The production and distribution of food are among the hot topics debated in the context of sustainable development. Short food supply chains (SFSCs) are now widely believed to be more sustainable in comparison to mass food delivery systems. To date, very little quantitative evidence exists on the impacts of various types of food supply chains. Using a cross-sectional quantitative approach, this study assesses the sustainability of distribution channels in short and long food supply chains based on 208 food producers across seven countries: France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam. Ten distribution channel types are used in this study. To provide a comprehensive sustainability assessment, a set of economic, social, and environmental indicators are applied. Indicators commonly used in the literature are used, supported by original indicators constructed specifically for the present study. In total, 486 chains are examined and the study confirms that individual producers participate simultaneously in several, short and long chains. Participation in SFSCs is beneficial for producers from an economic perspective. SFSCs allow producers to capture a large proportion of margin otherwise absorbed by different intermediaries. It appears, however, that ’longer’ supply channels generate lower environmental impacts per unit of production when measured in terms of food miles and carbon footprint. Finally, ambiguous results are found regarding social dimension, with significant differences across types of chains.

Farm animal welfare has climbed on the public agenda over the last decades. However, while expectations of public engagement in animal welfare are high, the scholarly literature does not point out any clear dynamic behind public involvement. This article argues that people's trust in institutional actors is a key explanatory factor. Most people's connection to farm animals and farms is indirect and rather To paraphrase, people observe animal welfare through ‘a veil of trust’ in institutions. With dependence on the actions and information from institutional actors, the social dynamics of public concern are closely related to trust in these actors. Trust varies, depending on the social context. Based on a unique integration of Norwegian public opinion surveys conducted from 1997 to 2020, the article analyses how people's concerns and worries over animal welfare are linked to trust in the truth‐telling of institutional actors. The generally high trust in institutions in Norway may therefore explain the continued low levels of public concern for animal welfare. But our analysis also shows that the ‘veil of trust’ in institutions flutters over time and between different categories of actors.

This is a conceptual article that uses the concept ‘boundary object’ in order to discuss what role the loosely defined notion ‘standard product quality’ plays with regard to coordination and controversies in the Norwegian agrifood market. The boundary object theory offers a unique approach to exploring the boundaries (shared spaces) between standard and non‐standard product qualities as framed by the involved actors. This theory emphasises the difference between doing and being: Analysing what quality does in social settings is a more informative approach than discussing what quality is. The core arguments are illustrated by a review of available studies of the Norwegian agrifood market. The first part of the article concludes that standard quality coordinates the hegemonic stakeholders (producers, retailers, regulators and consumers) without presupposing consensus between them. The second part of the article addresses the controversies in the boundaries between the hegemonic agricultural agrifood system and competing alternatives related to organic, terroir and animal welfare qualities. The study discerns no signs of any transformative quality turn‐away from the Norwegian hegemonic agrifood system and the inherent emphasise on ‘standard product’ quality. On the other hand, this is not static since different interpretations of quality continuously challenge each other.