Overcoming divergence: managing expectations from organisers and members in community supported agriculture in Switzerland

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is a partnership model in which consumers share risks and benefits with producers, typically via seasonal shares, to promote localized, socially just food systems. CSAs vary as farmer-led or consumer-driven initiatives, but commonly emphasize fairness, shared responsibility, agroecological practices, and long-term relationships. Despite operating at retail prices, many CSAs struggle with profitability due to hidden costs, lack of economies of scale, and organizers’ limited management experience, sometimes leading to self-exploitation. Social capital—trust, reciprocity, networks—underpins CSA durability, yet members’ expectations often prioritize high-quality produce and fair work conditions over community-building. This study addresses gaps regarding how CSAs balance organizers’ ideals with members’ pragmatic expectations while ensuring adequate incomes. The research aims: (1) to examine arrangements, practices, and structures that build social capital; (2) to understand how expectations between organizers and members are consolidated; and (3) to explore how CSAs generate adequate income. The study uses mixed methods on eight Swiss CSAs to compare organizers’ and members’ perspectives.

Prior work highlights CSAs’ core principles of solidarity and localism, with farmers and organizers motivated by environmental stewardship, social justice, and participatory governance. Yet CSA profitability is mixed: some contexts (e.g., China) report strong cost-benefit ratios, while U.S. CSA farmers often earn below median farmer incomes. Small scale, hidden costs (administration, education, risk, maintenance), and under-pricing contribute to financial strain and self-exploitation. Members typically join for fresh, healthy, local produce and environmental concerns; produce quality may remain their primary criterion for continued membership, with community perceived more as a community of interest than of strong social ties. Social capital generation is frequently centered on the farmer and benefits from member participation in fieldwork, which builds trust, knowledge co-creation, and loyalty. However, studies note a divergence: organizers seek deep communal engagement, while many members value practical outcomes (quality, fairness, reliability). Scholars have called for research into concrete strategies that align motivations, end self-exploitation, and improve member retention, including transparency in pricing, workload sharing, and governance innovations.

Design: Mixed-methods case study combining qualitative photo-elicitation interviews with organizers and a quantitative member survey. Sample: Eight Swiss CSAs selected for maximum variety (differences in legal status, farm affiliation, size, age, area). Interviews were conducted with a representative organizer from each CSA. Qualitative phase: Photo elicitation via Skype. Each interviewee provided four photos (two of what works well; two of what works less well). Interviews explored practices, arrangements, and structures linked to successes and challenges. Analysis followed grounded theory with constant comparative cross-case analysis to generate codes, categories, and dimensions. Quantitative phase: Online survey to CSA members assessing 24 items adapted from SERVQUAL dimensions (empathy, assurance, responsiveness, reliability, tangibles), tailored to CSA context and validated for completeness with interviewees. Respondents rated importance and satisfaction on 5-point Likert scales. Data were analyzed using Importance–Satisfaction Analysis (ISA) to position items and guide resource allocation. Correlation analysis used both Pearson and Spearman coefficients (R 4.0.2; Hmisc and corrplot packages); results were near-identical per central limit theorem considerations. Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha was 0.804 (importance) and 0.863 (satisfaction). Survey responses: 254 total (212 complete), with variable return rates across CSAs.

Qualitative findings:

• Organizers’ intrinsic motivations include agroecology, fairness, risk sharing, reducing waste, community building, experimentation, and nature conservation; self-fulfillment and appreciation from members are key drivers.
• Organizational frameworks: Key tasks include project management, communication, member administration, IT, bookkeeping, and production. Volunteer coordination can burden organizers; some CSAs pay an organizer for administration (common among older, growing CSAs). Workgroups help distribute tasks.
• Budgeting and financing: Start-up budgets often underestimate real costs, leading to wage erosion. Financial tools include member share purchases at entry, subsidies, member loans, and crowdfunding; prices often increase as costs are better reflected. Some offer solidarity-based pricing tiers (minimal, cost-covering, solidarity).
• Building common ground: General meetings and written agreements clarify expectations (e.g., participation and risk sharing). Workload imbalances and unpaid overtime are common early on. Mandatory fieldwork (7/8 CSAs) is central but administratively demanding; participation is irregular but can stabilize with long-term members. Members may contribute via non-field tasks (e.g., accounting). Mature CSAs show self-organized member workdays and leadership.
• Practical implementation: Multiple urban pick-up points often via collaboration with other alternative food networks (AFNs); collaborations with neighboring farmers for machinery; internships and social-integration programs expand workforce and social goals.
• Feedback mechanisms: Informal conversations, online surveys, and member workshops inform adjustments and co-creation. Organizers often lack insight into reasons for cancellations. Quantitative findings:
• Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha 0.804 (importance), 0.863 (satisfaction).
• Top importance items (means): Fair work conditions 4.97; Trust in organizers 4.82; Quality of vegetables 4.76; Organizers work reliably 4.75; Direct payment flow to producer 4.72; Careful cultivation 4.64.
• ISA patterns: Communal participation items (e.g., decision-making, bringing ideas) tended to be less important to members yet rated relatively high in satisfaction, suggesting “possible overkill” where organizer effort may exceed member expectations. Operational reliability and produce quality were high in both importance and satisfaction (“keep up the good work”).
• Correlations (Pearson; similar for Spearman): • Fair work conditions (S9) weakly but positively correlates with Trust in organizers (S16) and Direct payment flow to producer (S8) at 0.01 significance. • Trust in organizers (S16) correlates strongly with Organizers work reliably (S18) and positively with Careful cultivation (S6) and Organizers work in the interest of the community (S24). • Feeling recognized as part of the community (S20) shows strongest positive correlations with Insight in bookkeeping (S10), Participation in fieldwork (S19), Possibility to bring in own ideas (S21), and Take part in decision making (S22). Synthesis:
• Organizers’ idealism often exceeds members’ pragmatic expectations; feedback and co-creation enable alignment.
• Member involvement in administration and especially fieldwork reduces organizer workload, fosters informal interactions, and builds social capital.
• Local embeddedness, flexible pricing, transparency, and iterative adjustments support financial viability and longevity more than rigid adherence to initial visions.

The study addresses how CSAs can reconcile organizers’ ideals with members’ practical priorities while sustaining adequate incomes. Organizers tend to pursue broad social and environmental goals beyond produce provision, but members prioritize fair working conditions, trust, and quality produce. This divergence can lead to organizer overload and self-exploitation if unaddressed. Findings suggest a dynamic, iterative model: organize, build common ground, implement, obtain feedback, and adjust. Transparent budgeting and communication create reciprocity of understanding and help set realistic expectations. Mandated and well-facilitated member participation in fieldwork and administration lowers workload and cultivates informal social ties that underpin social capital. ISA results reinforce that members value operational reliability and quality over deep communal engagement; thus, early investments should secure production and fair labor before expanding community-oriented initiatives. Positive correlations indicate that trust is anchored in reliability, careful cultivation, and community-oriented leadership; feelings of recognition are tied to transparency and participatory opportunities. Embracing co-creation and local embeddedness supports resilience and member retention, while rigid adherence to founding visions may hinder longevity. The potential application of dynamic governance (sociocracy) merits exploration as a formal framework for inclusive, adaptive decision-making.

This mixed-methods case study of eight Swiss CSAs proposes an internal cycle of continual readjustment—defining organizational frameworks, building common ground, implementing production, and integrating member feedback—to align organizer and member expectations. Key contributions include evidence that: (1) members consistently prioritize fair work conditions, trust, and produce quality; (2) organizer workload and risks of self-exploitation can be mitigated through transparent budgeting, solidarity-based pricing, and structured member participation; (3) informal social interactions during fieldwork and administrative collaboration foster social capital and mutual understanding. Practically, CSAs should focus first on robust, fair production systems and clear participation schemes to build a stable base for social goals. Future research should measure social capital formation more explicitly, assess the impacts of formal dynamic governance approaches, and examine how collaborations among CSAs, farms, and other AFNs amplify local sustainability outcomes.

The study examines eight CSAs within Switzerland, which may limit generalizability to other contexts. Qualitative findings rely on organizer self-reports and may be subject to bias; member survey response rates varied across CSAs, and cancellations’ root causes were often unknown. The survey captures perceptions at one point in time and does not provide causal inference. Social capital was not directly measured; correlations indicate associations but not directionality. Data are not publicly deposited due to GDPR constraints and the qualitative nature of materials.