No abstract

Scaling-up'' is the next hurdle facing the local food movement. In order to effect broader systemic impacts, local food systems (LFS) will have to grow, and engage either more or larger consumers and producers. Encouraging the involvement of mid-sized farms looks to be an elegant solution, by broadening the accessibility of local food while providing alternative revenue streams for troubled family farms. Logistical, structural and regulatory barriers to increased scale in LFS are well known. Less is understood about the way in which scale developments affect the perception and legitimacy of LFS. This valueadded opportunity begs the question: Is the value that adheres to local food scalable? Many familiar with local food discourse might suggest that important pieces of added value within LFS are generated by the reconnection of producer and consumer, the direct exchange through which this occurs, and the shared goals and values that provide the basis for reconnection. However, these assertions are based on tenuous assumptions about how interactions within the direct exchange produce value, and how LFS are governed. Examination shows that existing assumptions do not properly acknowledge the hybridity, diversity, and flexibility inherent in LFS. A clear analysis of the potential of scale in LFS will depend on understanding both how value is determined within LFS, and the processes through which these systems are governed. Such an analysis shows that, while scaled-up LFS will be challenged to maintain legitimacy and an identity as ''alternative'', the establishment of an open governance process-based on a ''negotiation of accommodations''-is likely to enhance their viability.

In this paper, we explore the current state of the food hub by discussing innovative practices supporting efforts to build healthy, equitable, and sustainable food systems. We present key insights from a roundtable discussion among scholars and Guelph, ON, N1H 8N9, Canada; Lecturer,

No abstract

Questions on the use of current theories of governance for co-operative businesses are prevalent within the literature. This paper seeks to determine if the theory of cyclical board behavior can provide insight into the evolution of co-operative boards within food co-operatives in Ontario, Canada. To answer these questions managers from food co-operatives participated in a one-hour long, semi-structured interview providing their understanding of the governance within their co-operatives. Managers identified board member engagement, the changing role of the board and succession planning as issues of concern. Engagement level of board members varied from a lack of participation to overbearing participation, which caused tensions within the cooperative. Current governance theories do not appear to adequately explain governance within a co-operative structure. A single, universal governance framework does not address the complexities of a member owned firm. The cyclical board behavior, however, does provide insight into co-operative board evolution.