The Constitution of Trust: Function,

Configuration and Generation of Trust

in Alternative Food Networks

Martin Thorsøe* and Chris Kjeldsen

Abstract

Alternative Food Networks (AFNs) are often mentioned as a way to reconfigure the link
between producers and consumers and build trust in the food system. This article
explores the function, configuration and generation of trust in AFNs. The structure is
twofold. First we discuss the theoretical underpinnings of trust, in both recent AFN
literature and in sociology, and develop a conceptual framework for analysing trust in
AFNs. Second, we explore the function, configuration and generation of trust in the Food
Communities of Copenhagen and Aarhus (in Danish: ‘Fødevarefællesskaberne’). The
Food Communities are a network of urban consumers sourcing organic products from
regional producers. Empirically, the article demonstrates how trust functions as a mecha-
nism that creates coherency and which facilitates co-operation in the food network.
Furthermore, the Food Communities are characterised by high levels of systemic and
personal trust. Several mechanisms, such as managing expectations, establishing trust-
worthiness, and developing a common normative basis, are employed and contribute to
the generation and maintenance of trust.

1. Introduction

T rust enables us to engage with the food system despite the growing uncertainties
associated with food production. This is particularly relevant as globalisation of
commodity chains have resulted in an increasing social, physical and temporal
distance between producers and consumers as well as the emergence of new
intermediary actors.
Distrust, however, arises when consumers experience a discrepancy between their
expectations and the performance of the food system, or with shifting or uncertain
responsibilities (Kjærnes et al. 2007). In particular, consumers experience this dis-
crepancy through food scares like the BSE-scandal, salmonella outbreaks, pesticides
residues, avian flu, and most recently the horsemeat scandal (Halkier and Holm

© 2015 The
C 2015
V The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis
Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Societyfor
for Rural
Rural Sociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016 DOI:
DOI: 10.1111/soru.12082
10.1111/soru.12082
2158 Thorsøe and
Thorsøe and Kjeldsen
Kjeldsen

2004). In this article we will focus our attention at AFNs and explore the function,
configuration and generation of trust within these networks.
The emergence of AFNs is seen as a reaction to the uncertainties created by the
modernisation of the food system (Feagan 2007). An important feature of AFNs are
shortened food chains that supposedly bring consumers closer to the origins of their
food and in many instances imply a more direct interaction between producers and
consumers (Hinrichs 2000; Renting et al. 2003; Seyfang 2006; Eden et al. 2008;
Jarosz 2008). In AFNs, consumers must trust producers’ quality claims, prices are
higher, and alternative markets depend on trust for maintaining legitimacy (DuPuis
and Gillon 2009; Sønderskov and Daugbjerg 2011; Daugbjerg et al. 2014). Trust and
the ability to actively construct trust are important to AFNs, and a critical question for
agro-food studies is how alternative food networks generate trust.
Our ambition with this article is to qualify how trust is constituted within AFNs.
Initially, we explore how trust has been conceptualised within agro-food studies and
argue that the understanding of trust is underdeveloped. Specifically, we identify an
analytical bias towards conceptualising trust as either the outcome of face-to-face
social relations or the knowledge supplied along with the product. Based on socio-
logical theory, we understand trust as a mechanism that enables actors to engage with
each other in spite of a lack in knowledge. We propose to explore trust in AFNs as a
configuration of systemic trust and personal trust. This model is applied to a case-
study of the Danish Food Communities, which are networks of urban consumers
sourcing local organic produce. The Food Communities collaborate with local food
producers. In particular we will focus on the following: (1) the function of trust (what
trust does), (2) the configuration of trust (how the different components of trust are
arranged) and (3) the generation of trust (which mechanisms contribute to the gen-
eration of trust). Finally, we discuss the theoretical implications of these findings for
further AFN research.

2. Conceptualisations of trust within agro-food studies

During the preceding 10–15 years there have been several attempts at defining AFNs
and what characterises the social relations and dynamics of the networks. AFNs,
however, still remain relatively under-theorised due to the contextual nature of the
networks, different analytical approaches and inconsistent use of key concepts
(Sonnino and Marsden 2006; Tregear 2011). As a broad generic definition, AFNs can
be defined as ‘alternatives to the more standardised industrial modes of food supply’
(Renting et al. 2003). The term ‘alternative’ implies how these networks are seen in
relation to the mainstream and industrialised forms of production. According to
Jarosz (2008) the term AFN is applied to denote networks that are characterised as
follows: (1) shorter distance between producers and consumers, (2) small farm size
and scale, and organic or holistic farming methods, (3) food purchasing venues such
as food co-operatives, farmers markets and CSAs; and (4) commitment to social,
economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable food production and distri-
bution and consumption. According to Holloway et al. (2007) the conventional-
alternative dualism is thus unfortunate, since alternative food projects exhibit a great
variety.
© 2015 The
C 2015
V The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis
Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Societyfor
forRural
RuralSociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
 The Constitution
The Constitution of
of trust
trust 159
3

Trust is a relatively new concept within the field of agro-food, and the studies that
do exist are both scarce and fragmented (Zagata and Lostak 2012). Hendrickson and
Heffernan (2002) emphasise that trust is not something which is associated with the
properties of the product, but rather with the notion that the consumer can trust the
producer to produce in a safe way. In the following section, we will look more broadly
into different conceptualisations of trust as a social relation in the context of AFNs.
The social relations of AFNs are typically classified according to the geographical scale
of interaction. Renting et al. (2003) distinguishes between three different geographi-
cal scales that include face-to-face, proximate and spatially extended networks. Each
are distinguished by various forms of interaction and consequently are also under-
pinned by different forms of trust.

2.1 Face-to-face and proximate networks

Local scale, short supply chains and direct interaction are features often described as
important benefits of AFNs influencing the generation of trust (Sage 2003; Kirwan
2006; Jarosz 2008). In an AFN the buyer, in addition to the product, supposedly gains
insight into the production system, status and identity associated with the product
(Sage 2003). Going beyond the simple description of product flow to address the
social relations is thus an important focus of inquiries into AFNs (Renting et al.
2003).
Sage (2003), Kirwan (2006) and Milestad et al. (2010), inspired by Offer (1997),
apply the concept of regard to understand the non-market benefits of the face-to-
face interactions that are embedded in the exchange between actors in the food
network. Regard can take many forms, such as acknowledgement, attention, accept-
ance, respect, reputation status, power, intimacy, love, friendship, kinship, and
sociability (Offer 1997). According to Offer (1997), the exchange of regard is facili-
tated by direct interaction. It is also an important source of mutual satisfaction both
on the part of the consumer and the producer, thereby providing a powerful incen-
tive for trust. The personal interaction is important for consumers as a means to
develop trust in the producers, but the producers also value feeling esteemed as
individuals, which arises out of the interaction with consumers (Sage 2003).
Milestad et al. (2010) argue that spatial proximity enables face-to-face interaction
between the food actors and that shared values are important features for sustaining
regard between actors.
The emphasis on face-to-face interaction as a driver of AFNs has been criticised.
Hinrichs (2000) argues that spatial relations should not be conflated with social
relations. Mount (2012) also argues that trust is not necessarily the result of direct
interaction, but that ‘trust in the direct exchange may be as much a predisposition as
an outcome; as much an absence of distrust as it is the creation of trust’ (Mount 2012).
Experiences from France also suggest that other forms of interaction such as tele-
phone calls and weekly leaflets become more important forms of communication
when consumers and producers are spatially separated and are unable to communi-
cate directly (Lamine 2005). It is also important to note that the Internet provides
opportunities for establishing novel forms of face-to-face communication (Renting
et al. 2003).
©
V 2015 The
C 2015 The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Society for
for Rural
Rural Sociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
4160 Thorsøe and
Thorsøe and Kjeldsen
Kjeldsen

2.2 Spatially extended networks

In spatially extended networks, products are sold to consumers outside the

region of production who may have no personal experience of that locality. Pro-
ducts must therefore be enhanced with value-laden information to enable con-
sumers to make a connection to places, values and the people involved in the
production. According to Renting et al. (2003), these types of networks rely on
complex institutional arrangements for securing the authenticity of the pro-
ducts rather than personal trust. When consumers are supplied with more
knowledge about food production, it is argued that they will avoid food
coming from damaging production systems and experience a reconnection with
producers. Labels function by contractually committing producers to a certain
practice, which is monitored by an institutionalised system of control (Bildtgård
2008). Trust is therefore not displayed towards the label as such, but towards the
institutions safeguarding the label. Bildtgård (2008) argues that certification
schemes play an important role for generating trust in food in late- or postmodern
society.
Empirical findings, however, suggest that the reconnection does not necessarily
occur because assurance information is not always received positively on the part of
consumers. In those cases, the independent third party certification is met with
scepticism. (Eden et al. 2008). Furthermore consumers of organic food only have little
knowledge of the requirements in organic certification (Rittenhofer and Povlsen
2012; Zagata and Lostak 2012).

2.3 Critique of conceptualisation of trust in AFN literature

The preceding section outlined how trust is conceptualised in agro-food studies

literature and indicated that conceptualisations of trust in AFNs are diverse and
under-theorised. Two understandings of trust generation emerge, both of which are
based on the assumption that trust is the outcome of a specific form of interaction
with the food system. The ‘direct interaction model’ related to face-to-face and proxi-
mate networks, where trust is seen as the outcome of direct social interaction,
resting on the premise that trust emerges when actors interact face-to-face. We find
that this model misses important aspects of trust because focus is only given to
direct interaction and other relations might be overlooked. AFNs do not exist in
isolation, but are based on existing social structures and members of AFNs are
related to the food system in numerous ways as media users, as citizens, via friends
and family, which are also important and influence their trust towards AFNs. The
‘knowledge deficit model’ related to spatially extended networks, is adapted from
models developed in the field of Risk Communication (Hansen et al. 2003). Trust
here is seen as the outcome of knowledge supplied along with the product, resting
on the assumption that trust is generated when consumers are supplied with suf-
ficient knowledge from trustworthy sources such as expert systems like auditing
schemes. This is a dubious assumption, however, considering that trust enables
action despite uncertainty, implying that knowledge cannot also be the foundation
of trust.
© 2015 The
C 2015
V The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis
Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Societyfor
forRural
RuralSociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
 The Constitution
The Constitution of
of trust
trust 161
5

3. Sociological perspectives on trust

Conceptions of trust within sociology differ from those mentioned above. Rousseau
et al. (1998) offer a widely supported definition of trust as ‘a psychological state
comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of
the intention or behaviour of another’. The definition encapsulates several important
aspects about trust. Firstly, it assumes that trust is about expectations and how actors
manage expectations towards other individuals and social systems. Secondly, trust
concerns how we relate to risk and uncertainty. According to Luhmann (1979), trust
would not be needed if the world was familiar and predictable, and trust works as a
functional element that reduces the complexity of social interaction. This is because
other people have the freedom to not comply with our expectations of their behaviour.
Simmel has emphasised that trust is a phenomenon that exists between knowledge
and the lack of it (Misztal 1996). A complete lack of knowledge would make our
actions unpredictable, and full knowledge removes the need for trust. Thirdly, trust
can be seen as a relational property regarding a specific matter, such as A trusts B to
do X (Hardin 2006). Trust requires two sets of actors; a truster (the party accepting
vulnerability) and a trustee (the party towards which favourable expectations are
ascribed).
Trust presupposes uncertainty and therefore has to be seen as a leap of faith
wherein uncertainty is suspended and actors act as if they are certain about the
outcomes of others’ actions (Luhmann 1979; Knudsen 2001; Möllering 2001, 2006).
Therefore, trust in relation to food networks should be understood as an emergent
property of a network of consumers, producers, retailers and supermarkets, and
regulatory bodies. Trust in the food system is, however, characterised by non-
reciprocity, where it is consumers who trust food producers and not vice versa
(Kjærnes et al. 2007).
Several sociologists distinguish between two fundamentally different forms of
trust, trust related to persons and trust related to systems (Luhmann 1979; Giddens
1990; Misztal 1996; Knudsen 2001). Personal trust is strictly related to the persons
involved in the interaction. This form of trust is embedded in personal relations
between individuals and is therefore particularly important in tightly knit commu-
nities where collaborators are likely to meet each other in the future and therefore
have their reputation at stake (Putnam 2000). Personal trust relations are, however,
quite rare in modern food networks today given the distanciation of relations between
consumers and producers.
Social interaction in food networks rarely concerns only two individuals as many
intermediaries are also involved. Systemic trust denotes an impersonal form of trust
that systems work and perform particular tasks. Systemic trust minimises the need
for personal trust because expectations are directed at an abstract third party that is
able to secure the expected outcome or sanctions in cases where expectations are not
met. According to Giddens (1984), we engage with the system through ‘access points’
where we meet representatives. Therefore, we can interact face-to-face with the
system, but our expectations are still ‘faceless’ because they are not directed towards
the representatives, but rather towards the system they represent. In the food system,
the expert status of scientific disciplines such as nutritional and agricultural science,
©
V 2015 The
C 2015 The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Society for
for Rural
Rural Sociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
162
6 Thorsøe and
Thorsøe and Kjeldsen
Kjeldsen

as well as labelling schemes, are examples of systems legitimising trust in the food
network (Bildtgård 2008).
Luhmann (1979) and Giddens (1990) both emphasise that the configuration of
trust has changed in modern society. Today we rely more on systemic than personal
relations of trust. This claim is certainly valid for modern food networks where the
length of commodity chains has increased and numerous actors influence food on its
journey from production to consumption.

3.1 Generating trust

Above we have outlined different forms of trust. It is also important, however, to

consider how trust is generated, in particular because new mechanisms to build trust
are needed now that the complexity of the food system has increased. In this section
we will outline a distinction developed by Möllering (2006) between three bases of
trust: reason, routine and reflexivity.
Trust as reason implies making a bet about the future contingent action of others
by balancing the benefit of trusting with the risks and costs of trust being broken
(Sztompka 1999). This places an emphasis on information about the other parties in
the interaction, which is obtained via indicators of trustworthiness such as compe-
tency, ability and motivation. When actors present themselves to others, they also
define what can be expected of them and this self-presentation is an important
mechanism for trust generation (Luhmann 1979; Knudsen 2001). Reputation is a
specific form of self-presentation which is valuable because it not only invokes expec-
tations of future behaviour, but also provides an incentive for social actors to behave
in ways that sustain their reputation (Hardin 2006).
Trust as routine implies taking the outcome of a certain action for granted without
good arguments or consideration of alternatives (Misztal 1996). Shared expectations
like rules, roles and norms are important, facilitating the predictability of the system.
Actors tend to comply with these shared expectations because their actions cannot
otherwise be understood (Möllering 2006). Expectations are stabilised by a common
normative basis defining right and wrong, by legitimising expectations and enabling
critique of wrongful actions.
Trust as reflection implies that trust is the outcome of repeated interactions by
reflective actors. Giddens encapsulates this in the notion of active trust where the
development of trust is facilitated by openness and continuous communication
(Giddens 1990; Beck et al. 1994). Trust develops gradually in a self-reinforcing
process when initial trust is met and returned. Therefore, trust has to be won actively.
Luhmann (1979) calls this ‘the principle of gradualness’, because trust is not neces-
sarily in place prior to the interaction. The context and institutional setting of the
initial interaction has an influence on the process, and there is an element of path
dependency to trust building (Möllering 2006).

3.2 Towards an analytical conceptualisation of trust in AFNs

Studying trust as a social mechanism involves explaining people’s actions by their

motives and their beliefs, which is challenging because they are not necessarily
© 2015 The
C 2015
V The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis
Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Societyfor
forRural
RuralSociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
 The Constitution
The Constitution of
of trust
trust 163
7

explicit and may be highly routinised. Trust can only be understood by exploring
the expectations that different actors have towards each other. This is complex
because people act according to multiple motivations and in the case of research,
researchers must integrate different contributing mechanisms in their analyses
(Misztal 1996; Sztompka 1999). Based on the understanding of trust outlined
above, we have developed a conceptual model describing two dimensions of trust as
the degree of systemic trust and the degree of personal trust, inspired by a
configurational model of social capital (Woolcock 1998). We argue that trust
should be understood in relation to specific functions and also qualified in terms of
how trust is generated, focusing on the three contributing bases of reason, routine
and reflection. This approach integrates both process- and structural aspects of
trust.

4. The Food Communities of Aarhus and Copenhagen

Food Communities are groups of consumers organised around the provision of fresh
vegetables directly from local producers. Together with these producers they share the
responsibilities normally carried out by other market actors, such as logistics, sale and
price formation. Food Communities are a recent scheme established in 2008 by a
group of consumers in Copenhagen interested in purchasing vegetables directly from
organic producers located in the outskirts of the city. Each person pays a one-time
membership fee of 100 DDK (€15) and is committed to at least 3 hours of duty work
each month for the Food Communities. Orders are placed from one week to the next
and no long-term delivery contracts are made. Members pay 100 DKK for a bag of
produce and the next week they can pick up a bag of locally produced organic
vegetables. The volunteer work can be fulfilled by taking a shift in the food outlet or
joining one of several working groups that are responsible for different functions of
the Food Communities, such as purchasing vegetables, managing work plans, and
organising events. Apart from food provisioning, members can also engage in differ-
ent social and learning activities such as communal dining, farm visits, presentations
and debates.
Organic food production and consumption have become popular in Denmark
during the last 30 years. Today, Denmark has the second highest per capita consump-
tion of certified organic foods in the world (Willer and Lernoud 2014). Organic food
is mainly retailed through the major supermarket chains. In 2012, organic food
accounted for a total market share of more than 7 per cent (Hindborg 2008; DST
2014). The Food Communities have quickly become a successful, prominent new
feature in the Danish organic foodscape. A rapid increase in members (today 5,400)
has split the original Copenhagen Food Community into 9 smaller local commu-
nities, each with their own outlet in different neighbourhoods. Approximately 10–15
different farms deliver to the Food Communities, but the majority of the vegetables
come from 3 farms. The set-up has also spread from Copenhagen to several other
cities such as Aarhus, Odense, Aalborg, and Lejre, as well as to the Island of Born-
holm. In Aarhus, the community started in 2011, inspired by the communities in
Copenhagen. The Food Community in Aarhus is based on the same organisation and
principles.
©
V 2015 The
C 2015 The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Society for
for Rural
Rural Sociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
8164 Thorsøe and
Thorsøe and Kjeldsen
Kjeldsen

A recent survey of the Food Communities in Copenhagen revealed that members

are primarily young (the majority are 20–40 years old), well educated (77 per cent
have what equals an undergraduate education or above), 73 per cent are women, and
60 per cent are households that include children (KBHFF 2014).

4.1 Methods

We conducted 10 semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews in the spring of 2012

with members of the Food Communities and the vegetable producers (3 members
and 1 producer in Aarhus; 4 members and 2 producers in Copenhagen). Interviewees
from the Food Communities were selected based on their involvement and respon-
sibility for key functions in the network, such as communication with suppliers,
organisational activities, or planning and management activities. The selection there-
fore covers both people within the network involved in key functions and the primary
suppliers. The members are all organising members who have accepted considerable
responsibility in building the organisation and interacting with the producers. The
three producers selected as interviewees account for most of the supply delivered to
the community in Aarhus and two of these producers also deliver to the Food
Communities in Copenhagen. The remaining supply of products is obtained from
various smaller producers. Consequently, we have focused on the producers and the
most engaged members in the Food Communities because they possess detailed
information about decision-making processes therein.
To allow for an open debate, the interviewees have been anonymised. The focus of
the interviews was to understand the following: (1) what obligations, expectations and
duties the actors in the network have towards each other, (2) what specific tasks are
carried out by the actors in the network and (3) how values and knowledge are used
in the decision-making process of the actors in the network. In addition to the
interviews, our analysis included observations of the food outlets, talking with
approximately 25 members collecting vegetables, as well as drawing upon member
meeting minutes, newspaper articles, and strategy documents as data sources. This
additional data is referenced, but primarily been used to provide context for the
interviews.
After completion, the interviews were transcribed verbatim and open-coded using
the software Transana. Selected quotes have been translated by the authors
(transana.org 2004; Brinkmann and Kvale 2008). To elaborate on the function of
trust in AFNs, related codes (actions underpinned by expectations) were first catego-
rised according to the two forms of trust (personal and systemic) and later grouped
and regrouped in a process of constant comparison to develop distinct categories of
functions that account for the entire data set (Corbin 1998; Silverman 2011). To
explore the generation of trust we followed a different strategy, where codes relating
to the expectations and self-presentations of both consumers and producers were
categorised according to the themes identified in the literature and described in
section 3.1 (reason, routine and reflexivity).
Because the study was comprised of a relatively small number of interviews, we
cannot generalise motivations or perceptions to other members of the Food Commu-
nities. In the analysis we have therefore explored tangible actions as well as events
© 2015 The
C 2015
V The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis
Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Societyfor
forRural
RuralSociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
 The Constitution
The Constitution of
of trust
trust 165
9

within the Food Communities, and these have been shared and commented on by
multiple interviewees. The quotes were selected both to support our claims and as
illustrations of certain discussion topics that reoccurred during the interviews.

4.2 The function of trust in the Food Communities

Interviewees expressed many specific rationales for joining the Food Communities.
Some wanted to purchase organic or ‘high quality’ food at a lower price, some had
joined due to social aspects, and others joined for political reasons, such as protesting
against market capitalism or advocating for a more transparent food supply chain. By
building a new AFN, the consumers play an instrumental role in shaping their own
food network, but they also open a proverbial Pandora’s Box of new complexities
relating to the production and provisioning of food. We argue that trust is a necessary
mechanism to manage this complexity. The interviews indicate that trust has two
major functions for the Food Communities: (1) it creates coherency and (2) it facili-
tates co-operation between the Food Communities and the producers.

Facilitation of co-operation. Trust reduces the need for knowledge exchange and
thereby facilitates co-operation between producers and consumers. Members of the
Food Communities did not express a need to acquire knowledge about organic food
production to co-operate with producers. Commenting on the openness of the Food
Communities towards including the producers’ views on matters related to produc-
tion and co-operation, one of the producers notes: ‘They are just ordinary consumers
and they do not have the insights that the producers have. Actually, I do not think that
they know what it means to be a vegetable producer’. The consumers trust that the
producers produce ‘poison free’, ‘organic food’ in a ‘sustainable manner’. The dilem-
mas of organic production and reflections regarding production practice are left to the
producers. This reduction in complexity makes co-operation easier as consumers do
not need a lot of knowledge to co-operate with producers.
Both the Food Communities and the producers depend on the function of trust.
Producers trust the Food Communities to keep the agreements they make, as no
formal contracts are written. The formation of produce prices provides an example. It
is a central idea for the Food Communities that vegetable prices should be ‘fair’ for the
farmers, which is somewhat ambiguous. In general the Food Communities accept the
prices that producers propose without comparing prices between different producers,
in order to avoid competition among the producers. A price list developed by an
organic retailer (Solhjulet) is used as a reference point, but sometimes the vegetables
are not listed and at other times producers have had problems with a ‘difficult crop’,
and they need to decide on a ‘fair’ price. The Food Communities must trust the
producers to not overcharge and similarly producers have an incentive not to over-
charge as their market would disappear if they appear unreasonable. Producers need
a market later in the year for the crops they plant in the spring. It is a challenge to
manage this temporality because consumers are ordering on a week-to-week basis,
constituting an important uncertainty among producers. The trust-based pricing
system enables producers to take risks they would not otherwise take, because they
trust that they will get a decent price. As one producer expresses: ‘For the producers
©
V 2015 The
C 2015 The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Society for
for Rural
Rural Sociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
166
10 Thorsøe and
Thorsøe and Kjeldsen
Kjeldsen

it is much more fun to be paid a little, so it is viable. I would never begin to produce
Christmas salad for a supermarket, I would not be able to, that’s why nobody are
doing it, you can’t live off those prices’. Trust therefore allows producers to take risks,
and some of them modify their production strategy to include new crops that are not
found in other markets.

Coherence within the organisation. The flat structure is a challenge for the organi-
sation because there is no centralised authority to make decisions. Trust is needed to
ensure that each member fulfils his or her role in the organisation. It is urgent that
members trust each other to perform their tasks. Otherwise, the community would
disintegrate. New members are introduced to the obligations they must fulfil in the
community by other members, and when becoming members each must present
themselves as capable of fulfilling these obligations.
The management of work plans is a good example as members voluntarily sign up
for their duty work, but nobody monitors whether the members have fulfilled their
commitment. In Copenhagen they have established a team structure to commit
people to the Food Communities. Earlier, members would sign up for work duty
whenever it was appropriate for them. A newer system of teams has been imple-
mented as a response to the expansion and loss of community feeling. One of the
members elaborates about this effect: ‘It gives a different degree of obligation, not
alone towards the duty work, but also towards the team you are a part of because you
come to know the people that you let down if you do not show’. Implementing a team
structure means that members continuously meet the same members each time they
work for their community, which nurtures personal trust among members. Members
are not only responsible for the community functions, but also their fellow members.
It is therefore a way of generating systemic trust out of personal relations trust.

4.3 The generation of trust in the Food Communities

In light of the division of trust into the three bases elaborated in section 3.1, this
section will distinguish among those three different bases of trust: reason, routine
and reflectivity.

Trust based on reason. Trust is only possible if actors present themselves as trust-
worthy towards each other and display competency, ability, and motivation for fulfil-
ling the expectations of others (Sztompka 1999; Hardin 2006). By doing volunteer
work, members of the Food Communities show their motivation to build a new food
network. This is important not only as a practical mechanism securing continuity in
sales (why work if not for the vegetables?), but it is also important because the Food
Communities can present themselves as a volunteer community and not a profes-
sional profit-making organisation. Being a volunteer community makes it easier for
the members to form realistic expectations towards the Food Communities. It is
difficult for members to be discontent with the performance of their community
knowing that everybody works for free. Furthermore, it is important for the Food
Communities to display competency and the ability to organise food provisioning. As
one member remarked when talking about maintaining a good relationship with the
© 2015 The
C 2015
V The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis
Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Societyfor
forRural
RuralSociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
 The Constitution
The Constitution of
of trust
trust 167
11

producers: ‘I am also thinking professionally, if we pay our bills on time and make
sure that everything works, it makes them [producers] want to have more to do with
us that they consider us a reliable customer and that we keep our promises’. Com-
mitment to professionalism and long term co-operation indicates that the Food
Communities intend to maintain their reputation as a trustworthy organisation.
Producers display motivation in fulfilling the expectations of the Food Communities
by participating in the events and farm visits organised by the community, as well as
delivering quality produce on time that meets expectations.
A central challenge for the Food Communities is to meet producers’ expectations
of the network, particularly when there is limited direct contact and community
membership continuously changes. To manage the uncertainty of the weekly pur-
chase and ensure a diversity of products, the Food Communities of Copenhagen have
organised an annual meeting where all producers are invited. At this meeting, pro-
ducers meet members of the communities to co-ordinate next year’s production and
discuss any challenges the co-operation is currently facing. The producers further
indicate which crops they will grow in the forthcoming season, the quantity of the
purchase is uncertain and the exact content of the bags is not specified in order to
allow for crops ripening either early or late. All the actors understand and agree to the
uncertainty of this setup, so the expectations are in line with the ability of the network.
The producers know that demand is not completely certain in terms of quantity, that
there will be a market for perishable produce like salads, and that they will not breach
a contract if a crop is late, early or fails. The consumers, on the other hand, know that
there is some continuity in product deliveries, but not exactly which products and will
be delivered when.

Trust based on routine. One of the successes of the Food Communities is their
simple promise to producers and members: Pay in 100 DDK one week, receive a bag
of vegetables the next, with no other obligations. Members experience that the system
functions each week when they collect a bag of vegetables. Expectations are stabilised
as both members and producers experience the network functioning appropriately. It
is this ‘taken for granted-ness’ of food provisioning that is important for generating
trust (Misztal 1996; Möllering 2006). Another important aspect of trust in the Food
Communities is the organic labelling scheme that all producers comply with. Organic
production standards are well established, monitored by the state, and do not need to
be negotiated between the Food Communities and the producers. Several inter-
viewees expressed that the food ‘must be organic, of course’. Members of the Food
Communities, like Danish consumers in general, display a high degree of trust
towards this label. This is an aspect of trust which is important in reducing complexity
because production standards do not need to be negotiated and the standards are
taken for granted (Daugbjerg and Halpin 2010). Furthermore, the producers, and the
Food Communities to a certain extent, share a common normative basis which is an
important foundation for the development of trust among them (Luhmann 1979).
One of the members in the Food Communities in Aarhus compiled information for
their homepage description of the producers, noting: ‘the personal is a good focus to
have, because it is in good line with this from “field to fork”, personifying the
producer so that he is not just a supplier, but that he is a human being, who has his
©
V 2015 The
C 2015 The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Society for
for Rural
Rural Sociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
168
12 Thorsøe and
Thorsøe and Kjeldsen
Kjeldsen

own opinions (...) we would like to interview and collect the more personal stories;
these producer pages are supposed to both contain some facts about how long have
you been an organic farmer, which products you have, but also more the producers’
own story, what are their own motivation for growing organic’. One of the producers
also sees this as the most important factor in his communication: ‘When they know
why you grow organic and they know that, we should make our ends meet; there is
more to it than just making money’. Both these statements indicate that self-
presentation of the producers and sharing values is important to members and
producers alike. Self-presentations nourish the bonds between consumers and pro-
ducers, although the relations are not formed through conventional face-to-face
interaction,

Trust based on reflexivity. Generating trust based on reflexivity implies understand-

ing trust as the outcome of repeated interaction with continuous and open commu-
nication (Giddens 1990; Möllering 2006). In the Food Communities, modern
communication technologies are used to manage expectations. Platforms like
Facebook, wikis, blogs and e-mails are used for knowledge-sharing and rapid
response to criticisms. Complaints regarding produce or management decisions are
uncommon because the products are basic vegetables, but occasionally they do occur.
Criticisms can be voiced at community meetings or online via Facebook, which is
relatively easy. Criticism is never anonymous. Members stand in person and voice
their critiques, and concerns are quickly addressed. One member, who was respon-
sible for the weekly vegetable purchases, received several complaints regarding poor
cabbage quality in the late winter. She replied that it was a standard condition of
cabbage in that season and suggested an appropriate preparation technique. In
another situation, a producer was criticised for selling wild garlic that can be picked
for free in the forest. When producers are addressed directly, they are also able to
respond directly, and rapid responses allow the actors to sustain their self-
presentation. Both producers and consumers have an incentive to meet the trust
initially placed in them because they see the possibility for ongoing co-operation, an
important mechanism to secure the gradual proliferation of trust (Misztal 1996). As
one of the members noted in relation to the negotiation of price: ‘... in reality we
accept the price they (producers) give us, we take it for granted and it is also in their
interest. If they constantly gave us an unfair price we might find other people to play
with’. Similarly, the producers are aware that trust is fragile and that they will be
excluded from the network if prices or product quality are seen as unfair. They are
therefore careful to give a ‘fair price’ and take ‘good care’ of the customers with fine
products and a good selection. Both producers and consumers are aware that their
current engagement with each other also affects their future co-operation.

5. Discussion

AFNs are about ‘settling shared uncertainties’, and trust facilitates this settling. This
is different from conventional food systems, which are characterised by a high reli-
ance on formal contracts. The Food Communities are a new organisational form that
has found a novel way to deal with some of the challenges related to organising a
© 2015 The
C 2015
V The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis
Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Societyfor
forRural
RuralSociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
 The Constitution
The Constitution of
of trust
trust 169
13

consumer-initiated food scheme. Like GAS in Italy (Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale –

Solidarity Purchasing Groups), this is a consumer-initiated organisation (Brunori
et al. 2012; Fonte 2013). Unlike the Food Communities, GAS has no regular contact
between members and producers, and members do not have the same flexibility in
relation to purchase. Unlike the CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) of North
America (DeLind 1999; Feagan and Henderson 2009) or the AMAP (Association
pour le maintien d’une agriculture paysanne) in France (Cardona and Lamine 2011),
the Food Communities do not hold shares in the farm or participate in farming
related activities or decision making, and do not share any formal interdependence or
long-term commitment with producers.

5.1 The configuration of trust

In this article we apply a framework with two dimensions of trust: personal and
systemic trust. Our study indicates that personal and systemic forms of trust are both
present and interrelated in the Food Communities. It is difficult to imagine a network
of almost 5,600 consumers who each build a personal bond of trust with multiple
producers. Systemic trust is therefore needed, and the different forms of trust serve
different functions within the network. Personal trust relations are important for
motivating members to engage in the work of the communities, and for creating
coherence in the network. The Food Communities rely on some of the properties of
personal trust such as personal obligation, reward and the coupling of face-to-face
meeting with an ability to communicate through other media. This is what Sztompka
(1999) calls ‘virtual personal trust’. Furthermore, producers trust the Food Commu-
nities because they are personally familiar with members who are known to take
action if problems arise.
Systemic trust relations, on the other hand, are important for creating and display-
ing a trustworthy network that members are keen to join and with which producers
will do business. In the Food Communities, members are all different and engage in
various ways with the food network. For some, the personal interaction with the
producer is most important. For others, it is enough to know that a member has a
personal contact. For yet others, it is most important to know the food is ‘organic’. In
addition, trust can only be understood in connection to the specific relations and
multiple interactions that take place simultaneously. AFNs therefore need to be
conceptualised as a composite of many different relations underpinned by multiple
forms of trust. The Food Communities could not function, for instance, without the
systemic trust that is present in the government-driven organic control scheme or
without the personal trust between the members of the Food Communities. This also
supports the point of Giddens (1990) that personal trust presupposes a certain level
of ontological security, emphasising the complex dynamics between systemic and
personal dimensions of trust.
The findings in this article do not reject the possibility of AFNs based on either
personal or systemic relations of trust. The analysis, however, supports the findings of
Renting et al. (2003) that when food networks evolve and geographical scales are
extended, actors cannot rely only on personal relations of trust. In general, personal
trust works well in small, tightly-knit communities, whereas systemic trust is
©
V 2015 The
C 2015 The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Society for
for Rural
Rural Sociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
170
14 Thorsøe and
Thorsøe and Kjeldsen
Kjeldsen

important in larger communities (Putnam 2000). The analysis also elaborates on the
findings of Renting et al. (2003) by demonstrating that personal relations of trust do
not necessarily disappear when the scale is extended or because other forms of trust
become more important.
The Food Communities also represent an alternative configuration of the reciproc-
ity of trust in food networks (Kjærnes et al. 2007). Producers are trusted to produce a
distinct quality, but unlike in conventional food systems that are characterised by
non-reciprocity, reciprocity is re-established in the Food Communities. Producers also
trust the Food Communities to purchase their produce because some of it is grown
specifically for them and if the Food Communities do not purchase from them there
will be no market for those products. All actors have a mutual interest in maintaining
the Food Communities. Producers receive a relatively high price for their produce and
are able to circumvent wholesalers. Consumers can purchase relatively cheap, fresh
and high-quality organic vegetables, as well as support local producers. This reciproc-
ity in terms of interests seems to be an important factor sustaining trust in the
network because it stabilises the actors’ expectations of each other. Sztompka (1999)
call this ‘instrumental trust’ because trust in something based on mutual interest
is safer.

5.2 Revising models for the generation of trust in AFNs

The occurrence of both systemic and personal trust differs from the conceptuali-
sations of trust found within the AFN literature. As presented in section 4, we have
identified two models for the generation of trust in AFN literature: the ‘knowledge
deficit model’ and the ‘direct interaction model’. The findings from the Food Com-
munities indicate that there is some truth in both models, but also that neither model
captures the full complexity of the generation of trust.
In relation to the direct interaction model we find that the notion of regard (Offer
1997; Sage 2003; Kirwan 2006; Milestad et al. 2010) is insufficient to understand the
constitution of trust since trust and direct interaction are conflated. Inherent in the
notion of regard is a tacit normative proposition that direct interaction is a good thing
and that other forms of interaction do not hold the same value. Consequently, too little
emphasis is placed on other forms of interaction. This is also supported by Mount
(2012) who warns against drawing a causal relationship between direct exchange in
the food network and positive outcomes of the exchange, since the exchange takes
place in a complex web of perceptions, interactions, and outcomes. In our case, direct
interaction is important because specific members have had direct interaction with
the producers and because members internally interact with each other. Direct inter-
action is important in the Food Communities, however, not as a form of interaction
among producers and members as suggested by the AFN literature, but rather among
the members.
Furthermore, face-to-face interaction is not the only possibility for consumers to
engage with producers. The Internet offers consumers a possibility to communicate
with producers, access their self-presentations on homepages or Facebook, and know
the producers’ rationales and values. In the Food Communities the Internet is an
important feature of the network and it is important to be aware of other forms of
© 2015 The
C 2015
V The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis
Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Societyfor
forRural
RuralSociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
 The Constitution
The Constitution of
of trust
trust 171
15

interactions, in particular, as many AFNs are multiscalar forms of organisation (Blake

et al. 2010). This suggests an interesting paradox in relation to the conventional
wisdom in the AFN literature, where it is often argued that consumers join an AFN
to learn more about food production, interact face-to-face with producers and avoid
the anonymous conventional production system. However as we have demonstrated
in this article, interactions with producers are not always common and the reasons for
joining an AFN are multiple. Different forms of trust emerge in more complex
configurations than prescribed by either the ‘knowledge deficit model’ or the ‘direct
interaction model’. This corresponds with empirical findings in other research areas
such as social capital theory (Woolcock 1998).
In the AFN literature the generation of trust is usually conceived as an important
benefit in line with the claim that ‘The notion of trust in the vernacular (...) is often
vaguely warm and fuzzy’ (Hardin 1999, p. 429). In accordance with Luhmann (1979)
and Giddens (1990) we see trust as a functional mechanism in the network, however,
generating trust does not ensure a sustainable food network. Whether an AFN is
normatively good or not is another matter, which cannot be addressed based on the
network’s ability to generate trust. Trust reduces the need for consumers to acquire
knowledge about organic production, and the network does not facilitate much in the
way of knowledge exchange. Therefore it may be difficult for an AFN like the Food
Communities to challenge the established power relations of the food production
system as trust enables consumers to transfer the dilemmas of modern food produc-
tion to the producers. For the analysis of AFNs, this means that trust should not be
perceived as the objective of AFN, but rather it should be perceived as a mechanism
which enables the network to function and analysis of AFN should focus on qualify-
ing how the networks function.
This article supports the findings of Rittenhofer and Povlsen (2012), Zagata and
Lostak (2012), who suggest that trust is not the outcome of knowledge exchange. We
found little knowledge exchange among producers and consumers. Instead, our
results indicate that transparency of the organisation is more important than knowl-
edge exchange. In the Food Communities, members can trace the origin of their
produce or follow the decision-making process of the organisation. Building trust is
not about inundating members with information, and the Food Communities are
more interested in a value-based dialogue than in practical information about
production.
In this article we have demonstrated that trust is an emergent property of the
network, with several mechanisms contributing to the generation of trust. Reducing
trust to one basic mechanism is incorrect. Reason (displaying trustworthiness, capac-
ity, ability and motivation towards fulfilling expectations), routine (routinisation and
a common normative basis) and reflection (openness, continuous communication
and ongoing relations) all contribute to the development of trust.

6. Conclusion

Trust is an important component of the Food Communities, and this study demon-
strates that trust creates coherency and facilitates co-operation. Trust is important
for the risk-taking of producers, managing the knowledge asymmetry among the
©
V 2015 The
C 2015 The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Society for
for Rural
Rural Sociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
172
16 Thorsøe and
Thorsøe and Kjeldsen
Kjeldsen

different actors in the food network, and mobilising consumers to actively take part
in the network. Organising an AFN is possible without knowing much about the
complexities of food production if it is based on trust. Different mechanisms such
as managing expectations, working with trustworthiness, self-presentations, and
common values are all actively used to generate trust. The Food Communities are
characterised by both systemic and personal relations of trust. It is important to be
cautious when making generalisations from our results. The configuration of trust
found in the Food Communities might not resemble the configuration of trust in
other AFNs as each one is unique (Holloway et al. 2007) and also because Denmark
is characterised by a high degree of both social trust and trust in the food system
(Kjærnes 2006; Sønderskov and Daugbjerg 2011).
We argue, however, that there are general theoretical and methodological lessons
to be learned from the study that can advance the understanding of trust in AFNs,
both theoretically and methodologically. Within social science theory in general,
scholars have long been preoccupied with trust. In spite of this, the concept remains
relatively under-theorised in AFN literature. This is rather problematic because
AFNs in many instances rely on trust and not formal contractual obligations like
conventional food systems. Focusing on trust as a functional mechanism offers a
new approach to understand the socio-spatial relations of AFNs and qualifies the
multiple ways expectations of the food system are formed. This article also demon-
strates that systemic and personal relations of trust can both be present and impor-
tant in the same network, and that both need to be considered when studying trust
in an AFN. As we have argued interactions with producers might not be as common
as usually conceptualised in the AFN literature. Furthermore, this article demon-
strates that the two approaches to understand the generation of trust in AFNs
(the ‘knowledge deficit model’ and the ‘direct interaction model’) should be revised
in order to account for the multiple mechanisms contributing to the generation
of trust.

Note

* Corresponding author.

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the MultiTrust project, part of the Organic Research, Development
and Demonstration programme, which is coordinated by International Centre for Research in
Organic Food Systems (ICROFS). It is funded by The Danish AgriFish Agency, Ministry of
Food, Agriculture and Fisheries.

References

Beck, U., A. Giddens and S. Lash (1994) Reflexive modernisation: politics, tradition and aesthetics
in the modern social order (Cambrigde, UK: Polity Press)
Bildtgård, T. (2008) Trust in food in modern and late-modern societies. Social Science Informa-
tion 47 (1) pp. 99–128

© 2015 The
C 2015
V The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis
Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Societyfor
forRural
RuralSociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
 The Constitution
The Constitution of
of trust
trust 173
17

Blake, M.K., J. Mellor and L. Crane (2010) Buying local food: shopping practices, place, and
consumption networks in defining food as ‘local’. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 100 (2) pp. 409–426
Brinkmann, S. and S. Kvale (2008) Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing
(Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications)
Brunori, G., A. Rossi and F. Guidi (2012) On the new social relations around and beyond food.
Analysing consumers’ role and action in gruppi di acquisto solidale (solidarity purchasing
groups). Sociologia Ruralis 52 (1) pp. 1–30
Cardona, A. and C. Lamine (2011) Emergence of new forms of collective action and governance
through alternative food networks: the case of an ‘amap’ in france. XXIV ESRS Congress
‘Inequality and Diversity in European Rural Areas’ Chania, Greece
Corbin, J.M. (1998) Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory/anselm strauss and juliet corbin (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE)
Daugbjerg, C. and D. Halpin (2010) Generating policy capacity in emerging green industries:
the development of organic farming in denmark and australia. Journal of Environmental
Policy & Planning 12 (2) pp. 141–157
Daugbjerg, C., S. Smed, L.M. Andersen et al. (2014) Improving eco-labelling as an environmen-
tal policy instrument: knowledge, trust and organic consumption. Journal of Environmental
Policy & Planning 16 (4) pp. 559–575
DeLind, L.B. (1999) Close encounters with a csa: the reflections of a bruised and somewhat
wiser anthropologist. Agriculture and Human Values 16 (1) pp. 3–9
DST (2014) Statistics denmark. Ministry for Economic Affairs and the Interior. Available online
at http://www.statistikbanken.dk Accessed 12 February 2015
DuPuis, E.M. and S. Gillon (2009) Alternative modes of governance: organic as civic engage-
ment. Agriculture and Human Values 26 (1–2) pp. 43–56
Eden, S., C. Bear and G. Walker (2008) Understanding and (dis)trusting food assurance
schemes: consumer confidence and the ‘knowledge fix’. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (1)
pp. 1–14
Feagan, R. (2007) The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems. Progress in
Human Geography 31 (1) pp. 23–42
Feagan, R. and A. Henderson (2009) Devon acres csa: local struggles in a global food system.
Agriculture and Human Values 26 (3) pp. 203–217
Fonte, M. (2013) Food consumption as social practice: solidarity purchasing groups in rome,
italy. Journal of Rural Studies 32 pp. 230–239
Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration (Cambridge:
Polity Press)
Giddens, A. (1990) The consequences of modernity (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press)
Halkier, B. and L. Holm (2004) Tillid til mad: forbrug mellem dagligdag og politisering. Dansk
Sociologi 15 (3) pp. 9–26
Hansen, J., L. Holm, L. Frewer et al. (2003) Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into
lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41 (2) pp. 111–121
Hardin, R. (1999) Trudy gover, social trust and human communites. The Journal of Value Inquiry
33 (3) pp. 429–433
Hardin, R. (2006) Trust (Cambridge: Polity Press)
Hendrickson, M.K. and W.D. Heffernan (2002) Opening spaces through relocalization:
locating potential resistance in the weaknesses of the global food system. Sociologia Ruralis
42 (4) pp. 347–369
Hindborg, H. (2008) Aktøranalyse – samspillet med dagligvarehandlen. Pp. 341–358 in
H. Alrøe and N. Halberg eds, Udvikling, vækst og integritet i den danskeøkologisektor (Foulum:
ICROFS)
Hinrichs, C.C. (2000) Embeddedness and local food systems : notes on two types of direct
agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies 16 (3) pp. 295–303

©
V 2015 The
C 2015 The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Society for
for Rural
Rural Sociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
174
18 Thorsøe and
Thorsøe and Kjeldsen
Kjeldsen

Holloway, L., M. Kneafsey, L. Venn et al. (2007) Possible food economies: a methodological
framework for exploring food production–consumption relationships. Sociologia Ruralis 47
(1) pp. 1–19
Jarosz, L. (2008) The city in the country: growing alternative food networks in metropolitan
areas. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (3) pp. 231–244
KBHFF (2014) Hvem er vi i kbhff?
Kirwan, J. (2006) The interpersonal world of direct marketing: examining conventions of
quality at uk farmers’ markets. Journal of Rural Studies 22 (3) pp. 301–312
Kjærnes, U. (2006) Trust and distrust: cognitive decisions or social relations? Journal of Risk
Research 9 (8) pp. 911–932
Kjærnes, U., M. Harvey and A. Warde (2007) Trust in food : a comparative and institutional
analysis (Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan)
Knudsen, M. (2001) Krop og suverænitet – om to måder at skabe tillid på. Pp. 15–23 in A.
Bordum and S.B. Wenneberg eds, Det handler om tillid (Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur)
Lamine, C. (2005) Settling shared uncertainties: local partnerships between producers and
consumers. Sociologia Ruralis 45 (4) pp. 324–345
Luhmann, N. (1979) Trust and power (Chichester, UK: Wiley)
Milestad, R., R. Bartel-Kratochvil, H. Leitner et al. (2010) Being close: the quality of social
relationships in a local organic cereal and bread network in lower austria. Journal of Rural
Studies 26 (3) pp. 228–240
Misztal, B. (1996) Trust in modern societies: the search for the bases of social order (Cambridge, UK:
Wiley)
Möllering, G. (2001) The nature of trust: from georg simmel to a theory of expectation,
interpretation and suspension. Sociology 35 (2) pp. 403–420
Möllering, G. (2006) Trust: reason, routine, reflexivity (Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd)
Mount, P. (2012) Growing local food: scale and local food systems governance. Agriculture and
Human Values 29 (1) pp. 107–121
Offer, A. (1997) Between the gift and the market: the economy of regard. The Economic History
Review 50 (3) pp. 450–476
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of american community (New York:
Simon & Schuster)
Renting, H., T. Marsden and J. Banks (2003) Understanding alternative food networks: explor-
ing the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A
35 (3) pp. 393–411
Rittenhofer, I. and K.K. Povlsen (2012) Trust and credibility. Towards a cross-disciplinary
perspective on organics combining media and management research. The 10th European
IFSA Symposium – Producing and Reproducing Farming Systems (Aarhus: IFSA)
Rousseau, D.M., S.B. Sitkin, R.S. Burt et al. (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline
view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23 (3) pp. 393–404
Sage, C. (2003) Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’ networks
in south-west ireland. Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1) pp. 47–60
Seyfang, G. (2006) Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: examining local
organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies 22 (4) pp. 383–395
Silverman, D. (2011) Interpreting qualitative data : a guide to the principles of qualitative research
(London: SAGE)
Sønderskov, K. and C. Daugbjerg (2011) The state and consumer confidence in eco-labeling:
organic labeling in denmark, sweden, the united kingdom and the united states. Agriculture
and Human Values 28 (4) pp. 507–517
Sonnino, R. and T. Marsden (2006) Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships between
alternative and conventional food networks in europe. Journal of Economic Geography 6 (2)
pp. 181–199
Sztompka, P. (1999) Trust: a sociological theory (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

© 2015 The
C 2015
V The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis
Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Societyfor
forRural
RuralSociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016
 The Constitution
The Constitution of
of trust
trust 175
19

transana.org (2004) What is transana? Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of
Wisconsin. Available online at http://www.2.wcer.wisc.edu/Transana/Transana Accessed 12
February 2015
Tregear, A. (2011) Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: critical reflec-
tions and a research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 27 (4) pp. 419–430
Willer, H. and J. Lernoud (2014) The world of organic agriculture – statistics and emerging trends
2014 (Frick: FiBL and IFOAM)
Woolcock, M. (1998) Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis
and policy framework. Theory and Society 27 (2) pp. 151–208
Zagata, L. and M. Lostak (2012) In goodness we trust. The role of trust and institutions
underpinning trust in the organic food market. Sociologia Ruralis 52 (4) pp. 470–487

Martin Thorsøe*
Department of Agroecology
Aarhus University
Blichers Allé 20
Tjele 8830
Denmark
e-mail: martinh.thorsoe@agrsci.dk

Chris Kjeldsen
Department of Agroecology and Environment, Faculty of Agriculture
University of Aarhus
P.O. Box 50, Research Centre Foulum
Tjele DK-8830
Denmark

©
V 2015 The
C 2015 The Authors.
Authors. Sociologia Ruralis V
© 2015European
C 2015 EuropeanSociety
Society for
for Rural
Rural Sociology.
Sociology.
Sociologia
Sociologia Ruralis,
Ruralis, 2015
Vol 56, Number 2, April 2016