to factor analysis and reliability tests using Cronbach's alpha. Except for the single construct measuring environmental sustainability (α = 0.64), the other four measured a value of 0.69 or above.

As shown in Table 4, there were seven statements measuring the social sustainability dimension; five factors loaded in a single construct (Fac. 1), which relates to “community” related attributes, and the other component (Fac. 2) is attributed to “product authenticity.” The highest loaded community-related item is the statement “We work to educate our consumers about the products they are consuming,” with a factor loading of 0.772, followed by the statement “We have an equal gender distribution among employees.” Both statements loaded high for the construct related to product authenticity (Table 4). Likewise, three statements related to economic sustainability are loaded in one factor (Fac. 1), “sustainable profit” related, and the remaining two statements are loaded to factor 2 (Fac. 2), “local economy” related. For the profit-related construct, the statement “We can sell our products for a premium price” has the highest factor loading (0.892) followed by “We produce a sustainable profit year-round.” Both statements related to the “local economy” construct have high factor loadings. The environmental items loaded to a single factor (Fac. 1), and the statements “We work to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions” and “We are aware of how much energy and carbon we use during production and delivery” have factor loadings of 0.869 and 0.828.

Next, we carried out a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to test the effects of the constructs identified in the factor analysis (Table 4) on the choice of distribution channels (sales outlets) by the farm businesses. There was a statistically significant main effect in sales outlet choices based on the economic sustainability constructs “sustainable profit” (Pillai's Trace = 0.227, F = 2.490, p = 0.034) and “local economy” (Pillai's Trace = 0.336; F = 4.299; p = 0.001) and the “community” related social sustainability construct (Pillai's Trace = 0.211, F = 2.278, p = 0.050). The results show that economic sustainability constructs related to “sustainable profit” (F = 9.818; p = 0.003) and “local economy” (F = 18.965; p < 0.001) have a statistically significant effect in choosing “direct on-farm sales to individual consumers” as a primary outlet to sell food products. The “local economy” construct also has a significant main effect (F = 5.869; p = 0.019) in choosing direct on-farm sales (“pick your own”) as a primary sales outlet by farm businesses in Atlantic Canadian SFSCs. Only one of the social sustainability constructs (“community” related attribute) has a statistically significant main effect (F = 9.487; p = 0.003) in choosing “farmers markets” as the main off-farm sales outlet by farm businesses in the region. The other social sustainability construct related to “product authenticity” and the environmental construct did not have a statistically significant main effect in any of the on-farm or off-farm sales outlets or selling via an intermediary. Overall, the distribution channel decision (direct on-farm sales) appeared to be induced by economic motives. Environmentally, internet sales tends to be a preferred method to reduce food miles and carbon footprint (Majewski et al., 2020); however, direct sales via the internet was the lowest used channel in the study context compared to Europe (Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019).

Furthermore, study participants were asked to provide the overall attractiveness of SFSCs on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Accordingly, SFSCs are perceived as “very good” as a source of regular and assured payments and in establishing long-term customer relationships. Likewise, price received and overall profitability of SFSCs are judged “good” by most of the farm businesses in the study context (Figure 1). The findings are generally consistent with the empirical evidence elsewhere (Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019; Vittersø et al., 2019; Abebe et al., 2022).

SFSCs' robustness to supply- and demand-side shocks during COVID-19 was assessed from the perspective of farm businesses in the four Atlantic Provinces. Approximately 63% of the study participants mentioned that COVID-19 affected their operations. However, 79% of them reported that they did not lay off their employees, and only 33% saw a decline in revenue. As of January 2022, about 54% of the farm businesses reported an 80% to a full return of pre-pandemic profit levels. In fact, about 59% had overall profits increased since COVID-19 (Table 5). This is perhaps surprising as farm businesses were affected by labor shortages due to Canada's border restrictions and strict lockdown measures (Hobbs, 2020). This may be attributed to the closeness of SFSCs to consumers (Cappelli and Cini, 2020) and changes in consumer behaviors toward local foods due to COVID-19 (Benos et al., 2022).

This section explores the intensity and scope of current sustainable practices and the barriers in the context of Atlantic SFSCs using the qualitative information gathered through the semi-structured survey. Many of the farm businesses in the study have implemented multiple sustainable practices in their production and distribution systems, which are largely environmental or social. However, the findings reveal that achieving economic sustainability in SFSCs remains elusive.

Many farm businesses implemented sustainable production and distribution practices. A farm business manager that used IPM identified “minimum tillage,” reduction of “plant health products”, and “capture carbon” as the primary sustainable practices being implemented (Respondent #33, New Brunswick). Another farm business manager engaged in producing fruits and vegetables using hydroponic systems highlighted some of the current practices: “Sustainability must be prioritized in all aspects of food products to try and reduce the impact of the impending climate disaster(s). Indoor production uses 95% less water, 90% less space (or more), and very little (if any) fossil fuel-burning machinery. We also do not use pesticides, herbicides, or preservatives”. (Respondent #11, Newfoundland and Labrador).

Several farm businesses also adopted better packaging methods, such as compostable materials and a return program for glass materials, reduced energy use and emissions, including a switch from gas-powered tools and vehicles to electric vehicles and power tools, and using energy-efficient appliances or switching to solar or wind energy. For example, the owner of a farm business engaged in organic farming (fruits and vegetables) explained his farm's practices as follows: “We are willing and have invested in sustainable practices. We have almost eliminated the use of fossil fuels on the farm and would adopt more sustainable packaging if there was a viable/recyclable alternative.” (Respondent #12, Nova Scotia). Likewise, the owner of a farm (fruits and vegetables), using the organic farming system expressed her business commitment to sustainable practices: “I'm buying solar panels this year to offset some of my electricity use. Eventually, I plan to buy an electric vehicle for running errands and delivering produce. I'm also in the process of replacing gas powered small tools and equipment with electric. I am planting flowering plants to support biodiversity and plan to increase this every year. I am fine-tuning the management of irrigation to reduce water use as much as possible. I am creating a hay field so we can produce our own hay instead of buying off-farm (I also have some livestock). I am trying to minimize tillage as much as possible and experiment with no-till when feasible.” (Respondent #8, New Brunswick).

Table 6 summarizes the qualitative responses regarding current sustainable practices in Atlantic Provinces' SFSCs. As shown in Table 6, many farm businesses have implemented sustainable practices in their production and distribution systems. This includes a switch from gas (fossil fuel) to electric and solar energy sources for delivery and power tools. Others are using minimum tillage and no-till farming. The overwhelming majority of farm businesses use compostable or recyclable packaging material made of plastic, glass, and cardboard. The use of chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers is minimal; only 31% of the farm businesses use conventional farming. Some farms use predator insects and culture control to manage pests, pasture rotations, green fertilizers, low-carbon couriers, and locally sourced inputs. Most farm businesses use on-farm sales.

Next, the farm businesses were asked about the barriers to implement sustainable practices in their production and distribution systems. The barriers ranged from high capital costs (most important constraint), access to new technology, regulatory frameworks, and supply chain governance to limited human capital and shrinking farmland bases (Table 7).

A farm business owner described his frustration with access to finance as follows: “We applied for a grant to upgrade our refrigerators, stoves, and freezers to be more energy efficient! It is our aim to attempt to source local pork. We would like to be able to reuse our pickling jars, but we do not have the money for the dish washer required for cleaning the jars.” (Respondent #3, Nova Scotia).

Farm businesses are also struggling due to varying regulations. The owner of a farm business stated her frustration: “The compostable bags and containers that are currently in circulation for these items are not accepted by our waste management in Nova Scotia and therefore are not useful in our system.” (Respondent #26, Nova Scotia). Access to sustainable input sources is another constraint described by the same manager (Respondent #26): “Currently, there are no avenues for larger farms (that require bulk feed delivery) to obtain certified organic feed; this is a major barrier in our system as we would like to begin buying organic feed for our livestock but none of the feed companies will ship organic feed in their trucks. Also, there is nothing currently in place with our waste management to process compostable containers effectively, so they are not allowed in the green bin systems. This makes it useless for us to use these items unless the people buying them put them into their own composting systems or straight into the garbage.”

Another farm business manager engaged in a 95% pesticide-free farming system had to say the following: “We have been working toward more sustainability for 30 years and have been very successful in the running of the farm. However, we are still in a precarious position due to our socioeconomic climate. It is no exaggeration to say that the biggest threat to our existence is irresponsible bureaucracy and politics. We live in a disconnected society with ever-increasing levels of government regulation (interference) that is irresponsible in that they make rules and laws and let us try to find a way to survive. Socialism in Canada is very hypocritical in that it makes socialist rules and expects capitalism and the free market to figure out a way to keep going.” (Respondent #20, Nova Scotia).

Perhaps a major challenge within the Atlantic SFSCs is the economic incentives, at least in the short term, in implementing sustainable practices. The owner of a farm business described the sustainability challenges his business faced: “Right now, we are under constant pressure to push the land and employees (and ourselves) harder to generate enough revenue to stay in business. We are very productive, but it is never quite enough. As a result, we sometimes have to use practices that we believe are unsustainable and are caught in a trap where we cannot afford to invest in things like energy-reducing technologies or infrastructure because we are continually paying those costs and, therefore, must continue to externalize costs in the form of pollution (Respondent #63, New Brunswick). He went on listing the main barriers as follows: “ (1) Revenue is limited by prices that are determined by external factors; (2) policies that support cheap food, food is now cheaper as a percentage of income than it has ever been in history; (3) invisible subsidies to transportation of non-local produce in the form of highways and CO2 emissions; (4) invisible externalized social and environmental costs of production, like topsoil loss; and 95) power differentials within the food to retail chain that allow big players to restrict farm revenues and maximize their own profits.” This was also echoed by a farm business manager engaged in fruits and vegetables: “I agree to have sustainable production if it does not negatively impact my income. Society is asking farmers to produce high-quality food and protect the environment without using plant health products at very low prices. I have little sympathy for consumers who are only interested in looking for the lowest price and demanding the highest quality. Farmers can only be suckers for so long. Pay me for quality, and I will apply sustainable production practices.” Respondent #33, New Brunswick). Another farm engaged in the meat business (certified humane and antibiotic-free) briefly described how economic incentives influence the decision to implement sustainable practices: “I love to use sustainable practices, but there needs to be greater recognition of the additional costs involved.” (Respondent #35, Prince Edward Island). Evidence elsewhere also shows SFSCs struggle to be economically sustainable in the current competitive environment. Due to their economies of scale and scope, large corporations can be able to supply food products at lower prices (Jarzebowski et al., 2020). However, if these companies had to pay for the negative environmental effects, their food prices would increase consumers' costs by between 12 and 28% (Kalfagianni and Skordili, 2018) and would put SFSCs in a more competitive position, in terms of price.

A shrinking farmland base is another concern described by a farm business owner engaged in processed foods by growing own vegetables: “Our farm uses green fertilizers to reduce the use of man-made ones, but we would need another farmland to fully take advantage of green fertilizer and to plant more flowers and plants to encourage beneficial predators and pollinators to prevent spraying of chemicals. We would rely on row covers more often if we had more farm hands.” (Respondent #3, Nova Scotia).

The last part of the qualitative study focused on policy supports and programs farm businesses would like to see introduced or enforced (Table 8). The responses varied from being unsure of the type of policy support to more robust approaches to promote sustainable practices. For example, a farm business owner engaged in processed foods by growing his own vegetables under the conventional farming system stated, “I am unsure of how policies would help us. Some of the food inspection policies tie our hands. We would like to recycle our jam jars, but we are required to have a commercial dishwasher instead of washing the jars in our domestic dishwasher and then baking them in an oven. Financial institutions do not like to support small businesses, especially farms. We went to three institutions to change our banking style to help us with the business and no one wanted to take the risk. I don't know if policy could help that! In general, government officials move slowly and are not creative. Having said that, Perennia was a help to us when we first started. Small Farm Acceleration program is the only thing that has allowed us to grow!” (Respondent #3, Nova Scotia).

Another farm business engaged in producing fruits and vegetables under indoor vertical hydroponic farming called for a policy refocus toward inter-provincial collaboration: “I am not sure. With disrupted supply chains, this may help make local options more appealing. Maybe this is a time for policymakers to highlight and connect different businesses that can benefit from each other. Perhaps a policy that could help businesses and farms in Atlantic Canada if the four provinces could collaborate on standards. What I mean by this is that if a provincially inspected facility (butcher) can sell its product to all Atlantic provinces and not just the province it is located in. Or that farmers can sell their produce in Nova Scotia that is grown in New Brunswick, for example.” (Respondent #21, New Brunswick).

Others called for policy incentives to encourage investment in sustainable practices such as electric vehicles (to be used in the production and distribution systems), carbon sequestration, and hydroponic systems; incentives for on-farm innovations and improved systems; easy access to finance; incentives to promote farming (young farmers); financial support for small producers; investment in research and development; payments for set-aside land; banning of unsustainable packaging material (non-recyclables); and market assistance, including co-operative initiatives.

Some of the direct quotes regarding policy interventions include the following: