Is the concept of short supply chain relevant to
qualify cultural forms?
31/05/2016
Caroline CRETON - PhD student in Information and Communication Science
Thesis title: Collective digital uses and “short art supply chain”
University of Nantes, PhD funded by Mines Nantes and Telecom Bretagne
Advisors: Dr. A-F. Kogan and Dr. I. Lyubareva
Stage of Research: first year of PhD.
Keywords: short art supply chain, direct sale, intermediaries, disintermediation, ICT.
Abstract
“Short art supply chain” is a concept that does not exist in the academic world for culture.
These initiatives refer to interactions between producers (artists) and consumers (the
audience) that do not rely on the intermediaries who traditionally organize cultural
industries. Traditional art forms such as house-held concerts and crowd funded projects fall
under this category. With the use of digital tools such as softwares, the possibilities to
communicate, to manage administrative tasks or to practice artistic activities are higher than
before in developed countries. It can thus be stated that the digital revolution fosters the
development of these initiatives of “short art supply chain”. These possibilities to develop
“short art supply chain” can foster participation by citizen who can take part of the
organization, create an event or perform easily contrary to institutional organizations. That is
why “short art supply chain” can be a way to develop participatory democracy. The first step
of my research is to find a theoretical framework to propose a definition of “short art supply
chain” and to establish a typology of these organizational forms.
Introduction
In recent years we have witnessed the emergence of cultural initiatives inspired by
agriculture. These new forms are defined as “short art chains” such as Panier Culture de Nantes in
France, a cultural basket where contributors pay and organize cultural programming over the year.
This example is the gathering of consumers that decide to organize a cultural life out of the scope of
1
institutional or commercial intermediaries. The Cultural Basket is “inspired by AMAP1 […This project]
frees itself from existing institutions to create “another way to live and promote culture life”” (Kogan,
2015). The cultural basket, organized by contributors, means to support the artistic creation “by
reducing the role of intermediaries in the cultural distribution and developing sustainable
relationships between the audience and the artists” (ibid, p 5). This project clearly advocates for
another art organization and distribution. Other innovative cultural forms were born and put the
artists in touch with the public due to ICT, for instance, crowdfunding platforms, artist residencies
proposals platforms2, house-held concerts proposals platforms3 or paintings trade platforms. These
initiatives do not call themselves short art supply chain but underline the disintermediation of the
exchange. They allow interaction between the artists and the audience out of the scope of traditional
intermediaries. Is the concept of short art supply chain relevant to qualify these organizational
forms?
The economic concept of short supply chain is used in the agriculture sector since the
development of original marketing systems that brings producers closer to consumers. Community
Supported Agriculture (CSA) is an example of this concept in which subscribers receive a share of the
harvest in return for money and labor (Kneafsey et al., 2013). Some short food supply chains (SFSCs)
are traditional forms such as on-farm sales in rural location or in a marketplace. But during the postwar boom, the food industry had been modernized and industrialized. The consequence of that was
the development of intermediaries between producers and consumers that reduced the SFSCs forms
of selling. Simultaneously, urbanization had contributed to take away farmers from consumers
(Hérault-Fournier, 2012). Since the 1980s, these phenomena have provoked questions among the
farmers. Some of them, qualified as “pioneers”, have initiated parallel trade systems to re-establish
relationships with consumers (Lanciano et al., 2012).
Nowadays, various initiatives of SFSCs are growing all over Europe. There is a renewal of
traditional trading systems and creation of innovative forms where consumers seem to be involved in
their consumption (Dubuisson-Quellier, 2008). The development of all these trading forms generates
more complex producer-consumer interfaces “not so much in terms of the products they supply as in
terms of types of relations and organizational features they display ”(Marsden et al., 2000, p 426).
Firstly, initiatives had been identified with the aim of define the SFSC concept. After that,
researchers had questioned these forms with respect to the dominant agriculture industry. They also
worked on the capacity to transform the balance of power in the market and the establishment of a
genuine social relationship with the consumers (De Sartre et al., 2010). Short supply chains would
have the capacity to “re-socialize or re-spatialize food”(Marsden et al., 2000). Let’s see why we can
link work on this concept in agriculture with different economic sectors.
Theoretical framework
The farm sector is the privileged field for studying the short supply chain concept because
there are many initiatives easily recognizable. It also corresponds to current social concerns over
1
the French model of Community supported agriculture
hostanartist, http://www.hostanartist.com
3
Chipili, http://www.chipili.com/
2
2
“origin and manipulation of food”(Marsden et al., 2000). Supply chains are qualified as short in
opposition to long supply chains that are organized by many intermediaries, such as supermarkets.
Various definition are given but “in France, [it] seems to be a consensus that the key criterion refers
to the number of intermediaries between the producer and the consumer and the maximum number
for short supply chain should be one”(Kneafsey et al., 2013, p 24). In fact, the Agriculture government
department gives this definition “is considered as short supply chain an agricultural products trading
system with direct selling or indirect selling provided with no more than one intermediary between
the producer and consumer.” However, the definition can be expanded to geographical criteria, in
this case SFSCs are “trading systems that limit the number of intermediaries between producer and
consumer and/or the geographical distance between them” (Aubry and Chiffoleau, 2009). The most
engaging definitions integrate social values. The Labo ESS, a think tank promoting social and
solidarity economy, gives us this definition “short supply chain is an economic network in which the
number of intermediaries is limited with the aim of bringing, on a one hand, fair income to producers
and on the other hand, affordable price for consumers, transparency about the production methods
and fair distribution of added value between economic actors in the industry”4. Despite the variability
of the concept, SFSCs are definable by the minimization of the links in the supply chain (Aubry and
Chiffoleau, 2009). This definition includes various trading systems; a European study gives us an idea
of the different SFSCs and local food system (fig.1).
Figure 1. Overview of types of LFS/SFSC in the EU
SFSC
Sales in
5
proximity.
Sales at a
distance.
5
Sub-classification
CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) (or equivalent: AMAP, GAS, etc.)
- have variations according to different regions and countries, but follow same essential
principles whereby subscribers receive a share of the harvest in return for money and labor.
On Farm Sales:
- Farm shops
- Farm based hospitality (e.g. table d’hôte, B&B)
- Roadside sales
- Pick-Your-Own
Off Farm Sales – commercial sector:
- Farmers’ markets and other markets
- Farmer owned retail outlet
- Food Festivals / tourism events
- Sales directly to consumer co-operatives / buying groups
- Sales to retailers who source from local farmers and who make clear the identity of the
farmers.
- Sales to HoCaRe* as long as the identity of the farmer is made clear to end consumers.
Off Farm Sales – catering sector:
- Sales to hospitals, schools etc. The catering sector institution in this case is understood as the
‘consumer.’
Farm Direct Deliveries: Delivery schemes (e.g. veg box)
Farm Direct Deliveries:
- Delivery schemes
- Speciality retailers
- Internet sales
In Kneafsey, M. & al., 2013, “Short Food Supply Chains and local food systems in the EU. A state of play of their
socio economic characteristics”, p 26.
4
5
http://www.lelabo-ess.org/-circuits-courts-economiques-et-solidaires-.html
These may be achieved by farmers acting individually or collectively, but produce has to be traceable back to a named farmer
3
Reasons for choosing one of these marketing systems differ depending on “the desired objective
(support to the peasant agriculture, research of health and safety nutrition, etc.), the actor who is the
source of the initiative (consumers, farmers, local authorities, distributors, etc.), the chosen ways of
exchanging (shops, contracts, free order by Internet, etc.), the local context (rural, urban or suburban
areas) and finally the relationship to the land” (Hérault-Fournier, 2012). But all these examples can be
classified in two parts: direct selling or indirect selling (SFSC). In the agriculture industry, a distinction
is established in the French regulatory texts between direct selling and SFSC (the product sold to
resale to intermediaries). The direct selling includes “operations realized with or without charge
between a food owner and a user”. The selling has to be realized by the producer himself without the
presence of any intermediary during the exchange. So the product is the producer’s property until it
is sold to the final consumer. In opposition with the direct sale, SFSC is a transaction between an
intermediary and the final consumer (Chaffotte and Chiffoleau, 2007).
Chaffotte and Chiffoleau had proposed a typology of these initiatives that firstly distinguishes
direct selling from indirect selling, and then makes a distinction between individual and collective
forms (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. SFSCs typology
In Chaffotte L., Chiffoleau Y., 2007, “Vente directe et circuits courts : évaluations, définitions, typologie”. Les cahiers de
l’Observatoire du CROC, n°1, INRA Montpellier, www.psdr-coxinel.fr
Other authors had proposed a classification of the main types of SFSCs. Marsden, Banks and Bristow
identify three main different initiatives: face-to-face initiative (when consumers buy a product
straight from the peasant on a face-to-face basis); spatial proximity (when the consumer has
information about the product due to its production area) and finally spatially extended (the
consumer has information about the product but it is not produced in the same geographical
area)(Marsden et al., 2000, p 425)(fig.3). Other classification is proposed by Renting & al. They
distinguish two classes; the first one includes models in which there is a link between “quality
attributes of the product and its place of production or producer”, the second one represents SFSC in
which there is a link between food production and bioprocesses (Renting et al., 2003, p 401).
4
Figure 3. Three main types of SFSCs
In Renting H., & al., 2003, “Understanding Alternative Food Networks: Exploring the Role of Short Food Supply Chains” in
Rural Development. N°35, p399.
However, the paper of Chaffotte and Chiffoleau, seems to us the most appropriate typology
to transpose to the cultural sector due to the distinction it establishes between direct sale and SFSCs
and then between collective and individual organization of the exchange. From this work of
definition and classification, we want to develop an analysis in another economic sector, in the
cultural industry.
From agriculture to culture: a possible typology
As it is said in the introduction, agriculture is not the only economic sector that observes the
intensification of parallel exchange forms where producers and consumers establish a direct link or
with few intermediaries. For the cultural sector, there is no definition of short art supply chains
(SASCs). It is a term used to name some specific cultural forms inspired by community-supported
agriculture. The word disintermediation is also used to qualify digital initiatives that foster closer
relationships between the artists and the audience. To analyze all these forms, we base our work on
the literature concerning SFSCs, and more precisely the typology developed by Chaffotte and
Chiffoleau.
If we use this distinction between direct and indirect sale to apply it to cultural sector, both
forms exist. Direct selling can take various forms such as painting selling to relatives, record sales
after a concert in a pub where the consumer buy directly from the band. Short supply chains forms
are defined in the agriculture industry as a minimization of links in the supply chain; in the cultural
sector such forms are also to be noticed. The second distinction, in Chaffotte and Chiffoleau
typology, is in terms of modality of selling: is it a collective or individual organization?
For direct selling, authors distinguish an individual organization (the producer organizes
himself all the transaction with the consumers), from a collective organization by producers or
consumers. In the cultural field, individual organizations exist through spontaneous shows in the
streets; it also includes paintings bought directly from the artist, a command for a piece of art or a
performance. In this case, the artist is alone in front of the public. The second form is a collective
organization joining the producer and consumers, in agriculture, these forms had been developed
under the category of community supported agriculture as a direct selling. In culture, these forms are
missing because the cultural consumption cannot be focused on one specific artist; people cannot be
committed in the long term to only one artist. The diversity of the requests from the consumers
5
makes them subscribe to a structure that has a diverse cultural program all over the year. This
category in agriculture is not relevant for culture. Finally, collective organization of producers for
direct selling is observed in cultural life such as collective exhibitions in squats, summer art markets,
events in self-directed third places... where commercial exchange are not intermediated.
For SASCs, the distinction between collective and individual organization is relevant. For
collective organization, two types are possible. The first one is a collective of artists that have a
common juridical identity; they can share means and projects. The second one is a collective of the
public, this is a new category compared with agriculture sector. In this organization there is the
involvement of civil society to realize a cultural event; it can be a cultural basket, a micro-festival, a
house-held concert … These collectives represent an intermediary in the exchange between the
producer and the audience. Finally, individual organization includes the intermediated cultural form
in which artists and public meet without any foreseen collective organization. It is another player: an
intermediary that organizes the meeting. This forms can be a gig in a pub, an exhibitions in a third
place… (Fig.4)
Figure 4. Short art supply chain
Methodology and research perspectives
The first step of my research is to constitute a database of disintermediated cultural forms
(approximately 40) (fig.5). The aim of this database, containing examples known through the Internet
researches or through the word of mouth, is to reveal a typology. We want to establish criteria to
qualify the most precisely possible these cultural forms. For the moment, criteria are not definitive.
We use 5 criteria from SFSC literature applied to culture which are desired objective, the actor who is
the source of the initiative (individual, collective of artists, collective of consumers, third places), the
chosen ways of exchange, the local context and the relationship to the land (Hérault-Fournier, 2012).
We want to build criteria from the school of proximities. The idea is to integrate social proximity: is a
personal relationship necessary to have access to the cultural event or to the organization? We can
include the local context and the relationship to the land into the geographical proximity. With
established factors, a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) would be done to reveal a
classification of these cultural forms (Boschma, 2005; Torre and Zuindeau, 2009).
6
Figure 5. Example of the database: Host an artist
6
After that, we would realize semi directive interviews with representatives of each typology
group about the uses or not of ITC, brakes and levers towards digital tools, the ICT role in the
organization and in the relationship between artists and public. From these interviews it may be
possible to underline the possibility created by short art supply chains in terms of cultural
democracy, cultural diversity, cultural democratization, cultural communities, and economic stability
for artists …
Bibliography





6
Aubry, C., and Chiffoleau, Y. (2009). Le développement des circuits courts et agriculture
périurbaine : définition, histoire et questions actuelles. Innov. Agron. 53–67.
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Reg. Stud. 39, 61–74.
Chaffotte, L., and Chiffoleau, Y. (2007). Vente directe et circuits courts: évaluations,
définitions et typologie.
De Sartre, X.A., Douence, H., and Mercier, C.-E. (2010). Choisir et redéfinir le local. L’exemple
d’un type de filières courtes: les AMAP en Béarn. Circuits Courts Aliment. 100–120.
Dubuisson-Quellier, S. (2008). De la souveraineté à la gouvernance des consommateurs :
l’espace du choix dans la consommation. LÉconomie Polit. n° 39, 21–31.
URL: [http://www.hostanartist.com]
7







Hérault-Fournier, C. (2012). Présentation. In Au plus près de l’assiette, (Editions Quæ), pp.
23–27.
Kneafsey, M., Eyden-Wood, T., Bos, E., Sutton, G., Santini, F., Gomez y Paloma, S., Venn, L.,
Schmutz, U., Balázs, B., Trenchard, L., et al. (2013). Short food supply chains and local food
systems in the EU a state of play of their socio-economic characteristics. (Luxembourg:
Publications Office).
Kogan, A.-F. (2015). Contribuez ! Participez ! Co-créez ! Mise en œuvre d’un circuit court
culturel. Enjeux Inf. Commun. 122–132.
Lanciano, E., Poisson, M., and Saleilles, S. (2012). Un foisonnement de profils et de
démarches. In Au plus Près de L’assiette, pp. 85–102.
Marsden, T., Banks, J., and Bristow, G. (2000). Food supply chain approaches: exploring their
role in rural development. Sociol. Rural. 40, 424–438.
Renting, H., Marsden, T.K., and Banks, J. (2003). Understanding Alternative Food Networks:
Exploring the Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Rural Development. Environ. Plan. A 35,
393–411.
Torre, A., and Zuindeau, B. (2009). Les apports de l’économie de la proximité aux approches
environnementales : inventaire et perspectives. Nat. Sci. Sociétés Vol. 17, 349–360.
8