Introduction

This study examines the strategies developed by Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) initiatives (henceforth CSAs) in their attempt to prefigure alternatives to capitalist agri-food systems. As part of a broad and diverse movement of alternative food networks (AFNs, Goodman et al. 2012), CSAs contribute to the diversification of the agri-food system and are themselves expressions of diverse food economies. Following the declaration agreed upon by participants at the 2016 international summit of CSAs held in OstravaFootnote 1, we refer to CSA as “a direct partnership based on the human relationship between people and one or several producer(s), whereby the risks, responsibilities and rewards of farming are shared, through a long-term, binding agreement”.

The study focuses on a particular axis of CSA alterity, namely labour. This is central to the dynamics of exploitation and alienation in capitalist economies and, within these, it contributes to defining the structure of economic relations between production and consumption. The transformation of the way labour of workers and owners is rewarded and remunerated, as well as the recognition of the other kinds of labour that are mobilised in addition to paid labour (such as the labour of members and other volunteers), become crucial in models of alternative economies such as CSA (Vincent and Feola 2020; McKinnon 2020; Watson 2020). However, several studies show that, despite their intentions, in various countries CSAs end up reproducing the dynamics of competition, self-exploitation and precarious work conditions that characterise the dominant capitalist economy (Galt 2013; Kondoh 2015; Balázs et al. 2016; Galt et al. 2016) or are not effective in implementing an alternative model (Cameron 2015). Attempts to transform labour in and through CSAs are often tentative, precarious and incomplete, thereby revealing the difficulties they face in fully realising the CSA model, while prefiguring post-capitalist realities that inevitably exist within a capitalist-dominated socioeconomic system. This, however, does not entirely lower the potential of their prefigurative role as envisioners of a possible alternative future and makes it worthy of further research (Watson 2020; Raj et al. 2024). In fact, the coexistence of capitalist, alternative capitalist and post-capitalist relations is not to be seen as a limitation, but as a productive tension in the transformation of agri-food systems (McKinnon 2020; Rosol 2020; Vincent and Feola 2020).

The aim of the study is to document the strategies that CSAs employ to de-commodify, de-instrumentalise and de-monetise labour in the attempt to build their alterity and prefigure alternatives to dominant capitalist agri-food systems. It examines these strategies, their transformative potential and how CSAs deal with the often tentative, precarious and incomplete nature of change that they embody and put into practice. In doing so, the study provides insights into the potential for and barriers to fuller and more accomplished post-capitalist labour management within CSAs.

We focus on the Italian experience of CSA, and in particular on CSAs that are part of the Italian CSA Network (RICSA). In Italy these initiatives began to emerge in 2011 and grew in numbers especially towards the end of the decade and in recent years. The Network was established in 2018. This study is the first to analyse how labour issue is addressed in CSAs, and it is even more meaningful considering the peculiarities of the CSA model in Italy. Within the landscape of AFNs and, more specifically, grassroots initiatives inspired by solidarity economy principles that have been developing since the mid-1990s, in this country CSAs appear as the most advanced experimentations with non-capitalist models of relationship and management. In particular, compared to GAS (Solidarity-based Purchase GroupsFootnote 2), of which in many cases they are the deliberate evolution, CSAs are considered more ambitious attempts to build new, community-driven food systems that are more rigorous in pursuing the reference values and goals (solidarity, co-participation and co-responsibility in the management of production activities) and, more importantly, are radically innovative in redesigning roles and practices (co-production instead of production and consumption) (Volz et al. 2016; Rossi 2017; Biolghini et al. 2020; Rossi et al. 2021; Piccoli et al. 2021). This also involves a meaningful resignification of labour. This effort is particularly evident for the CSAs belonging to RICSA, which adhered to the Ostrava Declaration, subscribing to its principesFootnote 3, and are engaged in an ongoing internal collective reflection on the peculiar features of the CSA model and its translation to the Italian context.

Theoretical context

Community supported agriculture and transformation in agri-food systems

In the contribution of grassroots initiatives to transformative change, prefiguration is a crucial aspect, although it rests on a challenging process (for a critical note on prefiguration in the food movement, see Myers and Sbicca 2015). CSAs, among other AFNs, are particularly significant in that regard (Zoll et al. 2021). They actually realise in the present, albeit often in an imperfect manner, the sustainable and just practices, principles, deeply democratic organisational structure, and cooperative and solidary business models that CSA collectives wish to see become the widespread mainstream in the future. Like other types of prefigurative initiatives (Dinerstein and Deneulin 2012; Leach 2013; Maecklelbergh 2016; Clarence-Smith and Monticelli 2022), CSAs are driven by a strong future orientation, human ingenuity and creativity, hopeful attitude and capacity to institutionalise resilient or innovative practices while maintaining flexibility and adaptability.

However, the realisation of alternatives in grassroots initiatives rests on the capacity to deconstruct and deactivate existing relations and structures. For example, Brunori and colleagues (2012) emphasise the role of dynamics of detachment from and reattachment to networks of relations, these being crucial spaces where processes of cognitive and normative reframing can develop which lead to new systems of knowledge and values conducive to radical change in attitudes and practices. Following Feola (2019) and Feola et al. (2021), prefigurative initiatives crucially entail an element of ‘unmaking’ modern capitalist configurations in order to ‘make space’ for alternative, post-capitalist realities. Unmaking is referred to as “a diverse range of interconnected and multilevel (individual, social, socioecological) processes that are deliberately activated to ‘make space’ (temporally, spatially, materially, and/or symbolically) for radical alternatives that are incompatible with dominant modern capitalist configurations” (Feola 2019: 979). Feola et al. (2021) proposed that such unmaking concretely takes place through socio-cognitive and political processes that include unlearning, deliberate refusal, sacrifice and resistance (Feola et al. 2021; van Oers et al. 2023). Unmaking can occur along one or more axes simultaneously, such as labour (methods of remuneration), property (modes of access regulation) and knowledge production, among others (Vincent and Feola 2020). Following Feola (2019), unmaking is understood as a combination of situated processes, whereby acts of unmaking are not end points but rather means inscribed in the performance of historically and spatially situated individual, social and socioecological transformation. Processes of unmaking involve both symbolic and material deconstruction and often entail contradictory personal experiences, which open up spaces for different ways of being that are enabled by the rejection of modern capitalist rationalist and utilitarian subjectivities, but which might involve compromises, negotiations, setbacks and dilemmas. Unmaking can occur through public actions (e.g., civil disobedience and protests) and disruptive public discourse but which are more often private or even covert, and hence less prone to co-optation by states and markets. Unmaking is also generative; it interrupts the reproduction of capitalism, thereby opening possibilities otherwise out of reach, and it entails the withdrawing of support from a dominant system in favour of alternative ethical allegiances.

Community supported agriculture and change in labour management

The role of CSAs as prefigurative initiatives and, thus, their potential in representing a radically alternative model in managing labour around food production-provisioning practices emerge from the reconsideration of the ‘weight’ of human labour in CSAs operations and the ways in which the labour need is met, how farmers’ labour is valued and how it is managed in relation to the labour needs of CSAs, the social sustainability of farmer labour, the role and meaning of community members’ engagement in CSA activities and legal aspects related to labour management in CSAs. These aspects, which are often interconnected, emerge prominently from the literature on labour in CSAs. We briefly outline them, in turn, below.

Human labour in community supported agriculture operations and management

CSA is recognised as being labour-intensive agriculture (Janssen 2010). Unlike industrial agriculture, it involves many and lengthy field operations because of the adoption of ecological-organic farming, no or reduced mechanisation, and strong product diversification. Moreover, it involves activities related to the various interactions with CSA members and participation in community activities.

The amount of available labour is thus an essential factor, enabling the medium- and long-term social and economic sustainability of CSAs as well as their scaling (Nost 2014; Bruce and Som Castellano 2016; Ekers 2019). CSAs around the world have addressed this challenge in different ways: by choosing/accepting to keep the farm on a small scale (eventually integrating farm and non-farm income), by hiring labour and by using labour provided by CSA members or external volunteers and interns (Endres and Armstrong 2014; Cameron 2015; Ekers and Levkoe 2016; Ekers 2019). The solutions are context dependent. The existence of an ideological approach (e.g., orientation towards social justice) or, alternatively, a more pragmatic approach may influence the picture.

The valuation of farmer labour

A crucial factor of CSA economic sustainability in relation to labour management is the ways of rewarding and, to that end, valuing farmer labour. The CSA model includes, in principle, the remuneration of the farmer’s labour in the production costs covered by CSA members. This entails deciding how to value such labour: (i) on the basis of the exchange value, established through comparison on the conventional labour market, assuming it is a fair remuneration; or (ii) on the basis of use-value (Watson 2020), taking into account CSA specificities, such as the time and hard work needed for labour-intensive and ecologically oriented agriculture, the additional activities linked to the direct producer-consumer relationship, and the other values provided through a different approach to food production-provision. However, earlier studies have shown that remuneration of the farmer’s labour may not always be included among evaluated costs (Lass et al. 2005), that fairness is not always subject to collective critical assessment and may rather be left to the farmer’s decision (Cameron 2015), and that, ultimately, CSA farmers often do not earn an adequate income (Paul 2019; van Oers et al. 2023). Moreover, some of the costs may not be included in the determination of the CSA share (e.g., those associated with maintenance, production risk, incidental expenses, and administrative and educational activities) (Pilgeram 2011; Galt 2013; Balázs et al. 2016; Parot et al. 2017), thus remaining hidden from the members intentionally or unintentionally (Vaderna et al. 2022; van Oers et al. 2023).

The unexpected exploitation of farmer labour

CSAs have been analysed in relation to their risk of exploiting farmer labour, leading to work overload and unfair incomes (Galt 2013; Balázs et al. 2016; Birtalan et al. 2022; Vaderna et al. 2022), thus raising issues of labour justice (Ekers and Levkoe 2016; Ekers 2019). CSA farmer self-exploitation is interpreted as a reaction to conditions of increasing competition on the market (Galt et al. 2016), where the innovation created by AFN initiatives has been integrated into the marketing strategies of big, conventional agri-food system actors (Samoggia et al. 2019). Relatedly, there are concerns about the affordability of the CSA model (Jilcott Pitts et al. 2021; Birtalan et al. 2022; Vaderna et al. 2022), and open questions about the appropriate scale for the model stability over time. In sum, trade-offs exist between individual (farmer) sustainability and collective project sustainability, but also between economic and non-economic goals: farmer self-exploitation (overwork, underpayment) is often the primary way in which CSAs attempt to achieve economic viability, to sustain overall operation (in the face of limited member involvement in the fields) and to make the yearly shares affordable to members, therefore also ensuring the initiative inclusivity and enabling the community-building and social functions.

Economic exploitation is often compounded by social (physical and mental) pressure on farmers. The new modes of consumer-producer connectivity involved in CSAs require farmers to take up new roles and acquire additional operational and relational skills, and to devote extra work-time to community-building, which may generate stress, discomfort and psychological pressure, all of which may undermine CSAs (Galt 2013; Birtalan et al. 2022; Vaderna et al. 2022).

CSA farmers are profoundly aware of both financial and socio-psychological drawbacks, but they often evaluate them within a more complex perspective taking into account the multipurpose character of CSA and consequently relativising specific problematic aspects (Samoggia et al. 2019). As argued by Vaderna et al. (2022:2), “CSA farmers commonly justify the intentional decision [not to consider certain costs] by perceiving the gratitude and respect expressed by the consumers to fill the economic gap through an intangible payment (Paul 2018; Pilgeram 2011)”. As Galt (2013:359) argues, “other values and rationalities are clearly driving how CSA farmers run their operations”, leading to “low or moderate instrumentalism” (see also Samoggia et al. 2019). This attitude towards farm labour refers to the use value that is embodied therein, namely, the labour capacity to respond to societal needs (Samoggia et al. 2019; Watson 2020). Use value is prioritised by many farmers, as opposed to exchange value, which is the monetary value attributed to labour by the market.

The management of labour-related challenges and the rise of new social spaces

Inherent to the CSA model, there are mechanisms for facing the challenges arising from it, which go beyond the conventional instrumental and individualistic logics. Cameron (2015) reads these as deliberately inspired by a ‘community economy’ model (Gibson-Graham 2006). By partially absorbing business risk, these mechanisms guarantee predictability and continuity of income to farmers. For instance: against constant pre-financing, the quantity of product delivered may vary, according to availability; pricing is not subject to market fluctuations; and ways to distribute surplus may envisage replacement incomes for farmers during periods of hardship (Cameron 2015; Blättel-Mink et al. 2017; but see Paul 2019 for contrasting evidence). In some cases, the difficulty in maintaining a balance between fairness of farmers’ remuneration and affordability of shares is addressed collectively by offsetting the costs for low-income members (Sitaker et al. 2020; Jilcott Pitts et al. 2021). Other benefits come from the possibility of subsidising the farm with unpaid labour (or labour with non-monetary rewards), such as that one provided by interns or by the CSA members (Endres and Armstrong 2014; Ekers and Levkoe 2016; Ekers 2019). This volunteer labour can be rewarded in different ways, including through learning and boarding (interns), social recognition, awareness of contributing to community co-ownership of the CSA initiative and payment in kind (members) (White 2013).

Volunteer labour allows farmers to partially contain production and management costs, addressing the above-mentioned trade-offs (e.g., Cameron 2015). Other scholars see the possibility of using members’ volunteer work when needed as an element of flexibility that partially explains the sustainability of this enterprise model (Endres and Armstrong 2014). On the other hand, varying levels of member engagement reflect social inequalities, whereby volunteering is more accessible for people who have free time and a well remunerated job (Watson 2020). Referring to the broader family of ecological farms, some scholars see the use of volunteer labour as intrinsically unsustainable, a weak point of the model in the long term (Ekers and Levkoe 2016; Ekers 2019).

From another perspective, going beyond economic and instrumental logics, volunteer labour is presented as a way to get out of labour commodification and monetisation, by incorporating its use value directly into the community food system, thereby making it feasible and economically sustainable– “contributing to building the alternative” (Ekers 2019). CSA member engagement in farm activities “helps build a community economy in which members are being enrolled to do more than just consume” (Cameron 2015:11). Their engagement in labour marks a significant departure, redefining the conventional consumer role (Watson 2020).

Furthermore, volunteer labour is seen as a source of individual and collective learning and, thus, as a tool of consolidation around a common knowledge and value basis. Labour is understood not only as a commitment to the functioning of the collective initiative (if this is envisaged), but also as a way of learning through practice. This allows labour becoming a space of construction and sharing of a common good (an alternative food system) as well as a means of empowerment (Ekers 2019). Also looking at the internship, labour takes the form of “a non-institutionalized form of education” (Ekers 2019: 22); a cultural and political learning space: “as a form of community and/or social movement building” (p. 23).

In its reconfiguring labour, the CSA model is recognised to have the potential to counter the alienation of labour by acting on its multiple forms, namely, as highlighted by Marxist theories, the alienation of labour from product, process, relationships and human potential (Watson 2020; Raj et al. 2024). For both farmers and CSA members, this potential is linked to the ability of labour to produce not only exchange value but also, and more importantly, use values, which take shape in the benefits stemming from the quality of products and related production processes, the collaborative dimension, sociability, individual growth and fulfilment, a sense of community, and a sense of belonging to a community project (Cameron 2015; Samoggia et al. 2019; Watson 2020). Other studies confirm the existence of other, non-instrumental, values underlying CSA practices, namely emotional, social, epistemic and educational values (Chen 2013). This potential to counter the alienation of labour suggests that assessing CSA labour and its features through the lens of capitalistic logics (e.g., using the category of exploitation or efficiency loss where volunteer labour is involved) may be reductive and obscure the transformative potential of the CSA model (Gibson-Graham 2014; Watson 2020).

Emerging needs in labour management for CSA development

The precariousness of the work of farmers represents an element of precariousness for the entire CSA model. A need emerges for farmers to develop and strengthen competencies and skills to enable them to address both the managerial and the relational aspects of CSA (Samoggia et al. 2019; Birtalan et al. 2022). This also helps not to fall into the trap of normalising a precarious work regime within a moral economy frame, which some authors have highlighted (Weiler et al. 2016). In particular, the ability to manage interpersonal and community relationships is important for maintaining the collective initiative stability and vitality, as well as its co-management character (Samoggia et al. 2019; Birtalan et al. 2022; Vaderna et al. 2022). The development of social capital– building of social relationships based on trust, shared values and norms, mutualism and cooperation– is crucial in this regard (Vaderna et al. 2022). However, this is a challenging process, which needs particular attention by providing space for social interaction and engagement in common activities (Balázs et al. 2016; Cone and Myhre 2000; Ducottet and Parot 2020; Savarese et al. 2020; Vaderna et al. 2022). This once again shows the special meaning and transformative potential of labour in the CSA model. Cameron (2015) emphasises even more explicitly the significance of developing a sense of community when engaging in CSA activities: this labour offers the opportunity to build a complex identity, which integrates roles that are usually distinct, and “in so doing start to feel and act as collective economic subjects” (Cameron 2015:11). These learning processes, which are crucial for building community economies, need to be adequately supported by representational strategies and material technologies (Cameron 2015).

The legal aspects related to labour management

The rigidity of the regulatory frameworks concerning labour management extends to volunteer labour (often prohibited by law), and to the relationship between farmers and consumers in managing CSA activities, leaving little room for manoeuvre (Rossi 2017). As Endres and Armstrong (2014:381) observe, “visionary community labor arrangements may expose many CSA farmers to substantial legal liability.” A deep change in the evaluation of these aspects would be needed to re-consider the distinct, opposite role of the two parties involved (based on a conventional employee/employer relationship), recognise that “they are playing a different game than conventional business” (allied against the conventional food system in order to build a new food system), develop tools to represent “such creativity” and support this force for positive change rather than making it illegal. “employment law should […] develop a more nuanced view of relationships in the CSA context that support rather than undermine the game-changing potential of community labour in local food systems” (ibid.). The labour question is clearly part of the broader question of business models and related objectives, in relation to the capacity of the legitimated models to meet all the different ambitions and demands emerging in society. In turn, this is linked to the even broader issue of the structuring effect of the dominant political economic framework concerning farming and food practices, and how it could evolve (Ekers 2019).

Endres and Armstrong (2014) observe another meaningful nuance in the legal perspective, referring once more to the concept of labour in CSA model: by assessing volunteer labour solely in economic-monetary terms, “the legal system is rejecting the other forms of value that work can possess such as the personal and political expression that comes with where one chooses to spend one’s time. Farmers, and those that care about farming, see their work as an expression of self and belief, which is excluded by the legal analysis of why an individual may volunteer” (Armstrong 2014: 390). Such a reframing of meaning and practice of labour is seen in its empowerment and democratisation potential: “The CSA objective is to engage eaters in the process of food production, so that consumers are empowered with the knowledge and resources to contribute to the food system of their choosing” (ibid.: 395). A new legal paradigm should focus “on the democratisation of the workforce—one that matches the evolution of the food system with the passion of the community labour force.” (ibid.: 396).

Research design

Concept definitions and analytical framework

As a model that prefigures post-capitalist agri-food systems, CSA is informed by and embodies values and logics that are set in contrast to those characterising capitalism (Trauger and Passidomo 2012; Rossi 2017; Vincent and Feola 2020). Notably, CSA embodies logics aimed at common interest as opposed to utilitarianism; solidarity and co-participation as opposed to alienation and separation; human, social and ecological benefits as opposed to economic interest. Logics that are inspired by cooperation and mutualism, deliberately distant from logics of competition, exploitation, and instrumental rationality that characterise market relations. As shown in the literature review above, the post-capitalist character of CSA translates also into the attempt to re-signify and re-organise labour. Against the backdrop of the many facets the literature shows for such redefinition and reorganisation, in this study we analyse this endeavour through the lens of three cross-cutting characteristics of capitalism: commodification (relating the meaning of any product or action to its being a commodity subject to economic transaction on the market), instrumentalisation (prioritising economic interest), and monetisation (using economic, monetary value as the only form of reward).

We thus ask the following research questions: what type of strategies do Italian CSAs employ to de-commodify, de-instrumentalise and de-monetise labour? What insights can be gained as regards the potential for and barriers to fuller and more accomplished post-capitalist labour management within CSAs?

Following DiVito-Wilson’s definition (2013), we understand the decommodification of labour “as a process of removing food provisioning activities from market forces or market-based value systems” (ibid: 730). By de-instrumentalisation, we understand the prioritisation of social, emotional, cultural, ecological or other benefits over profit maximisation and income generation (Galt 2013; see also Chen 2013). In turn, de-monetisation refers to valuation and reward of labour through non-monetary exchanges (e.g., reciprocity, gift) in order to foreclose the reduction of human relations to market relations, the activation of debt, and to protect human autonomy (Heikkurinen et al. 2019).

In order to identify such strategies, we examine three defining moments in the setting up and management of CSAs– the choice about the legal form, the determination of the share, the evaluation of volunteer labour - as illustrated in Fig. 1. First, as laws can constrain the possibility of organising labour in the CSA, as well as impose particular valuation criteria, CSAs may strategically choose to take a particular legal form (e.g., for profit business, non-profit association, cooperative, etc.) in order to enable certain degrees of freedom. Alternatively, they may decide to adopt ‘creative’ forms to overcome those constraints. Second, when determining the share value to be contributed by members, the participants address the issue of farmer remuneration and fairness criteria to be adopted. Through these decisions, valuation of farmers’ work may be institutionalised, including the balance between fair remuneration and CSA affordability, as well as the relation between monetary and not-monetary rewards. Third, most CSAs expect volunteer, non-remunerated labour by their members, although none of them ‘forces’ members to volunteer; however, they value and operationally integrate this labour differently. A key aspect of the institutionalisation of volunteering and non-remunerated work is the balance between organisational priorities on the one hand and empowering processes and community building on the other; as such, it can also show the degree of political engagement in the ‘collective enterprise’. These three moments and the related decisions and arrangements adopted are underpinned and informed by a further aspect, i.e., the conception of labour that CSA actors share. Its inclusion in the analysis allows understanding the peculiar features of the CSA model, its transformative potential as well as the challenges it poses.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Analytical framework showing the relationship among the management of CSAs and the three transformative processes they carry out

Full size image

To sum up, we are interested in the attempts at institutionalisation (construction) of decommodified, deinstrumentalised and/or demonetised labour, and in the forms of deliberate reconsideration and disruption (deconstruction) of capitalist labour management. We explore these processes empirically by focusing on: the conception that CSA members and farmers have of the labour mobilised in CSA activities, the legal form they adopt, the determination and management of shares, and the way to integrate volunteer labour. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship among the management of these aspects and the three above-mentioned transformative processes carried out by CSAs. Although the figure shows these processes as separate, in reality they may coexist and intersect. The analysis of the research results is informed by this scheme, leading to the production of a summary table of the strategies contributing to the development of the three processes (Table 1).

Table 1 Characteristics of analysed CSAs
Full size table

Methodology

The study involved CSAs belonging to the Italian CSA Network (RICSA). The Network was constituted in 2018, during the first CSA meeting in Bononia. In 2022 it comprised 16 CSAs, located in Northern and Central regions of Italy. Five years into its establishment, the Network is still an informal organisation by choice; over time, however, it has tried to develop an internal structure and tools to manage common activities and internal and external interactions. The Network is young but it is a lively space of interaction on crucial issues for the CSA movement, based on a strong political positioning with respect to the capitalist system. Exchanges occurring during the annual meetings and on an ongoing basis through social media feed the internal debate.

In Italy there are some other initiatives that recognize themselves as CSA. In 2022, as far as we knew, there were three. However, they had not subscribed to the principles of the Ostrava DeclarationFootnote 4 and were not part of the collective process of defining the essential characteristics of the CSA model underway within RICSA. For this reason, they were not included into the present study.

The research activity was carried out through a mixed method comprising action research, ethnographic work and document analysis. It included a specific study, conducted through a funded project (NUMESFootnote 5) during 2021 and 2022, and other analyses on material collected by the authors through participant observation over more than one decade.

The NUMES study, taking the form of a participatory action research project, was driven by the Network concrete need for better understanding the functioning and management of the CSA model in Italy. The research design was co-constructed during meetings and frequent interactions with several CSA representatives in the Network. The tools for data collection were presented to the group in advance and adjusted according to members’ suggestions. The study took into consideration 16 CSAs. Data were collected through:

  • an online survey (a questionnaire with 98 questions), involving CSA representatives (16 questionnaires collected), as a baseline to obtain an uniform set of data to build on further steps, including interviews;

  • a first round of recorded interviews (16) with CSA representatives, to further explore aspects remained unclear, with content analysis after transcription;

  • a second round of interviews (6) with CSA representatives, to explore further aspects remained unclear;

  • an online survey (a questionnaire with 35 questions), addressed to all CSA members (118 questionnaires collected, about 10% of the total number of members).

This study also builds on participant observation during CSA and RICSA meetings, CSA internal practices and interactions among CSAs, following an ethnographic approach (Scott Jones and Watt 2010). Two of the authors are members of a CSA, hence the possibility of directly experiencing the approach to labour. They are also representatives of their respective CSAs in the Network, where they coordinate an internal working group that deals with socio-economic aspects related to CSA functioning. This position allows them to stimulate internal discussions, further favouring the growth of reflexivity from within on these issues. Regarding the specific aims of this study, data were collected from annual RICSA meetings held in 2019 (attended by 8 out of the 12 participating CSAs), 2021 (11 out of 16 CSAs) and 2022 (14 out of 16 CSAs). CSA official documents and websites as well as exchanges on social media were analysed too.

As said above, building on the co-designed funding application of the NUMES project, the study was set up to meet the needs of RICSA and its member CSAs. Every step of the study was collectively agreed upon, including the design of the questionnaires and interview questions. At the end of each data collection phase, the results were shared with network members and used to develop concrete actions in support of RICSA. During its course, the study also spurred and informed discussions on workers´ remuneration level and work-life balance as well as on the involvement of volunteer members in several RICSA annual meetings.

An overview of the selected CSAs considered in the study is provided in the Electronic Supplementary Materials (Table 1).

Results

The conception of labour in Italian CSAs

Labour conditions feature prominently, either directly or indirectly, in the declared principles of Italian CSAs as they challenge labour in some of its traditional features (e.g., monetary remuneration) but also by redefining its meaning. The Italian CSA Network, for example, states that its main guiding principles are responsibility to care for soil, water and seeds, food as a commons, support of small peasant agriculture and just work, establishing communities around food and spreading relations of trustFootnote 6. These declared principles, together with the evident attention to the dignity of farmer labour, highlight the intention of de-commodifying and re-commoning food together with the labour around it. They also show the will to build a different relationship between food-related consumption and production. Similar intentions feature in CSA declarations (Table 2).

Table 2 Statements about labour in selected CSAs
Full size table

More in detail, these declarations illustrate a general alignment of CSAs around principles of co-participation in food practices (co-creation and co-action; self-production; co-production); principles of proximity and connection between producers and consumers (overcoming of the traditional distance between them; sharing knowledge, responsibility, choices, and so on), including the transformation of consolidated roles; principles of social justice and fairness, and rejection of forms of exploitation, referring to the dignity of farmer labour.

While CSA members expressed many different motivations for joining a CSA initiative, the interest in a closer relationship with farmers and the commitment to fostering and protecting dignified and fairer work arrangements for farmers feature frequently in interviews. For example, a research participant stated:

“[I have decided to take part in a CSA initiative] in order to try to build a peasant reality based on an economic model that is different from the one which is proposed by the free market” (survey– participant No 6).

A deep recognition of the value of farm labour and the awareness that this is only partly translated and exchanged through money, a sense of belonging to a common project by directly engaging in the CSA, and a shared attitude towards labour in the CSA as a space of social interaction and learning, as well as political fulfilment are all recurring themes in interviews, discussions and documents.

As such, the intent to de-commodify, de-instrumentalise and de-monetise labour emerges as a driving force in Italian CSAs. In the following sections, we present evidence of how this conception of labour is manifested in the concrete arrangements and strategies adopted by CSAs.

Legal form: addressing the regulatory framework

One of the crucial design moments in a CSA initiative involves the decision on its legal form (e.g., for profit business, non-profit association, cooperative, etc.), on which the type of applicable laws, including labour laws, depends. In this respect, laws can constrain the organisation of labour in the CSA, and they may also impose particular valuation criteria. This issue has been extensively discussed within the Network since its 2019 annual meeting. On that occasion, an expert was invited to explore the subject in more depth and a dedicated working group was created.

Three of the sixteen selected CSAs are cooperatives, while seven are associations, five are informal agreements and one is a formal agreementFootnote 7 within a solidarity economy district (see Electronic Supplementary Materials). The choice of legal form appears to have multiple consequences on labour arrangements in the CSA initiative. In a cooperative, the members take 100% of the entrepreneurial risk, which reduces the risk for farmers. This risk reduction, which goes beyond the usual risk sharing in CSA, contributes to a sense of security and is seen by some farmers as a partial compensation for low remuneration (more on this below). Interestingly, in cooperative CSAs the percentage of farmer income coming from the CSA against other sources is higher than for CSAs that adopt other legal or informal forms.

Almost all CSAs refer to the national labour agreement for farm workersFootnote 8, either directly, when farmers are employees of the CSA initiative, as in cooperatives, or indirectly, when the national labour agreement is used for setting the hourly wage. Thus, salaries in Italian CSAs– ranging between about 900 and 1,300 €/month– are in line with the national labour agreement (for unskilled labour), which demonstrates a certain degree of compliance with regulatory provisions. However, no salaried worker in Italian CSAs has a higher-level employment contract, as it would be required considering that many of their tasks do involve managerial skills and responsibilities.

In general, even in the few cases in which CSA workers have permanent contracts, they experience a sense of insecurity and financial instability. This fact is recognised as a limitation by members of CSAs (regardless of their legal form) and appears to be an unresolved problem of the CSA model, compromising its sustainability. Only in rare cases (e.g., CSA No 2), after several years of precarious work, has the CSA initiative started a process of stabilisation by offering workers a permanent contract.

While the adoption of a cooperative form and the formalisation of employment contracts are two strategies that partly address the issue of precariousness or inadequate payment of wage labour in CSAs, and to that extent support the model, there are aspects that clearly show the deficiencies of the regulatory framework in satisfying the aspirations for change emerging from society. These concern the difficulties arising from the lack of legal configurations that meet the will to re-define and organise labour within CSAs, as in the case of the ban on volunteer members’ participation in farm activities. In this regard, legal constraints do hamper de-instrumentalisation and de-monetisation. However, CSAs have coped with this by developing survival strategies. Sometimes these are not legal, as when the members’ volunteer work in the fields is disguised as recreational activity. In other cases, these strategies involve a scaling down of the innovative practices, as when CSAs accepted a return to conventional economic relationships in order to find ways to remunerate the farmer’s labour.

“We chose to be a non-profit association, of which we were all members– the farmer and the consumer-members. We felt that this form suited our project and we did not want the rigidity of the cooperative form, nor its onerous nature. We then discovered that we could not pay for the farmer’s work (which was included in our production cost calculations) except as a freelancer, with a high value-added tax. This was a very costly mistake for us, it was an unforeseen expense, which generated discontent. Afterwards, we had to reorganise management, acting as if the farmer was selling us his farm produce– produced on our land, with our equipment! It was very frustrating…” (interview– CSA No 5).

To sum up, Italian CSAs try to define themselves and deal with difficulties by using the available institutional tools (legal status, contractual forms, salary references), although these in most of the cases are not perceived as suited to the model, but also through adaptability and creativity, as well as by sharing other types of rewards and political perspectives. On the other hand, in spite of widespread rejection of market transactions around labour, there is a certain awareness of the limits to deconstructing or exiting the regulatory framework and the power of the latter to influence CSA organisation. Table 1 provides a synthetic reading of these aspects in terms of de-commodification, de-instrumentalisation and de-monetisation of labour.

Share determination: valuation of farmer labour

When determining the value of the shares to be contributed by members, the CSA actors (including farmers) explicitly, or often implicitly, decide if and how farmers’ labour is remunerated and which fairness criteria are adopted.

The determination of the shares is based on the principle that:

“There is no price, only cost” (participant– 2021 annual meeting).

Notwithstanding, some CSAs face difficulties in fully implementing that principle.

When farmer labour is included in the calculation of the costs of production, the hourly minimum wage set by the national labour agreement (€7.50/h) is usually taken as a benchmark, even though the farmers typically perform skilled work, which according to the national labour agreement should be remunerated at over €8/h. This discrepancy is generally considered fair by the interviewed CSA members.

Many CSAs report financial difficulties and the challenge of paying even the minimum wage to farmers, expressing disappointment at the very low level of salaries they are able to pay.

“We share the budget, the remuneration comes out in the expenses sheets. We started from €800/month compared to €1,200 set by the labour agreement for agricultural workers, then we went up to €1,000 but never reached the target rate” (interview– CSA No 4).

Participants in the 2021 RICSA annual meeting agreed that the difficulties in maintaining financial sustainability are diffused, and all CSAs expressed concerns for their own precarious financial situation. In this respect, a crucial concern is the inability to provide fair pay to the workforce, while the majority of CSAs spends between 55% and 85% of its income on salaries. Many CSAs are only able to pay low salaries, despite partially supplementing their income with other activities (e.g., offering courses and seminars) and granting other benefits, including free vegetables. These concerns were reiterated at the 2022 annual meeting, where the question was on agenda and extensively discussed.

Given the declared principles of the Italian CSA Network, and of the CSA model more broadly, the inadequate treatment of the workforce is considered critically by both CSA workers and members and is often seen as inconsistent with the CSA model. One strategy adopted to address this involves the acceptance of lower salaries and financial insecurity, considering them compensated by other, non-monetary benefits, such as sense of belonging to a community where one can find support and share a different project:

“personal relations are built, along with mutuality and a meaningful social network; it’s what makes me think that if I faced difficulties one day, I would have a safety net, a life prospect” (participant − 2022 annual meeting).

“I believe that we are really a CSA: sharing the budget, free offering for the share, boxes with what is available, sharing risks and benefits, volunteering. Exploring in depth concepts such as food sovereignty, proximity farming, the difference between price and value, and so on” (survey– coordinator CSA No 13).

Although this perception varies among participants, there appears to be a widespread sense of collective purpose and of belonging to a network of like-minded people, which not only may offer support in difficult times, but also rewards the farmers and other CSA workers in non-monetary terms:

“the CSA initiative has changed my condition of absolute exploitation […]. Today I accept self-exploitation because I have a vision… This self-exploitation is compensated by satisfaction, it’s offset by passion and sense of belonging… Now I work to be happy” (participant– 2022 annual meeting).

“Agricultural labour is based on exploitation or self-exploitation. We must surrender to the idea that money is not the means of compensation for agricultural labour” (participant– 2022 annual meeting).

The collective determination of the members’ monetary contribution (yearly share) is often associated with the individual sacrifice of farmers. Underpayment of CSA workers is often consciously accepted, even by farmers, in order to keep the level of the shares widely affordable:

“In CSA we must find the way to strike a balance between the share (accessibility) and wages” (participant– 2022 annual meeting).

“The first year we were concerned about asking too much for the shares, hence the low wages. The second year we chose to increase the wages. […] There’s the concern about increasing the share too much. We try to generate additional income from other activities as well, such as training courses, otherwise we would have to increase the share price by 20%” (interview– CSA No 14).

Alternatively, some CSAs decide to limit the number of shares, and thus the size of the CSA, in order to limit or minimise the workload and the consequent exploitation of farm workers, in both economic and physical-mental terms. The latter is often considered a cause of farmer burn-out and, thus, a further element of precariousness of the CSA organisation. A member of a CSA initiative, which decided to prioritise farmer wellbeing and to scale the CSA initiative accordingly, explains:

“We don’t have to think like the rest of the system. Self-exploitation is in economic terms but also in terms of free time, and so we want to base the calculation on free time… this is a political and social project. Burn-out is widespread. We decided to increase the share price from €450 to €550 and reduce the number of available quotas to 130 to work less” (participant– 2022 annual meeting).

In another CSA initiative, which involves no paid workers but only volunteer labour, the members expressed a strong awareness of a condition of self-exploitation, made worse by the perception of extreme instability and fragility:

“The issue of labour is crucial, if we want to show our different approach. If we can’t remunerate labour on a regular basis it’s a problem… let’s face it: we’re self-exploiting and I’m starting to feel it with age, we’re all underpaid… it’s better to go and work as agricultural wage earners than to work in a CSA because after a few years it doesn’t hold up, we do it on a volunteer basis, but it’s not a fair deal” (participant– 2022 annual meeting).

The struggle to balance, on the one hand, fair remuneration and non-exploitation of labour and, on the other hand, accessibility and inclusiveness for low-income members– two core principles of many CSAs– puts a strain on the CSA management:

“The difficulty of satisfying both the desire to maintain full remuneration for the farmer and to keep the share widely affordable affected the organisation deeply. When the number of shares fell and no longer allowed the farmer’s full salary to be covered, the CSA initiative had to accept that it could no longer represent the CSA model consistently (farming supported by a community). This caused frustration and disappointment for many, and for some the belief that the project had failed, resulting in a further decrease in the number of members” (interview– CSA No 5).

The trade-offs are evident and have deep political and ideological implications, as discussed by participants at the 2022 annual meeting. On that occasion, the option of increasing the members’ monetary contribution was assessed extensively, but there was general agreement that it would not be a desirable way forward. Once again, individual gain (salary) was exchanged for the collective benefit. At the same time, the challenge posed by the political project they are pursuing clearly emerged:

“The problem is that we want everything: good production practices, the social dimension, social consciousness, not selling to the rich… We are doing everything that this system doesn’t want. Let’s remember what we are trying to do!” (participant– 2022 annual meeting).

“The very fact that we exist and stand on our own feet is a miracle, we expect too much. […] we have provided wellbeing to so many people, it is one of our values” (participant– 2022 annual meeting).

The political dimension also leads to assessing the meaning of labour in another perspective. Being engaged in the CSA model is felt as a form of political engagement, in which labour allows people to be part of a transformative process. This political dimension involves all the CSA members, farmers and participants alike, who adhere to the CSA model looking for something that goes beyond material-economic exchange and which they are confident will develop over time:

“[…] if we manage to involve more people, food production will have a different role, it will be valued more than it is now” (participant– 2022 annual meeting).

“We hope to influence local policies one day; not only agricultural or territorial planning policies, but also social policies. When we reach critical mass, we will be able to get our voice heard” (survey– coordinators CSA No 14).

“CSA means horizontal relations, challenging neoliberal mechanisms, and economic democracy. On the other hand, there’s frustration, those who keep believing in the possibility of changing the system are a little naïve. I do this for my own conscience, not to change the world (interview– CSA No 2).

CSAs often attempt to navigate the above-mentioned trade-offs by implementing solidarity mechanisms. For example, some CSAs establish the share through a free-offer mechanism to cover costs, based on financial possibilities (CSA Nos 1, 2 and 14). In other cases, the share integrates contributions for extra-shares offered to members experiencing financial difficulties (CSA Nos 1, 8 and 14). In one case, the Municipality covers a certain number of shares for citizens supported by social services (CSA No 8). Another form of solidarity is the financial help among members when advancing the total amount of the share (CSA No 5).

Another significant aspect related to share determination is the inclusion of entrepreneurial risk, which represents a component of farmers’ income stability. As a practice frequently adopted by CSAs, this occurs by accepting flexibility in the distribution of the produce based on the availability, as well as the possible lack of produce.

To sum up, Italian CSAs deeply redesign the management of the economic aspects, by overcoming the conventional distinction between producers and consumers, by attaching greater value to labour, by giving importance to fairness and stability of farmer’s income, and by prioritising collective over individual interest and comprehensive wellbeing over economic gains. This approach, as it translates in specific concerns and operational choices, reflect the attempt to de-commodify, de-instrumentalise and de-monetise labour (Table 1).

Volunteer labour

Most CSAs rely to some extent on unremunerated (neither in money nor in kind) volunteer labour (Electronic Supplementary Materials), although individual CSAs value and operationally integrate unremunerated labour differently. On average, according to the NUMES survey, each volunteer provides about 20–30 h per year to their CSA initiative, but in almost every CSA there are members volunteering nearly every day and others who never volunteer. All the CSAs in this study function according to the principle of free contribution.

The members who volunteer perform a range of tasks. These most frequently include box distribution, internal and external communication and administration and management, although it is not unusual for members to volunteer in field activities (Electronic Supplementary Materials). The latter form of engagement is considered the most significant in terms of “co-production”, as important as shared crop planning and economic involvement. As a CSA member noted:

“Spending time together with others in taking care of the various crops was really important. It allowed us to learn a lot and to develop a sense of belonging to the common project. Over time, for many reasons, we lost that opportunity and it was a great loss. For many members the sense of the project weakened, because direct participation in field activities is considered an essential component of the CSA experience.” (interview– CSA No 5).

A key aspect of the institutionalised volunteering and unremunerated work arrangements in CSAs is the balance between the organisational priorities related to food provisioning and community building. Volunteer labour in the field activities is generally valued for its community-building effects more than for its practical contribution to food production. In the words of two CSA members:

“These people are in a context that is as welcoming as possible. Those who come enjoy coming and we try to experience this pleasure, but sometimes they are also an obstacle. There are few of us who are rational enough to be able to act effectively, coordinating volunteers is more work. There are some, two retired men, who really do a lot, their work is vital for us” (interview– CSA No 2).

“Whoever comes to help out as a volunteer is not helping me as a farmer but is helping the community. What the work of the volunteer generates is extra time to devote to doing things better, in the quality of service and vegetables, trying to tip the balance towards the beneficiaries rather than the risks of the activity” (interview– CSA No 12).

Despite the importance that volunteer work seems to have for strengthening CSAs, in reality the way things work is often less than ideal. There are in fact stark differences between members as regards their contribution to the CSA initiative. As discussed at the 2021 RICSA annual meeting, a large majority of CSA members participate in the CSA activities merely through the payment of their share. A few highly engaged members tend to carry most of the weight of operating CSAs and to be involved in actual co-management with farmers. As lamented by a participant, this is a source of frustration and is perceived as an element of weakness of the organisation:

“Participation looks high for a cooperative, [but] very low for a CSA. There are too few of us who participate. We are seeing declining participation in activities such as managing the market stall […]. There are members and customers, the latter have not quite understood what it means to be in the CSA initiative” (participant– 2021 annual meeting).

To sum up, Italian CSAs consider volunteer labour as an essential constituent of CSA functioning, of its transformative approach in the management of labour and community-building. Although the daily-life of many CSAs poses challenges to the actualisation of this approach, as shown by the widespread low degree of member participation, volunteer labour is inherent to its ideal model of “co-production”, providing different ways to de-commodify, de-instrumentalise and de-monetise labour (Table 3).

Table 3 Strategies adopted by CSAs to de-commodify, de-instrumentalise and de-monetise labour
Full size table

Discussion

Community supported agriculture strategies to de-commodify, de-instrumentalise and de-monetise labour

This study aimed at analysing the strategies developed by Italian CSAs to de-commodify, de-instrumentalise and de-monetise labour in their attempt to build alternative food networks and thus prefiguring alternatives to dominant capitalist agri-food systems– a central point of their declared objectives (Table 3). We identified such strategies with respect to three crucial moments for CSAs, namely the choice of legal form and relationship with the legal framework, the share determination, and the integration of volunteer work in the CSA operations (Fig. 1; Table 3).

With respect to the CSA relationship with the legal framework, we observed various instances in which the adoption of a specific legal form (e.g., cooperative) reduced the risk of farmers and various attempts to increase farmers’ income stability through legal formalisation of contracts. In other cases, we observed CSAs seeking flexible and creative arrangements at the margins of, or beyond legal prescriptions, allowing for community co-management, one of the core values of the CSA model.

Regarding the share determination, which also reflects the institutionalisation of the valuation of farmers’ labour, this study similarly revealed a set of strategies, including solidarity mechanisms to make shares affordable without lowering farmers’ remuneration further, the rescaling of CSAs to reduce farmers’ workload, and a diffused acceptance of underpayment, which resonates with earlier studies (e.g., Paul 2019). The latter is often perceived as necessary for the financial viability of the initiatives, thus prioritising the collective project, but also signals a shift in values from purely monetary to non-monetary ones, such as a farmers’ sense of security, community support and social embeddedness, in line with other studies (Galt 2013; Paul 2019; Vaderna et al. 2022).

Regarding the integration of volunteer labour, this study uncovered a range of approaches across the CSAs examined, but also a widespread, and somewhat surprising, tendency of volunteer work to decline, with several initiatives suffering from limited or infrequent member participation in co-production activities. Furthermore, this study confirmed that volunteer work is valued for its community-building potential and as an important factor for the vitality and social reproduction of the initiative (see Samoggia et al. 2019; Birtalan et al. 2022) more than for co-production (i.e., sharing the burden of farming labour), echoing Ekers (2019).

Future research may usefully deepen our understanding of these issues around labour management in CSAs by testing the correlation between strategies of de-commodification, de-instrumentalisation and de-monetisation of labour and the managerial model of the CSAs (e.g., cooperative, self-employed farmers, or other associative forms).

Following Feola (2019) and Feola et al. (2021), we read these CSA strategies as attempts to transform labour through a dual process of unmaking of capitalist relations, logics and structures on the one hand and of making alternative ones on the other. For example, we identify attempts at unmaking in the deliberate refusal of market logics and labour exploitation (various participants’ remarks quoted above and Table 3), economic valuation of labour and food, as well as in the attempt to place volunteer work outside the scope of the legal system by framing it as recreational activity. These situated micro processes of symbolic and material deconstruction of established capitalist models take place in the everyday life of CSA members and communities. These actions are often covert, but essential to generate spaces where logics and relations of solidarity, care, responsibility and reconnection, among others, can be experimented with and realised in concrete emerging institutional arrangements, such as share determination mechanisms and volunteer integration schemes.

Nevertheless, across the three crucial moments considered in this study, we observed substantial difficulties in realising post-capitalist labour management, as the initiatives appear constrained by the external system (e.g., legislation), as well as internally, by CSA members’ diverse understanding of CSA and its values, or merely the positioning of the CSA engagement in the broader daily routines. Specifically, the findings suggest that the strategic ‘workarounds’ with respect to the legal framework are important, but may be limited. Similarly, while various CSA members across a range of CSAs express allegiance to non-market logics and a prioritisation of use-value rather than exchange value, overall the CSAs struggle to de-commodify and de-monetise labour, and rather tend to reproduce conventional economic valuation.

Furthermore, the research confirms that transformation, and specifically the process of unmaking, is a contradictory personal experience (Feola 2019; van Oers et al. 2023): the evidence showed how the transformation of labour in the CSAs examined in this study is characterised by a pervasive ambivalence. For example, farmers’ overwork can be understood as self-exploitation or as extra-labour voluntarily given to, and rewarded by, the community through non-monetary means, such as a sense of security and social embeddedness– a sign of labour decommodification and de-instrumentalisation (Table 1). Similarly, informal labour arrangements and legal forms can be seen as deliberate attempts to create alterity outside the scope of constraining laws, but also as somewhat forced choices for CSAs, which are unable to operate viably from a financial or technical point of view in a market-driven, regulated space. More broadly, the widespread acceptance of precariousness and risks by farmers– often in exchange for non-alienated labour, community support and belonging to CSA as a collective political project– can be seen as a sign of decommodification, de-instrumentalisation and demonetisation, but can also be read as an indicator of the CSA model fragility, as other scholars argue (Ekers and Levkoe 2016).

Potential for and barriers to fuller and more accomplished post-capitalist labour management within CSAs

The ambivalence we have found in implementing unmaking/making within CSAs highlights the fact that they attempt to develop transformative arrangements, in line with their ambitious values of solidarity and alterity, in a rather constrained decisional space defined by legal, cultural and economic boundaries which affect their change potential. Furthermore, within the CSA membership, there is a contradictory coexistence of instrumental perspectives and attitudes alongside solidarity-focused ones, which reflect capitalist and alternative models respectively (Gibson-Graham 2006; Vincent and Feola 2020). This suggests that the performance of CSAs is influenced by certain barriers, which stem from the overlap between internal CSA weaknesses and external influences.

The constrained decisional space defined by legal boundaries is a clear example of the latter: a legal framework that is not completely favourable does not allow the full expression of the CSA transformative approach in conceiving and playing integrated (producer-consumer) roles and co-management. These obstacles to de-commodification and de-instrumentalisation of labour, as other scholars emphasise (Endres and Armstrong 2014; Ekers 2019) actually hamper a democratic reshaping of food systems and related business models in line with the emerging societal aspirations. In this respect, the ‘extraordinary’ solutions adopted by some of Italian CSAs can be seen as forms of civil disobedience.

The incomplete prefiguration of the concept of non-alienated labour, re-signified through a different set of values mobilised in the relationship with food and its production process, is another expression of the complexity of the challenges faced when building a radically alternative system. A first barrier to transforming labour is linked to the various ways of handling economic aspects, including internal and external factors. The trade-off between the fair remuneration of farmers and sustainability of the initiatives (based on their affordability and inclusiveness), which we have read as the prevalence of a solidarity-based, altruistic, collective project approach, suggests some considerations in this regard.

According to a capitalist framing, CSA production systems are inherently ‘inefficient’ because of their peculiar features (e.g., high manual labour intensity, low mechanisation, no chemical inputs, high product diversification, small scale). However, these traits largely derive from deliberate choices, with reference to a specific farming-food model. They reflect efforts to improve the way operations are conducted, producing other (social) benefits than just being efficient and more productive, resulting in constituting peculiar features to be understood and evaluated according to different criteria, as the diverse economies research suggests (Gibson-Graham and Dombroski 2020). Choosing and ‘supporting’ such a model demands that consumers make an effort in economic terms and, even prior to that, in cultural terms (awareness, identity, motivation, engagement). This economic effort can be seen as a barrier for some but, alternatively, can be also considered as a challenge to the conventional way of valuing food, managing the value/price dilemma and choosing between use value and exchange value (Rossi 2017). It can be read as an effort to de-commodify and de-instrumentalise the approach to food and related practices, including labour.

On the other hand, this ‘challenge’ arises from CSA members being embedded in a system of knowledge, conventions, needs and priorities that makes it difficult to make a free, radical choice. The widespread culture of food as a cheap commodity or, anyway, as a commodity deserving a low ranking in personal resource allocation significantly affect individual behaviour. Part of this external conditioning is also the still widespread deficiency in public recognition and support for low-tech and non-specialised agricultural models, which for their social and ecological value need not be evaluated in terms of efficiency. CSA products and related production systems are actually left to compete in the market, by whose dominant narratives and logics even concerned consumers are influenced. The combined action of these endogenous and exogenous elements undermines the transformative potential of CSA practices, which are thus the result of a compromise between CSA members’ aspiration to a diverse attitude and behaviour and their still being part of the capitalist system. This limitation weakens the prefigurative potential of CSAs to fully de-alienate labour in the Marxian perspective, by reconnecting it with all its values (Watson 2020). According to our frame, more particularly, the difficulty to fully replace exchange value with the use values of food-related practices weakens the labour de-commodification, de-instrumentalisation and de-monetisation efforts.

Another notable barrier to transformation of labour in CSAs relates to the members’ level of engagement in farm work. The widespread difficulty faced by CSA members in performing an alternative role, overcoming the producer-consumer distinction (Watson 2020), by participating in the CSA activities in a significant and continuous manner, is a major internal shortcoming. First, it impacts on the economic sustainability of the common project by not contributing to lowering monetary labour costs (Cameron 2015). Second, the members’ limited engagement further compromises the sustainability of the CSA functioning impacting in terms of farmer overload of work and responsibility. Thirdly, and even more significantly, it shows that CSA members are still failing to meet the challenge of the alternative CSA approach to food practices, which requires feeling that one is part of the co-production of food use values, rather than just purchasing them. In that regard, considering the features of members’ volunteer labour and its significant role for community-building, an important deficiency emerges also in terms of social reproduction of this special production process/context, which shows as another fundamental component of labour not fully understood. According to our frame, as a whole, this low member involvement in volunteer labour contributes to undermining the de-commodification and de-monetisation of labour. This weakening of the transformative approach to labour reduces the potential of the CSA model, at least considering the advanced model they represent in the Italian context, compared to other AFNs (Volz et al. 2016; Rossi 2017; Biolghini et al. 2020; Rossi et al. 2021; Piccoli et al. 2021). On the other hand, once again, this low engagement of CSA members can be partly related to the external constraints that come from the dominant work-life balance in modern society, and thus to citizens’ actual possibility to volunteer. Not recognising the significance and implications of labour disengagement, and not discussing it in the light of all the intervening factors, appears to be a serious deficiency in the internal and external evaluation of the CSA experience.

The low level of reflexivity currently existing in CSAs on the above-mentioned aspects– management of legal and economic issues and engagement in labour– does indeed appear to be a substantial limitation with respect to a deliberately pursued labour transformation. As indicated earlier, CSA members appear to struggle to de-identify as consumers and to re-identify as actual members of a community with a shared political and cultural project of change. As already highlighted more generally for transformative initiatives around food (Brunori et al. 2012; Rossi 2017), the process of detachment from conventional approaches and full adhesion to alternatives can more easily occur through socialised processes of unlearning-learning, enabling the ‘letting go’ of established understandings and routines and the redefinition of meanings and priorities (van Oers et al. 2023). Other studies have confirmed that this applies to CSAs (Cameron 2015; Ekers 2019). However, many CSAs appear to struggle to develop these learning processes, and the same to a certain extent also occurs within the potentially even more conducive collective space of the Italian CSA Network. In both, we witness a difficulty to see beyond the visible (economic troubles, farmer overwork) and to refer to the implicit, original meanings, aims and commitments; in other words, to remember why they are there and assess how well they are doing. However, the emergence of a debate on these issues within the Network, alongside the shared definition of common goals, appears promising in that regard. These findings point to the importance for CSAs and similar grassroots initiatives to find collective ways to deliberately deconstruct valuation logics, predefined roles and legal frameworks to enable the realisation of post-capitalist relations.

Conclusions

In this study we set out to investigate the capacity of CSAs to de-commodify, de-instrumentalise and de-monetise labour, drawing on the literature on initiatives and movements aimed at prefiguring alternatives to the capitalist system. To do this, we focused on three key moments in the setting up and functioning of CSAs, where conventional labour relations are challenged.

In the broad landscape of AFNs, the CSA model prefigures, more than others, a strategy to counter the alienation of labour created by capitalism (Watson 2020). Consistently with its general approach to food and food-related practices shared in a community dimension, it provides space for the recognition of the use values of labour involved, as opposed to its being related back essentially to its market value. This labour resignification translates into principles of social justice, environmental sustainability and fairness, unites producers and consumers in an attempt to overcome the sharp distinction of roles and responsibilities and contributes to strengthen a community dimension. Furthermore, within a new autonomy of choice and the sharing of visions and ideals, it restores the labour potential of self-fulfilment and self-expression (Endres and Armstrong 2014).

The evidence, however, shows that the result of this transformative effort is still only partial and precarious, echoing other studies. The analysis of the three key moments through the lens of the de-commodification, de-instrumentalisation and de-monetisation of labour has highlighted clear efforts towards unmaking (Feola 2019). At the same time, it has also revealed limitations in building viable alternatives, when individually and collectively accepting farmer labour precariousness and exploitation in exchange for affordability and consumer disengagement. Our analysis suggests that the degree to which CSA members remain integrated in the capitalist system has a strong influence in this respect. The transformative potential of the CSA experience in redefining and managing labour associated with food practices results inevitably weaken by the dominant food culture and, in particular: the way of valuing food, which is still closely linked to the utilitarian logics of market transactions; the consequent unwillingness to properly value the farmers’ labour, which ends up accepting unfair remuneration; and the persistent distinction between producer and consumer roles. We can read this as a failure of the CSA model, but at the same time as a need for a critical evaluation of the limitations of the dominant culture.

Along the same lines, we can see a further factor that indirectly hinders the CSA model, and thus the establishment of a different approach to the value of labour that it incorporates, in the lack of substantial public support for small-scale agriculture capable– like CSA– of producing social and ecological value (as opposed to mere exchange value). Recognition of these realities combined with targeted, accessible policies, including allocating subsidies based on strong sustainability and social value, would make it possible not to leave the weight of their support solely to market mechanisms and, thus, on the consumers’ shoulders. Further public support could come from adequate social labour policies, such as a universal basic income, support to weaker segments of society, a normalisation of part-time work and a short workweek for a life-work balance. The latter policies have long been invoked in the public debate on the possible improvement of labour management and community welfare, as ways out of labour alienation, the social repercussions of unequal distribution of labour and diminishing quality of life. All these solutions would enable involved citizens to participate in CSAs, thereby benefiting from its empowering environment and contributing to its innovative approach to food practices. Public support would hinge on recognition of the value of these initiatives as an area of experimentation with societal transformation.

We suggest that the Italian CSA Network could play a more active role in addressing some of the previously mentioned internal and external factors hindering the consolidation of CSAs and the manifestation of their transformative role. First, it could constitute a significant space for mutual learning and shared reflexivity, cross-pollinating experiences of individual CSAs. However, there is a risk that internal discussions that have emerged on critical issues, including labour, fail to go beyond the mere exchange of experiences, not stimulating a deeper critical understanding or action. In that regard, training and facilitation could help in the deconstruction of the capitalist conception of labour and the development of a new identity as subjects of a community economy (Cameron 2015). More generally, this engagement would facilitate learning and unlearning and the development of reflexivity that individual CSAs are unable to develop on their own. Based on this, the Network could also grow in terms of collective agency and develop and play a more prominent political role. By doing advocacy, it could put pressure on public authorities with regards to the constraints that the system places on the development of alternative agri-food models, starting with the influence on labour management. The politicisation of the Network’s own needs and the assumption of a political role as a movement would represent a significant step for the growth of Italian CSA, whose development is more recent in comparison to other Countries.

Considering that the Italian CSA Network is still in its early years, it will certainly be useful to follow its development. Moreover, in an action-research logic, it could be useful to bring in contributions to support internal reflexivity and related actions through training and facilitation.