Unraveling critical success factors of local food supply chains: a systematic literature review Open Access

In recent years, the world has experienced several challenges linked to the global food system, for instance, food insecurity, environmental hardship (Hendry et al., 2019; Mancini et al., 2019), intensification of production practice (Vitari and Whittingham, 2018; Aubert and Enjolras, 2016), diminished bargaining power of small producers (Berti and Mulligan, 2016), increased information asymmetry (Luo et al., 2022; Mazzocchi et al., 2020) and lack of resilience (Alabi and Ngwenyama, 2023). These crises stem from the mounting geographical distance between food production and consumption (Zoll et al., 2021) and alienation of people from food-related issues (Allen et al., 2003). Such detachment results in an absence of a close relationship between producers and customers (e.g. Connell et al., 2008) and causes customers to undervalue the food (e.g. Allen et al., 2003). Consequently, increasing social and psychological distances.

Given that geographical, social or psychological distance between producers and customers triggers tension in the current food system (Feagan, 2007), alternative food networks (AFNs) are emerging with a focus on proximity (Gori and Castellini, 2023) and locality (Feagan, 2007; Allen et al., 2003; La Trobe and Acott, 2000). Such focus enables AFNs to reduce food miles, ensure fair trade, improve food access, reduce information asymmetry and establish social relationships (e.g. Forssell and Lankoski, 2015). Therefore, AFNs are deemed more just (Nemes et al., 2023) and sustainable in all three dimensions: economic, environmental and social (Forssell and Lankoski, 2015; Mastronardi et al., 2019).

To foster AFNs, the localization of the food system has been advocated as a promising avenue (e.g. Cleveland et al., 2015; Allen et al., 2003) because the notion of local food is associated with proximity, which refers to bringing close to something (Eriksen, 2013; Chicoine et al., 2022).

In this context, local food supply chains (LFSCs) as an alternative to global, are gaining more attention from consumers, researchers and politicians (e.g. Berti and Mulligan, 2016; Brunori et al., 2016; Niemi and Pekkanen, 2016; Thilmany et al., 2021). To date, a considerable number of LFSCs have emerged across the world, and some of them have thrived while others failed.

Extant research investigated factors affecting the development of different configurations of LFSCs (e.g. Zwart and Wertheim-Heck, 2021; Heiss et al., 2015) from the diverse stakeholders’ viewpoint (e.g. Aouinaït et al., 2022b; Emas and Jones, 2022) and varied geographical contexts (e.g. Warsaw et al., 2022; Zwart and Wertheim-Heck, 2021). However, these factors were explored in isolation and remain scattered across local food system literature. Out of the extensive list of factors discovered, the factors that must go right for survival or are critical to the success of the LFSCs are under-researched. Furthermore, how similar or different these critical success factors (CSFs) remain across the establishment and expansion phases of LFSCs is yet to be explored. In addition, scholars have studied the factors for developing LFSCs mostly from the producers’ and/or consumers’ perspectives (Poças Ribeiro et al., 2021). The viewpoints of focal firm managers might be conflated by presenting factors from the chain participants’ viewpoint (Poças Ribeiro et al., 2021); hence, the interpretation and presentation of CSFs from the standpoint of managers are essential. However, translation and presentation of the already discovered factors (in the extant literature) into and from the managerial viewpoints are still missing.

The aforementioned gaps signify that the existing knowledge of LFSCs falls short of a complete catalog of CSFs for their establishment and expansion. Hence, this research aims to develop and propose a comprehensive framework of CSFs for LFSCs encompassing distinct configurations of LFSCs, diverse geographical contexts, multiple development phases of LFSCs, and diverse stakeholders’ perspectives translated into management perspectives. To attain this aim, a systematic literature review (SLR) has been considered the most relevant research strategy. This research contributes to the literature and practice by answering the research questions (RQ) presented below:

The remainder of the paper has been structured as follows: First, Section 2 presents the background of the study. Second, Section 3 outlines the research method adopted for conducting this study. Third, Section 4 portrays the research context ascertained through the descriptive analysis of the reviewed articles. Fourth, Section 5 is allocated to represent the findings from thematic and Pareto analysis. Fifth, Section 6 represents the discussion of the findings and proposes a framework of CSFs for both the establishment and expansion of LFSCs. Finally, Section 7 provides the concluding remarks, contribution of this research and future research directions.

In local food supply chain (LFSC), foods are produced, distributed, and consumed within a relatively limited geographical area (Kusz and Kilar, 2020; Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019; Dancer et al., 2019; Bosona and Gebresenbet, 2011); hence, it no longer leaves producers and consumers anonymous to each other (Renting et al., 2003). The term LFSC is often used interchangeably with another type of AFNs referred to as short food supply chains (SFSCs); however, all SFSCs are not necessarily local (Enthoven and Van den Broeck, 2021); they can also be geographically extended or international. LFSCs can be of varying configurations. They can be direct and have a business-to-customer (B2C) model (e.g., Chen et al., 2019; Warsaw et al., 2022; Enthoven and Van den Broeck, 2021) or can be intermediate and adopt a business-to-business (B2B) model (e.g. Zwart and Wertheim-Heck, 2021; Enthoven and Van den Broeck, 2021) or business-to-government (B2G) model (e.g. Heiss et al., 2015; Enthoven and Van den Broeck, 2021).

Extant literature posits that LFSCs are beneficial for all stakeholders. LFSCs ensure fair prices and increase recognition for producers (e.g. O’Kane and Wijaya, 2015; Demartini et al., 2017; Hvitsand and Leikvoll, 2023); offer fresh and healthy products, allow traceability and build a community around the chains for customers (e.g. Balázs et al., 2016; Cox et al., 2008; Leiper and Clarke-Sather, 2017; Torjusen et al., 2008); improve the local economy, increase self-sufficiency and reduce food insecurity for the government (e.g. Lu and Carter, 2023). Moreover, in the LFSCs, all partners are connected, thus allowing them to be dynamic and respond quickly during disruption (Thilmany et al., 2021). Despite the acknowledgment of the several benefits that LFSCs can bring to the economy, environment,and society; their growth is still restricted (e.g. Mohrman et al., 2016; Moorhouse and Brennan, 2021). They remain a niche with a small proportion of trade and market share (e.g. Moorhouse and Brennan, 2021; Doernberg et al., 2016; Mohrman et al., 2016; Niemi and Pekkanen, 2016; Milestad et al., 2010) and find it difficult to embrace beyond certain demography of customers such as affluent and white (Young et al., 2023). Furthermore, even though they are claimed to be economically viable (Tregear, 2011), in practice, all existing LFSCs are not viable (Dancer et al., 2019). While some existing chains succeed, others fail and fade away (e.g. Metz and Scherer, 2022; Mohrman et al., 2016).

A growing body of research has been conducted to date to understand the factors that influence the development of LFSCs (e.g. Poças Ribeiro et al., 2021; Hernández, 2023; Metz and Scherer, 2022). However, most of the extant research explored the factors from the perspectives of a single stakeholder such as customers (e.g. Van Vlaanderen et al., 2021; Godrich et al., 2020; Bakos and Khademi-Vidraa, 2019; Chen et al., 2019; Hashem et al., 2018; Som Castellano, 2017); producers (e.g. Beingessner and Fletcher, 2020; Horská et al., 2020; Benedek et al., 2018); intermediaries (e.g. Renkema and Hilletofth, 2022); and government (e.g. Emas and Jones, 2022). Some studies are an exception to this and have identified the factors from multiple stakeholders’ viewpoints but are limited to one specific configuration or business model (e.g. B2C, B2B or B2G) of LFSCs and explored factors only around the development of that configuration (e.g. Hvitsand and Leikvoll, 2023; Zwart and Wertheim-Heck, 2021; Chen et al., 2019; Heiss et al., 2015). Hence, the understanding of factors affecting the development of LFSCs is dispersed. Consideration of the multiple stakeholders and configurations of LFSCs in a single study can offer an aggregated understanding of factors affecting the development of LFSCs.

All of the factors identified so far in the literature are not necessarily critical to the success of LFSCs. CSFs are a limited number of key factors that must go right for a business to flourish and succeed (Fotopoulos et al., 2011; Kumar et al., 2014; Talib et al., 2015; Weerabahu et al., 2021; Rockart, 1979; Boynton and Zmud, 1984). If these key factors produce satisfactory results, the organization will be able to compete successfully (Rockart, 1979); otherwise, the organization will fail (Huotari and Wilson, 2001). Identification of CSFs increases the probability of success (Reitsma and Hilletofth, 2018) because they improve management decision-making, a crucial part of supply chain management (SCM) (Kontopanou and Tsoulfas, 2022). An increasing body of supply chain literature has investigated CSFs for different SCM issues such as sustainable supply chain (e.g. Wittstruck and Teuteberg, 2012), responsive supply chain (e.g. Gunasekaran et al., 2008) and green supply chain (e.g. Hu and Hsu, 2010). Likewise, CSFs have been explored for the agri-food supply chain (e.g. Kontopanou and Tsoulfas, 2022). However, research identifying CSFs for the LFSCs is scarce.

As per the authors’ knowledge, only Sellitto et al. (2018) and Weerabahu et al. (2021) studied CSFs for the development of the local food system. But, while they recognized the CSFs for the establishment phase, they overlooked the CSFs for the expansion phase. The expansion phase of a business is situated between the establishment and mature stage of the business life cycle and requires distinct strategies (Piaskowska et al., 2021), structure, and process (Picken, 2017). Hence, while a business expands, it alters a certain existing set of actions (e.g. Aggestam et al., 2017). Thus, a study on CSFs for the expansion of LFSCs is also needed to see how they are similar or dissimilar to the establishment phase and to what extent focal firms need to alter their actions while shifting from the establishment to the expansion phase. Sellitto et al. (2018) in their research have identified CSFs for dairy products and conducted the study in Italy and Brazil. On the other hand, Weerabahu et al. (2021) explored factors related to fruit and vegetable products and conducted research in Sri Lanka. Hence, the observed CSFs in these studies might not be generalizable to other contexts, indicating the need for more research on CSFs for both the establishment and expansion phases of LFSCs from diverse geographical contexts.

A SLR has been adopted to attain the research purpose. The reasoning behind selecting SLR as the research method is that it follows an explicit algorithm (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010) and includes multiple studies (Thomé et al., 2016) that already have been published (Paul and Criado, 2020), thus safeguarding the reliability. To date, several approaches have been proposed by researchers of different domains (e.g. Tranfield et al., 2003; Durach et al., 2017; Wohlin et al., 2022; Koutsos et al., 2019; Paul and Criado, 2020). Nonetheless, this research applied the SLR process developed by Durach et al. (2017). This process contains six steps:

1. defining the research questions;

2. determining inclusion and exclusion criteria;

3. retrieving an initial set of samples;

4. selecting the final set of samples;

5. synthesizing the literature; and

6. reporting the findings.

The flowchart of stages for conducting SLR has been presented in Figure 1. The previous section has covered the content of step one. The data collection section includes steps two, three and four. The data analysis and reporting section covers the remaining steps.

To select relevant articles, eligibility criteria were discussed and agreed upon by the researchers (Tranfield et al., 2003). It helped to reduce the selection and selector bias (e.g. Durach et al., 2017). The inclusion criteria for selecting the articles are that the language should be in English, should be published in a peer-reviewed journal, should be empirical research and should be related to the research questions. Any article that failed to meet these conditions was eliminated from the sample set.

Articles were extracted from Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) databases. Two databases were selected because multiple sources ensure the data quality (Tranfield et al., 2003), as well as both covering a large number of impactful journals (Koutsos et al., 2019; Paul et al., 2021). Two search strings were generated to extract articles for each database (Table 1). Search strings include keywords such as “alternative food network,” “alternative food supply chain,” “local food supply chain,” “local food system” and so on. The idea of the keywords was obtained from the initial literature study (Tranfield et al., 2003) and the research questions of this study (Durach et al., 2017). Keywords were finalized after several rounds of discussions within the research team. The search was conducted between September and October 2023, and the search alert was turned on for both databases to track any potential new articles. A total number of 2,408 articles were identified, of which 1,250 were from Scopus and the rest, 1,158 were from WOS.

The initial samples underwent three stages of screening. First, 971 duplicate articles were identified and removed from the initial sample set. Second, the abstracts of the rest of the 1,437 articles were judged, based on the predetermined inclusion-exclusion criteria, leading to the removal of another 1,160 articles. Third, the remaining 277 articles were read in full text to ensure their relevance, resulting in the removal of an additional 197 articles. A total of 80 articles were included for analysis (see supplementary material for the list of included articles).

Data gathered from the included articles were analyzed and reported through three analytical methods. First, a descriptive analysis was conducted to give an overview of the sample. Second, a thematic analysis technique was adopted. The thematic analysis was chosen as an analytical method because it allows the translation of concepts from one study to another through line-by-line coding,and generates descriptive as well as analytical themes where the former remains close to the primary studies (i.e. reviewed literature) however, the latter goes beyond the primary studies to generate new interpretive constructs and explanations (e.g. Thomas and Harden, 2008). To conduct thematic analysis, two coding schemes, each for the establishment and expansion of LFSCs were developed inspired by Gioia et al. (2013). Yet, the Gioia method has widely been used to make sense of qualitative data with rigor in empirical qualitative studies, there is also shreds of evidence that researchers have used this approach in SLR (e.g. Li et al., 2025; Kolagar et al., 2022; Rumstadt and Kanbach, 2022). This is a rigorous and coherent data analysis approach that develops concepts inductively (Cole and Aitken, 2020; Gioia et al., 2013). Inductive reasoning was preferred over deductive reasoning since it leads to a generation of theories that are deeply linked to data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and obstructs the possibility that researchers are compelling the predetermined results (Azungah, 2018).

The Gioia method follows a three-level coding. Following this method, in the first level, terms or issues from all 80 articles that were related to the success of the establishment of LFSCs were extracted and clustered into the first-order concept stage. Issues were clustered based on their similarity. The broader set of similar issues, clustered in the first-order concept stage, was then labeled into the second-order themes to increase the level of abstraction (e.g. product-related issues such as product quality and product variety are grouped into a narrower theme “product”). The themes that emerged in the second-order themes stage were further grouped into aggregated categories to create a higher level of abstraction (e.g. second-order themes such as product, price, place, and promotion are grouped as “marketing mix”). These higher levels of abstraction are known as constructs that facilitate the sense-making and theorizing of phenomena (Lambert and Newman, 2023). There are different strategies to name or label constructs, ranging from a selection of a general word that best captures the phenomena to borrowing from another discipline (Shepherd and Suddaby, 2017). This research has adopted both strategies to label the constructs. For instance, the labeling “marketing mix” and “segmentation” have been borrowed from the marketing disciplines, and “engagement” has been borrowed from the stakeholder engagement literature whereas “empowerment” and “resource availability” were labeled since these general words best describe the second-order concepts. In this way, coding schemes were developed, and CSFs were identified to establish LFSCs. A similar way has been adopted to identify CSFs for the expansion of LFSCs. An example of the coding scheme developed for this study is presented in Figure 2. Moreover, a detailed list of issues, subfactors, and CSFs that correspond to the first-order concepts, second-order themes, and aggregate dimensions, respectively, are illustrated in supplementary material.

All CSFs explored through thematic analysis are not equally significant; hence, third, the Pareto analysis approach was undertaken to quantify the significance of CSFs. Researchers not only from the SCM domain (e.g. Kaur et al., 2019; Talib et al., 2015; Fotopoulos et al., 2011) but also from other domains (e.g. Wuni, 2022; Kumar et al., 2020; Sreedharan et al., 2018; Lande et al., 2016) have adopted Pareto analysis to quantify or rank factors that are derived from literature reviews. Pareto analysis ranks data based on their frequency of occurrence, from high to low (Fotopoulos et al., 2011). In this study, the CSFs were ranked based on the highest to lowest frequency of occurrence in the extant literature. The frequency of occurrences was calculated based on the “total number of issues” grouped under each CSF (e.g. Kumar et al., 2020; Fotopoulos et al., 2011; Nilsson and Göransson, 2021) (see supplementary material, for the total number of issues per CSF).

The Pareto principle demonstrates that a small proportion of total causes or elements are responsible for a large fraction of effects or outcomes (Svensson and Wood, 2006; Juran, 1954). Hence, the small proportion of the total causes is referred to as “vital few,” and the rest of the portion is defined as “useful/trivial many” (Juran, 1954). The “vital few” factors in general contribute to 80% of the occurrence, and “useful many” factors contribute to the rest of the 20% of the occurrence (Kumar et al., 2020; Fotopoulos et al., 2011; Talib et al., 2015). Therefore, Pareto charts with an 80% cut-offline are presented to differentiate “vital few” CSFs from “useful many” CSFs (see Figures 4 and 5 in the Section 5.2).

Even if local food and LFSCs are not brand-new research topics, the descriptive analysis shows that only 27 of the 80 articles reviewed in this study were published between 2005 and 2018. Afterward, the number of articles nearly tripled between 2019 and 2023, indicating that this research area has gained more attention since the COVID-19 outbreak. In total, 30 out of 80 studies were published only in 5 journals, whereas the remaining 50 studies were published in the rest of the 36 journals. Surprisingly, no reviewed articles were published in SCM, marketing or business-focused journals even if the research topic is also linked to these issues. It is worth mentioning that researchers did not set any limit to the geographical location, yet most articles systematically extracted and included in the study represent developed economies. In total, 55 articles have investigated a single developed country. These articles have a primary focus on the USA (25). Followed by the UK (4) and Sweden (4) which are conjointly holding second positions whereas Canada (3) retains the third position. 14 articles have investigated multiple countries, among which 8 articles have considered both developed and developing countries, whereas 6 articles have considered only developed countries. 11 articles have a sole focus on single developing countries. Thus, it can be inferred that there is inadequate LFSC-related research on developing countries. Statistics on the research methods used by reviewed articles show that 40 of them conducted case studies, 21 articles applied the survey method, and 17 articles used mixed methods. 1 article used ethnography and 1 article anthropology as a research method. This indicates that the studied research area is not fully mature yet. Researchers are focused on developing concepts and theories rather than testing the existing theories. See supplementary material for graphical representations of the research context.

The findings of the analysis of CSFs have been presented in two parts. The first part represents the CSFs for both the establishment and expansion phases identified through thematic analysis. The second part ranks the CSFs identified in the first part to distinguish the vital CSFs from other CSFs by conducting a Pareto analysis.

Based on the thematic analysis conducted, “11 CSFs” made up of “33 sub-factors” have been identified for the establishment of LFSCs; additionally, “12 CSFs” consisting of “28 sub-factors” have been identified for the expansion of LFSCs (see supplementary material for the list of issues and sub-factors forming the CSFs and their sources for both establishment and expansion stages). Notably, among these CSFs, 10 factors have been identified as shared for establishing and expanding LFSCs (Figure 3). These include marketing mix; engagement; empowerment; resource availability; social capital; governmental support; management commitment and philosophy; traceability; adaptation in practice; and digitalization. However, segmentation is a CSF for the establishment but not a CSF for expansion. Similarly, referral and consumer demand are not CSFs for the establishment but for the expansion stage.

“Marketing mix” is a management tool that has a direct influence on the firms’ outcome and success (e.g. O'Cass and Heirati, 2015; Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2005). It comprises various elements such as product, price, place, promotion and process (Morgan et al., 2018). The existing literature has demonstrated the importance of the marketing mix in establishing and expanding LFSCs. While establishing LFSC, it is vital to offer a diverse range of high-quality products in reasonable quantities (Sharma et al., 2014; Van Vlaanderen et al., 2021; Hvitsand and Leikvoll, 2023; Tiganis et al., 2023). However, for its successful expansion, customization of the offerings is needed (Crowley et al., 2023) along with the quality, quantity and diversity of the offerings (Aouinaït et al., 2022b; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla, 2020). Furthermore, researchers have frequently emphasized the need to set an appropriate price for the establishment and expansion of LFSCs (e.g. Balázs et al., 2016; Dunne et al., 2011; Hernández, 2023; Vittersø et al., 2019; Young et al., 2023). A reduction in membership costs and offering a discount price to loyal customers often increases sales (Chen et al., 2019). Nonetheless, LFSC managers should be conscious while setting prices and ensure that the price is fair for all parties involved, including the owner, producer and consumer (Dunne et al., 2011; Heiss et al., 2015; Balázs et al., 2016; Hernández, 2023).

However, a good pricing strategy can only have a limited effect if the convenience of buying is not provided (Aouinaït et al., 2022b). Thus, an effective pricing strategy paired with convenient pickup points or locations, where consumers can commute with ease, is essential for both establishment and expansion (e.g. Tiganis et al., 2023; Hernández, 2023; Mars and Schau, 2019; Crawford et al., 2018). While the location of the distribution point is important for LFSCs to establish (e.g. Smaal, 2023; Fuentes and Fuentes, 2022; Horská et al., 2020; Crawford et al., 2018), both the location and the number of distribution points have been found valuable for expanding those (e.g. Aouinaït et al., 2022b). Meanwhile, if it is not possible to increase convenience, the best option is to increase the assortment of products to offer customers a one-stop shopping option (Ross, 2006).

Since local foods are often niche products (Sebök et al., 2022), the promotion of the product offerings has been identified as essential for the establishment and expansion of LFSCs by previous researchers (e.g. Benedek, 2023.; Schreiber et al., 2023; Sebök et al., 2022; Crawford et al., 2018). Advertising on social media, for instance, can increase the sales volume of LFSCs (Medici et al., 2021) because potential customers get to know the farm’s production process and philosophies (Schreiber et al., 2023). In addition, the ease of the ordering and payment process and environment-friendly production process add value to the establishment of LFSCs (Cox et al., 2008; Sharma et al., 2014; Vittersø et al., 2019; Tiganis et al., 2023); however, their effect on the expansion of LFSCs was not investigated in the reviewed literature.

The engagement of multiple stakeholders to effectively address and solve problems is necessary, as no single actor can do it alone (Block et al., 2008). LFSCs are not beyond this need for engagement. According to Block et al. (2008), multitier engagement of community, producers, government and educational institutions is effective for the development of LFSCs. To establish and expand LFSCs, they often engage with each other through knowledge sharing, communication, collaborative governance and collaboration (e.g. Kurtsal et al., 2020; O’Kane and Wijaya, 2015; Ross, 2006; Lu and Carter, 2023). Experienced and elderly producers, for instance, engage with new and small-scale producers through a trustful exchange of knowledge, and this is pivotal in agricultural business (Schreiber et al., 2023). Producers engage with customers while communicating at the selling point, during farm visits and via newsletters (Cox et al., 2008; Zoll et al., 2021). This communication is valued by customers, especially business customers, because it promotes transparency, which they consider one of the reasons to buy local food (Smaal, 2023). Communication allows customers and producers to reflect on certain practical and managerial aspects that assist organizers in better managing the LFSCs (Furness et al., 2022). In addition, frequent communication with customers stimulates their participation and promotes expansion (Furness et al., 2022).

Engagement of stakeholders is further possible through operational and managerial collaboration among them, which influences the development of LFSCs. For instance, a partnership among producers can help them offer a diversified and year-round supply of products to the customers (Zoll et al., 2021), a lack of which often negatively influences customers’ participation (Galt et al., 2019). These new studies are in line with one previous study conducted by Glowacki-dudka et al. (2013), where they claimed that partnerships with other businesses, governments and customers led to the successful establishment of LFSCs. Likewise, collaboration has been identified as a beneficial engagement practice for expanding local chains. Long-term collaboration of chain owners with producers (Milestad et al., 2017) and collaboration among producers for logistical and marketing support facilitate large-scale selling (Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla, 2020; Sebök et al., 2022). According to Ochoa et al. (2020), collaboration can reduce the competition among producers and increase the negotiating power, which facilitates the expansion of the chain.

Collaboration among stakeholders can be extended to the development of local, regional and national food policy-related aspects alongside the LSFCs’ managerial and operational aspects. The inclusion of civil society, private organizations and nongovernmental organizations in food policy-related decision-making is a way to engage them with different governmental levels, which refers to collaborative governance (e.g. Lu and Carter, 2023; Kurtsal et al., 2020). One example of such collaborative governance is “food policy councils” that promote LFSCs by engaging with the government in developing food-related policies (Lu and Carter, 2023).

Empowerment is enhancing the capacity and voice of stakeholders through increased knowledge, skill, independence and decision-making power (Mert-Cakal and Miele, 2022; Ochoa et al., 2020; Zoll et al., 2021). Enlightening customers about what local food is, how it is produced and where it can be found triggers their interest in local food, consequently benefiting the establishment and expansion of LFSCs (e.g. Cox et al., 2008; Godrich et al., 2020; Hernández, 2023; Mars and Schau, 2019; Torjusen et al., 2008; Warsaw et al., 2022). Customers have a mindset of having products available throughout the year (Galt et al., 2019). However, products sold in LFSCs are less available all year round (Van Vlaanderen et al., 2021; Galt et al., 2019; Aouinaït et al., 2022b). Their limited knowledge of this seasonal variation of local foods often hinders their participation. Distribution of promotional materials (e.g. flyers) stating what product to demand or expect in what season and providing recipes on unique seasonal produce can empower them and consequently foster their seasonal local food intake (e.g. Cox et al., 2008). The positive effect of empowering customers on their local food purchasing behavior is further supported by Mars and Schau (2019). The author reported that cooking demonstrations of unique local foods for customers that they have never cooked before helped to retain those customers who otherwise would leave the chain.

Apart from empowering consumers, the empowerment of producers is valuable. Local producers are small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (e.g. Zaridis et al., 2021; Jose and Shanmugam, 2020) and lack the capacity to satisfy the procurement requirements of large retailers or superstores. Hence, empowering them by giving flexibility and decision-making power can benefit the establishment and expansion of B2B LFSCs (e.g. Zoll et al., 2021; Zwart and Wertheim-Heck, 2021). Zwart and Wertheim-Heck (2021) posited that local retailers who gave flexibility to the producer in terms of delivery time, order placement,and invoicing were able to establish more successful LFSCs than their counterparts. Furthermore, since producers lack marketing skills but need to interact with the business or end customers directly in LFSCs, an enhancement in their marketing and management skills can foster establishing and expanding LFSCs (e.g. Aouinaït et al., 2022a; Ben-Othmen and Kavouras, 2022; Crowley et al., 2023; Horská et al., 2020; Metz and Scherer, 2022). Aggestam et al. (2017) further confirmed that producers’ perception of decision-making power influences them to expand business.

However, the empowerment of producers is not sufficient for the successful establishment of B2B LFSCs; instead, it largely depends on the empowerment of retail store employees in terms of flexibility and decision-making power (e.g. Zwart and Wertheim-Heck, 2021).

Interestingly, previous empirical research indicates that empowerment is not limited to the end customers, producers, or employees of the business customers of LFSCs. Rather, for a successful establishment of LFSCs, government employees should also be empowered in terms of knowledge (Emas and Jones, 2022; Poças Ribeiro et al., 2021). For example, due to the lack of knowledge of municipal officials about the LFSCs, the manager and owner of one such chain faced difficulty in getting a discounted distribution place for the first time. However, it was easier for the same chain manager to convince the government official for the second time because of the official’s increased knowledge of the LFSCs (Poças Ribeiro et al., 2021). This indicates that the enhanced knowledge of governmental officials indirectly raises the legitimacy of the LFSCs (Lu and Carter, 2023), consequently facilitating its establishment.

Previous researchers have underscored the need for human, financial and physical resources for both the establishment and expansion of LFSCs (e.g. Aggestam et al., 2017; Crawford et al., 2018; Fuentes and Fuentes, 2022; Heiss et al., 2015; Horská et al., 2020; Mert-Cakal and Miele, 2022). Lack of necessary physical resources or infrastructure (e.g. refrigerated trucks) can be detrimental to the deployment of LFSCs since it undermines the confidence of customers, especially business customers, in the seller’s capabilities (Heiss et al., 2015). Inaccessibility of other infrastructures, such as farmland and distribution space, further can limit the possibility of initiation of LFSCs (e.g. Ben-Othmen and Kavouras, 2022; Doernberg et al., 2016).

In addition to the physical resources, the availability of human resources such as workforce and local producers influences the establishment of LFSCs (Poças Ribeiro et al., 2021; Sebök et al., 2022). To access these essential physical resources and to reward skilled human resources, the founder of the chain ought to accumulate adequate financial resources. Research by Ross (2006) shows that securing both startup and working capital impacts the success of LFSCs commencement. The requirement for human, physical and financial resources is also apparent in the expansion of LFSCs (e.g. Kurtsal et al., 2020). In fact, the requirement for all sorts of resources is more intense in the expansion stage than in the establishment stage. Expansion of LFSCs, for instance, often requires the availability of regional infrastructure (Aggestam et al., 2017) and the recruitment of expert consultants to assist with managerial activities (Milestad et al., 2017).

Social capital is the combination of structural (e.g. networks, roles, precedents, procedures) and cognitive (e.g. norms, values, attitudes, beliefs) assets (Uphoff, 2000), facilitating collaboration (Klar et al., 2018; Uphoff, 2000). Being an asset, social capital enables a supply chain to outperform others (Ye et al., 2023). Key features of social capital are relationships or ties, trust and shared norms or values among the groups; the lack of these impedes collaboration (e.g. Glowacki-dudka et al., 2013). Whilst establishing LFSCs, cultivating relationships with multiple stakeholder groups of varying powers and resource capacities is rewarding (e.g. Campbell et al., 2023; De Bernardi et al., 2020; Geissberger, 2023; Selfa and Qazi, 2005). On the other hand, to expand such chains, the strengthening of the already developed relationship is beneficial (e.g. Mert-Cakal and Miele, 2022; Ochoa et al., 2020; Buckley et al., 2013). However, if the shared interests of the involved stakeholders are not present, building and strengthening relationships with them becomes difficult (Glowacki-dudka et al., 2013). This implies that finding a shared interest of all the parties involved is an essential factor for the successful establishment and expansion of LFSCs (Crowley et al., 2023; Poças Ribeiro et al., 2021; Buckley et al., 2013). According to Glowacki-dudka et al. (2013), good relationships and shared goals can build trustworthiness among the stakeholders of LFSCs, resulting in the expansion of the chain into new markets. On the other side, De Bernardi et al. (2020) reported a higher degree of trust increases the quantity and frequency of purchases in the existing market, thus contributing to the expansion. The importance of trust was stressed yet another time by Poças Ribeiro et al. (2021); they portrayed that a lack of trust among the actors hindered the establishment of LFSCs in two cases. Conversely, the presence of it among partners facilitated the success of LFSCs in another case (Poças Ribeiro et al., 2021).

The government can support the establishment and expansion of LFSCs by imposing rules, regulations and policies favorable to LFSCs; initiating food-related programs; and leadership. Lack of governmental support poses negative impacts on the development of LFSCs and vice versa (e.g. Zivkovic et al., 2022). For instance, Metz and Scherer (2022) reported in their study that the termination of governmental subsidies resulted in the closure of LFSCs. In contrast, Mars and Schau (2019) identified that the governmental food assistance program assists the expansion of LFSCs by doubling the purchase volume of low-income groups. Likewise, Aouinaït et al. (2022a) informed that the introduction of sustainable public procurement policies favors the development of LFSCs. Along with the initiation of aid programs and favorable policies, governments can encourage the establishment and expansion of LFSCs by taking initiatives in developing databases of local food producers and conducting research (e.g. Atkočiuniene et al., 2022; González-Azcárate et al., 2023a, 2023b).

The success of the LFSCs depends on its management (Metz and Scherer, 2022). According to the findings of their study, the majority of the failures of LFSCs are linked to different flaws in management such as lack of commitment. For LFSCs to be established and expanded successfully, management commitment is needed from both the sellers’ and business/institutional customers’ ends. This became apparent in the study by Buckley et al. (2013), where management (i.e. food service directors who plan the institutional purchase) of institutional buyers (i.e. Schools) motivated and provided necessary support to the food service staff to embrace local food procurement, hence favoring the establishment of LFSCs. Furthermore, Crowley et al. (2023) pointed out that the philosophy and institutional frameworks adopted by the management of LFSCs can favorably or adversely affect the development of LFSCs. For instance, a desire for slow growth and avoiding the risk of using debt can limit the expansion of LFSCs (Crowley et al., 2023). In contrast, a clear definition of geographical boundaries set by management and strictly adhering to that while procuring local foods stimulated the establishment of LFSC (Zwart and Wertheim-Heck, 2021). Another example of the impact of institutional framework is highlighted in the study of Milestad et al. (2017). They posited that no requirement for a long-term binding contract from the focal firm made local producers less stressed and eased the expansion of the chain.

Embedding products with information such as where the products have been produced (place of origin) and who has produced (producers) them is crucial in establishing LFSCs (Sellitto et al., 2018; Solarz et al., 2023). Labeling and certifications are the ways of embedding products with such information (Ochoa et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2014). Clear labeling on the products increases the likelihood of purchasing local products (Sharma et al., 2014). This is consistent with the research by De Bernardi et al. (2020), their research indicates that knowledge about the origin of a product encourages consumers to buy more local food, both in terms of quantity and frequency. This has been further portrayed in the work of Hvitsand and Leikvoll (2023), which shows that customers are more inclined to take part in LFSCs if they are aware of the origin of the foods. Nonetheless, as the chain grows, so does the requirement for traceability, which frequently calls for certification (Aouinaït et al., 2022a). The value of certification schemes was pointed out as necessary for the expansion of LFSC by Ochoa et al. (2020) because they distinguish the identity of local food from conventional foods. In parallel with the previous studies, Enthoven et al. (2023) confirmed the importance of labeling and certification in both the establishment and expansion of LFSC. The scholars claimed that labeling boosts market share by increasing consumer awareness, and third-party certification assists the establishment of certain types of LFSC, where having such certification is a mandatory requirement.

For the LFSCs to emerge, adaptation to the traditional practices is essential (Zoll et al., 2021). This is in parallel with the findings of Vittersø et al. (2019), who inferred that to participate in LFSCs, consumers alter their food practices in terms of products used and types of dishes made. The requirement for adaptation is even more crucial for the business customers while initiating local procurement. For instance, institutional buyers like schools and restaurants adjust their procurement arrangements and menus to accommodate local food (Buckley et al., 2013) and disregard certain buying criteria like certification (Heiss et al., 2015). Likewise, to procure local foods, retailers need to adapt the ordering process, delivery time and contracting procedure suitable for the local producers (Zwart and Wertheim-Heck, 2021). Adaptation from the producers’ end is also necessary to initiate LFSCs and failure to do so impedes the chain’s establishment. Zwart and Wertheim-Heck (2021), for example, illustrated that the failure of local suppliers to adjust packaging and barcode requirements refrained them from establishing a chain with the retailers.

Digitalization and the use of innovative solutions (e.g. smart labels) can ensure the optimal operation of LFSCs (Parrag et al., 2022). This is in line with the observation made by Ochoa et al. (2020), who stated that the use of the internet and electronic commerce can improve product visibility and efficiency. Product visibility is increased because through the social media platform (i.e. Facebook), consumers can share their stories of enjoying the local food purchased from LFSCs (Gruvaeus and Dahlin, 2021). In addition, digital platforms (e.g. social media) enable frequent and instant contact (de Souza, 2020), thus streamlining the communication and collaboration among actors (e.g. Benedek, 2023; Parrag et al., 2022; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla, 2020). Indeed, digital platforms are the only solution to reach customer segments, who are more comfortable sourcing food online (Ochoa et al., 2020). Thereby, digital platforms foster the expansion of LFSCs. In addition, the creation of a digital database of local producers can make local procurement relatively easy and quick (Zwart and Wertheim-Heck, 2021), thus favoring the establishment and expansion of LFSCs.

Segmentation is dividing and aggregating people (e.g. consumers) with homogenous needs (Clarke and Freytag, 2023), which firms can reach with a distinct marketing mix (Kotler, 1994; Dibb and Simkin, 1997). Consumers who buy from LFSCs and producers who sell foods through LFSCs significantly vary in terms of demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education etc. (e.g. Godrich et al., 2020; Young et al., 2023; Aouinaït et al., 2022b). Furthermore, producers can vary in terms of firmographic characteristics such as production capacities (e.g. Benedek et al., 2018; Dunne et al., 2011). Hence, segmenting customers and producers with similar characteristics can be rewarding for the establishment of LFSCs.

It has been repeatedly mentioned in previous research that the majority of customers with higher educational levels participate in LFSCs (e.g. Aouinaït et al., 2022b; De Bernardi et al., 2020; Leiper and Clarke-Sather, 2017; Sadeli et al., 2023). Compared to younger age groups (Atkočiuniene et al., 2022), middle-aged families with young children and elderly individuals are more likely to be involved in LFSCs (Godrich et al., 2020; Aouinaït et al., 2022b). Moreover, customers can vary based on family sizes while participating in LFSCs. Customers with larger family sizes often consider foods provided in certain LFSCs to be less in quantity compared to the customers who belong to a small family, which negatively affects the establishment of LFSCs for the former customer groups (e.g. Van Vlaanderen et al., 2021). Furthermore, Leiper and Clarke-Sather (2017) posited that female consumers participate more in LFSCs than male consumers. This aligns with the findings of an earlier study by Torjusen et al. (2008) and a recent study by Sadeli et al. (2023). Customers with handsome incomes consider buying food from LFSCs as more important (Godrich et al., 2020) than their counterparts, who give more importance to price over the value delivered in LFSCs (Aouinaït et al., 2022b). However, the LFSCs are made accessible to the latter segment by initiating different mechanisms such as allowing them to have local food in exchange for their time or work devoted to the chain (e.g. Mert-Cakal and Miele, 2022). Likewise, though LFSCs are usually dominated by white color customer segments, different races and color segments can be included by offering different and customized value propositions (Young et al., 2023).

When it comes to producers, those who are young and have higher education usually participate in LFSCs (Ross, 2006), whereas older and less educated prefer conventional chains (Benedek et al., 2018). Because the former segment is more likely to comprehend the importance of LFSCs (Benedek et al., 2018). Furthermore, producers with small-scale production capacities join LFSCs (e.g. Benedek et al., 2018; Dunne et al., 2011; Horská et al., 2020; Ross, 2006).

Aggestam et al. (2017) posited that the reference of family members, coworkers, and customers can trigger the producers’ decision to expand the LFSCs. Alongside, the recommendation of loyal customers to their friends and family, positively influences the expansion of LFSCs (Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla, 2020). This corresponds to the research of Benedek (2023) and Medici et al. (2021).

A growing demand for locally sourced food motivates the expansion of the chain (Crowley et al., 2023). In contrast, if customers are reluctant and there is insufficient demand for local food, it negatively affects the expansion of LFSCs (Ochoa et al., 2020). Similar findings were presented by Keech et al. (2023), who stated that local producers do not produce as much as they (producers) would want if they perceive low customer demand for the products. This exhibits that customers’ demand is a critical component in the expansion of LFSCs.

Even though all the above-mentioned factors have been identified as critical to the successful establishment and expansion of LFSCs, their frequency of occurrences in the reviewed literature is significantly different. Pareto analysis has been conducted further to rank and categorize the identified CSFs based on the frequency of occurrences. The Pareto analysis discovered that the “marketing mix” is the top-ranked CSF with occurrence scores of 85 and 30 for the establishment and expansion of LFSC, respectively. Moreover, the analysis distinguished marketing mix (CSF1), engagement (CSF2), segmentation (CSF3), empowerment (CSF4), resource availability (CSF5) and social capital (CSF6) as “vital few” CSFs for the establishment, since those factors accounted for a substantial (76.73%) portion of the occurrence percentage. The remaining CSFs are the “useful many” because they accounted for only a small portion (23.27%) of the occurrence percentage (Table 2). Similarly, “vital few” CSFs for expansion are marketing mix (CSF1), engagement (CSF2), resource availability (CSF3), social capital (CSF4), governmental support (CSF5) and empowerment (CSF6), while the remaining CSFs are “useful many” (Table 3). This result is further presented in the Pareto chart (Figures 4 and 5) to better showcase the “vital few” and “useful many” CSFs.

After conducting a Thematic and Pareto analysis of both the establishment and expansion stages, some noteworthy similarities and distinctions in CSFs across the stages have been observed. As mentioned earlier, the “marketing mix” has been identified as a common CSF for both phases. The analysis also reveals that the “marketing mix” is the most vital CSF in both phases. This might be because the elements of the marketing mix, such as product, price, place, promotion and process, can give competitive advantages over competitors (e.g. Tiganis et al., 2023). The marketing mix enables LFSCs to create value for the customers by offering superior products that are produced in an environmentally friendly process and distributed at a convenient place. For instance, in their study, Cox et al. (2008) presented that consumers consider eating in season and less intensively produced foods as a value of participating in LFSCs. It further allows to capture value from customers through generating revenue by selling the products at a competitive price. Aouinaït et al. (2022a), for instance, stated that pricing a product in line with the cost of production encourages customers to continue buying the product. This indicates that designing an appropriate mix of these elements creates a win-win situation for both the sellers and buyers of the chain. Hence, it is not surprising that the “marketing mix” is the most vital CSF for both stages. It is worth noting that this factor is internal to the organization; thus, management has the power to adjust and control it as needed. Managers of LFSCs should take advantage of this and put effort into designing an appropriate marketing mix to ensure the success of their chains.

“Engagement” is another common CSF across phases. This CSF has been found as a second vital CSF for both stages. The local food system is complex, and the engagement of actors within and beyond the chain is crucial for the development of such a system (Block et al., 2008). The literature on both establishment and expansion (e.g. Aouinaït et al., 2022a; Zoll et al., 2021; Aggestam et al., 2017; Block et al., 2008) underscored the importance of engaging all the actors involved in the LFSCs for their success. Given that, it is reasonable that engagement ranked as the second vital CSF for both stages in this study. To make the chains viable and grow, managers should keep engaging diverse, yet relevant actors by all possible means suggested in this research.

“Resource availability” has been recognized as CSF for both the establishment and expansion phases. However, Pareto analysis demonstrates that it is the fifth vital CSF for establishment, whereas for expansion it is the third vital CSF. This can be clarified by stating that, during the establishment stage, the operation of the business usually remains small, and financial and/or human resources often are arranged by the founding members themselves or by their family and friends (e.g. Mert-Cakal and Miele, 2022; Schreiber et al., 2023). This implies that at this stage, the managers of such chains, to a certain extent, have access to the necessary resources and thus do not need to put much effort into their accumulation. However, the critical issue of the expansion stage is to ensure the availability of resources (e.g. Aggestam et al., 2017; Crowley et al., 2023) to support the increasing number of production, marketing and distribution operations. Thus, it can be asserted that ensuring resource availability is significant while establishing LFSCs; nonetheless, it is even more significant while expanding such chains.

“Empowerment” has been explored as CSF for both phases. However, for the establishment, while it is the “fourth vital CSF,” for the expansion it is the “sixth vital CSF”. The explanation behind this finding might be that, during the establishment phase, all the stakeholders, including producers, customers and employees, in LFSCs, lack the knowledge and skills to deal with the local food system (e.g. Mars and Schau, 2019; Torjusen et al., 2008). Therefore, they need to be taught and trained more during this phase. With the increased knowledge, they get more involved (Cox et al., 2008), which eventually influences the expansion. Hence, management should foster the empowerment of relevant stakeholders while establishing LFSCs and make sure that they (stakeholders) remain empowered while expanding the chains.

“Social capital” is CSFs for both phases. In addition, the analysis revealed that “social capital” is the “sixth vital CSF for the establishment, whereas it is the “fourth vital CSF” for the expansion of LFSC. The reason for such a finding might be that as the chain expands, more stakeholders must become involved; hence, to have coordination among these wide ranges of stakeholders, strong relationships and trust are required (e.g. Buckley et al., 2013). This implies that building social capital is much more significant for expanding the LFSCs in comparison to establishing them.

“Governmental support” is shared CSF for both phases as per the findings. Although “governmental support” was identified as the “fifth vital CSF” for the expansion of the LFSC, surprisingly it was not considered among the “vital few” CSFs during the establishment phase. Rather, it was classified under the “useful many”. This implies that internal factors such as “marketing mix,” as mentioned above, have a greater impact than external factors like “governmental support” in the establishment phase. However, if the firm desires to expand beyond its typical customer base and if the chain outgrows the owner’s capacity, then governmental support (e.g. grants and subsidies) becomes critical (e.g. Som Castellano, 2017). Therefore, for successful expansion, receiving governmental support is significant for the focal firm.

“Management commitment and philosophy,” “digitalization,” “traceability” and “adaptation in practice” were also identified to be influential for both the establishment and expansion. However, these are not vital but “useful many” CSFs for both phases. These factors will only make a difference if the vital CSFs are present. Thus, the focal firms should put more efforts into upholding management commitment and a favorable philosophy, embracing digitalization, safeguarding traceability, and encouraging adaptation in the practice of customers and producers only after ensuring the presence of vital CSFs.

Apart from the common CSFs across phases, the study has revealed CSFs unique to each phase. “Segmentation” is one such CSF. This is unique to the establishment phase and a third vital CSF for establishment. All customers’ and producers’ needs are not homogenous (e.g. Van Vlaanderen et al., 2021; Benedek et al., 2018). Failing to address those differing needs by the focal firms often hinders the participation of the respective groups in LFSCs (e.g. Young et al., 2023; Benedek et al., 2018). By segmenting customers and producers, focal firms can customize their value propositions and procurement policies, which makes them capable of satisfying the diverse needs of multiple customers and producers. Segmentation can result in a positive impact on the successful establishment over expansion, perhaps because usually during the establishment phase, managers and owners decide on who will be the potential customers, what type of products their potential customers might prefer, what price they can afford and what type of producers or suppliers can supply the products. Nonetheless, for the expansion stage, the focal firm already has active customers and supplier segments. Therefore, this factor no longer remains critical; rather, other factors become critical for the successful expansion of the firm. For instance, in the study by Milestad et al. (2017), while the focal firm was expanding, they already had established segmentation of producers (i.e. large and small farmers) segmented based on their firmographic characteristics (i.e. farm size). This segmentation was critical during the establishment phase since it helped the firm to adapt to the diverse production capacities of producers. However, the focal firm successfully expanded by relying heavily on the producers who had long, intensive collaboration (engagement) and close relationships (social capital) with them, much product variety (marketing mix) as well as an influence (empowerment) on them rather than on producers' firmographic segmentation such as larger farm sizes ^[1]. Hence, it can be posited that creating segmentations of customers and producers based on their demographic and firmographic characteristics is an essential task for management in ensuring the successful establishment of LFSCs whereas factors such as engagement and social capital are crucial than segmentation for the expansion of such chains.

On the other hand, “referral” and “consumer demand” were found as “useful many” CSFs for the expansion, but, interestingly, they were not found to be influential in the establishment of LFSCs. This might be because, during the establishment of LFSCs, all consumers were first-time customers and did not have sufficient buying experience upon which they could recommend their friends and family. Furthermore, producers perhaps perceive that the demand for the product would be limited during the establishment, and thus their participation in the establishment phase is not contingent upon the level of consumer demand. However, these factors become critical during the expansion of the chain. Hence, the focal firm should facilitate the referral system and incentivize the referrer while expanding. Moreover, management should estimate prospective customer demand and set strategies to increase customer demand for a successful expansion.

From the above discussion, it is apparent that “vital few” CSFs deserve more attention from the management, throughout the establishment and expansion process of LFSCs. However, the identified “useful many” CSFs should not be overlooked by the management. After a thorough analysis of CSFs, a framework for the establishment and expansion of LFSCs has been developed (Figure 6). The framework visualizes the main CSFs along with their subfactors. Moreover, the framework clearly distinguishes the “vital few CSFs” from the “useful many CSFs” for the establishment and expansion of LFSCs. The proposed framework aims to serve as detailed guidelines for managerial decisions related to the establishment and expansion of LFSCs.

The purpose of the study was to provide frameworks of CSFs for both the establishment and expansion of LFSCs. Given this, a framework has been proposed. The proposed framework depicts that in total there are “11 CSFs” for the establishment and “12 CSFs” for the expansion of LFSCs. Furthermore, the framework displays six “vital few” CSFs, namely, “marketing mix”; “engagement”; “segmentation”; empowerment”; “resource availability”; and “social capital” for the establishment. Likewise, six “vital few” CSFs, namely, “marketing mix”; “engagement”; “resource availability”; “social capital”; “governmental support;” and “empowerment” for the expansion of LFSCs. It can be posited that the existence of these “vital few” factors will result in the success of the LFSCs.

This research contributes to the existing LFSCs literature in several ways. First, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the only paper that has proposed a comprehensive framework of CSFs for LFSCs based on data from empirical research conducted from 2005 to 2023 in diverse geographical contexts. Second, this research scrutinized the CSFs one level deeper by further classifying the identified CSFs into “vital few” and “useful many”. Third, the identification and comparison of CSFs for the establishment and expansion phases of LFSCs inform that CSFs are mostly similar, yet certain differences exist across the two phases. Hence, this research adds several new knowledge to the existing LFSC literature. Furthermore, considering the fact that a significant number of businesses involved in the food supply chain including supply chains for local food are SMEs (e.g. Zaridis et al., 2021; Rucabado-Palomar and Cuéllar-Padilla, 2020; Jose and Shanmugam, 2020; Grando et al., 2017), it can be claimed that by listing CSFs for the successful establishment and expansion of such businesses, this research also contributes to SMEs literature.

In addition, this research has practical contributions. The framework of CSFs can assist the management and entrepreneurial decision-making process of varying configurations of LFSCs ranging from B2C and B2B to B2G. Reporting of subfactors under each CSF will inform managers about what specific things, they should focus on to attain certain CSF. For instance, the presentation of subfactors such as shared learning, collaborative governance, communication and collaboration under the CSF “engagement” informs managers on how to engage with diverse stakeholders. The clear representation of “vital few” and “useful many” CSFs will solve the managers’ dilemma of which factors to prioritize over others while establishing or expanding LFSCs. Furthermore, the comparison of CSFs between phases will let managers know what factor requires more attention at what phase. For instance, “segmentation” has been explored as one of the “vital few” CSFs for establishment but not for expansion. Entrepreneurs and managers who plan to establish new LFSCs can focus on this CSF, and the ones who are expanding their chain may pay less attention to this CSF and more to other CSFs like “governmental support,” which is one of the “vital few” CSFs for expansion. By considering the proposed frameworks, managers of LFSCs thus could minimize their risk of failure while establishing and expanding such chains. Since most of the LFSCs are SMEs, as mentioned earlier, the framework will help to flourish SMEs in the food sectors.

Consequently, the increased number of viable LFSCs and SMEs in the food sectors will raise access to local food and create new employment opportunities thus indicating the social contribution of this research. Furthermore, this study holds implications for politics as well. Since, the study has further emphasized the need for empowering government employees for the success of LFSCs, it will motivate the relevant stakeholders within and beyond LFSCs to create opportunities for enhancing government employees' knowledge about AFNs and LFSCs. With the increased knowledge, government employees will be able to validate the economic, environmental and social impact of LFSCs. Consequently they will be able to set policies and regulations favorable for the development of LFSCs.

This study, furthermore, can contribute to future research. Future researchers will get a readily available list of the CSFs of LFSCs, reducing their time for extracting CSFs from extant research. This study has several limitations that can be perceived as research gaps for future research. For instance, even though the findings of this research have been drawn from empirical studies, the study itself is not an empirical one; hence, researchers can design new empirical research to develop hypotheses grounded on the findings of this study and test these hypotheses. They can use the proposed framework of CSFs while preparing research instruments e.g. survey questionnaires and semi-structured interview questionnaires for empirical studies. Moreover, there is room to empirically test the proposed framework of CSFs in less affluent and developed geographical contexts since most countries studied in this research are affluent and developed. This study has identified CSFs for the establishment and expansion of LFSCs regardless of the configuration. Future research might test the proposed framework on different types of LFSCs and compare the findings to see the generalizability of the findings across different configurations. This research did not investigate the correlation between CSFs. Future studies could examine how these CSFs are correlated and how this correlation affects the establishment and expansion of LFSCs.

Funding: The research has been funded by the Kamprad Family Foundation. Grant No. 20220010.

Conflict of interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.