Sustainable Agri-food Supply Chain Practices: Few Empirical Evidences from a Developing Economy

Abstract

This study aims to identify the factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agribusiness practices in India and examines the most pertinent issues related to sustainable agri-supply chains and their management. The constructs of the study were identified through two sequential phases involving a review of literature and semi-structured interviews with supply chain enablers and intermediary (traders, government officials, local mandis or local markets) operating in Uttarakhand region, India. Data were collected from 1100 supply chain entities (including agri-farmers, partners and enablers across the supply chain) using semi-structured interviews. Twenty five items emerged as significantly influencing the adoption of sustainable agribusiness practices among farmers which have branched out of five factors. Further, it was found that low adoption capabilities and lack of uniform sustainable agribusiness policy were the major issues reported by the respondents. Identification of factors influencing adoption of sustainable agribusiness in Uttarakhand, India, can serve as a guiding tool for agribusiness regulators (government departments including Department of Rural Development), intermediaries (traders, NGOs, etc.). The examination of pertinent issues with the focus on major support required, bottlenecks in adoption, key benefits of sustainable agribusiness activities and most common sustainable practices is expected to provide a new understanding about the sustainable agribusiness-based issues in India.

Keywords

Sustainable development goals (SDG)agri-food supply chain (A-FSC)agri-food supply chain partners (A-FSCP)

Introduction

The issue of optimum and sustainable food supply is among the few important goals under sustainable development goals (SDG). Therefore, the integration of sustainable food supply has become an imperative for both food processing and fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs) and policymakers (Govindan, 2018; Hinrichs, 2003; Marsden, Banks, & Bristow, 2000). The implementation of principles of sustainability into agri-food supply chain (A-FSC) practices and business practices is becoming the major key to measure Stakeholders and society expectations (Akhtar, Tse, Khan, & Rao-Nicholson, 2016; Fischer et al., 2009; Notarnicola et al., 2017; Rueda, Garrett, & Lambin, 2017; Schmutz, Kneafsey, Kay, Doernberg, & Zasada, 2018; Sharma, Mangla, Patil, & Uniyal, 2018). Agri-food supply chain partners (A-FSCP) are becoming powerful with the help of supply chain enablers for achieving the goal of sustainable development. The supply chain partners play a key role in the development of the economy (Dania, Xing, & Amer, 2018; Gereffi & Lee, 2012; Hsu, Choon Tan, Hanim Mohamad Zailani, & Jayaraman, 2013). Indeed they become the major risk managers across the whole supply chain (Brusset & Teller, 2017; Stone & Rahimifard, 2018; Wiengarten, Humphreys, Gimenez, & McIvor, 2016; Wu et al., 2017; Zsidisin & Smith, 2005). A discernible shift in the A-FSCP roles and responsibilities to address the agriculture productivity and food security issues is becoming an important step for moving towards sustainable development (Battersby, 2017; Dania et al., 2018; Nilsson, Griggs, & Visbeck, 2016; Shepon et al., 2018; Tumushabe, 2018). The agri-food industry in India is slowly but increasingly adopting sustainable practices as an important tool to integrate sustainable development into an industrial competitiveness strategy (Parwez, 2016; Soosay & Kannusamy, 2018; Verdouw, Robbemond, Verwaart, Wolfert, & Beulens, 2018). In the recent years, the adoption and development of innovative and smart farming solutions and a variety of high-yielding variety (HYV) crops are helping economies in terms of social and economic capabilities of politically excluded groups (Chavas, 2008; Jost et al., 2016; Magrini et al., 2016). Along with these, post-harvesting measures have revitalized the Indian farming sector after green revolution,¹ which represents the pathway towards a sustainable society as well (Bajpai, 2015; Dasgupta, 2018; Pellegrini & Fernández, 2018; Rao & Swaminathan, 2017; Rasul, 2016). There are various international standards and principles on sustainable development that are widely adopted by the agri-farmers (Beets, 1990; Dasgupta, 2018; Pellegrini & Feranadez, 2018; Rada, 2016; Rao & Swaminathan, 2017; Rasul, 2016). Indian geography is widespread, and therefore, the same set of practices may not work for the entire country (Birthal, Kumar, Negi, & Roy, 2015; Celio, Scott, & Giordano, 2010; Herrero et al., 2017).With the financial and technological handholding from the foreign collaborators, agri-farmers, in Uttarakhand under the project ‘Ajeevika’² (under the aegis of Uttarakhand Gramya Vikas Samiti (UGVS), Government of Uttarakhand), are becoming more goal oriented to address sustainable issues through best practices (Joshi, 2018). Therefore, to make an impact towards sustainability, it is important to understand and analyse the factors that influence the adoption of sustainable practices in A-FSC. We formulate the following research questions (RQs) in order to achieve the aim of the study:

RQ 1: What is the framework for sustainable A-FSC?

RQ 2: What are the factors that influence the adoption of sustainable A-FSC activities in India?

RQ 3: How do the identified factors influence the adoption of sustainable A-FSC activities in India?

Insights gained from this research study would contribute towards the understanding of how adoption factors can drive the sustainable A-FSC. They could also help A-FSC firms to identify the key factors that must be developed to address the sustainability goals. This article is structured as follows: the second section consists of the review of the literature on sustainable agribusiness and various issues influencing the adoption of sustainable practices by(A-FSCP); the third section displays the theoretical framework developed by(A-FSC); the fourth Section discusses the research methodology; the fifth section discusses the research findings; the sixth concludes the research; and the last section provides implications and limitations of the study.

Literature Review

Background

Agri-food industry is a sector of economic and political significance. It is one of the most regulated and protected sectors with implications for sustainability such as the fulfilment of human needs, the support of employment and economic growth and the impact it has on the natural environment. According to the European Commission, the food sector contributes to 23 per cent of global resource use, 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions and 31 per cent of acidifying emissions (Bollani, Claudia, & Stefaan, 2017; Iakovou, Bochtis, Vlachos, & Aidonis, 2016). Growing environmental, social and ethical concerns along with increased awareness of the food production and consumption effects on the natural environment have led to increased pressure by consumer organizations, environmental advocacy groups, policymakers and several consumer groups on agri-food companies to deal with social and environmental issues related to their supply chains within Agri-product lifecycles (Johnson & Hofman, 2004; Tsolakis, Keramydas, Toka, Aidonis, & Iakovou, 2014). Therefore, a multifaceted and linked strategy is needed to ensure sustainable and equitable food security at both local and global levels. Moreover, different components that form the basic motivation factor for conducting this research are various gaps identified at local levels of Uttarakhand State, India. (A-FSC) management is widely accepted as an area of critical importance for the agri-food sector (Ahumada & Villalobos, 2009; Aramyan, Oude Lansink, Van Der Vorst, & Van Kooten, 2007; Luo, Ji, Qiu, & Jia, 2018; Marsden et al., 2000; Matopoulos, Vlachopoulou, Manthou, & Manos, 2007). The stakeholders involved in both the design and the execution of A-FSCs were approached to understand arrays of complex and interwoven decisions spanning all levels of the natural hierarchical decision-making process. The expected outcome of the study is to identify and acknowledge the basic traits of A-FSC entrepreneurship development and its sustainability. The term A-FSCs or food supply chain (FSC) management involves the set of activities involved in production and distribution process of agricultural/horticultural products (Banasik, Kanellopoulos, Bloemhof-Ruwaard, & Claassen, 2019; Bhat & Jõudu, 2019). The determinants of A-FSC have specific characteristics, namely, seasonality of production; multiproduct nature; and transportation, storage and processing to maintain product quality (Banasik, Bloemhof-Ruwaard, Kanellopoulos, Claassen, & van der Vorst, 2018; Van der Vorst, 2000). A sustainable A-FSC ensures reduction in waste, increase in productivity limits and sustainable intensification.³ In the Himalayan region, agriculture is a challenging avenue as income generating activity (IGA) due to lack of attention to supply networks and negligence of the supply side of agri-food industry (Davis et al., 2010; Joshi, 2017). There is an instant need to analyse the ASC network from the integration perspective (backward and forward integration), particularly as the food security has become one of the recent concerns among developing countries (National Food Security Act, 2013; Sinha, 2013). The concept of sustainability in agri-food has been continuously evolving: initially, it was regarded as the domestic-demand fulfilment and conducted through public distribution system (PDS)⁴ in India. Therefore, the major practices adopted by the A-FSC partners are focused towards (a) need of the masses (Meena, Meena, Pratap, Patidar, & Daultani, 2019; Zhou, Zhou, Qi, & Li, 2019); (b) agri-food operations integrated environmental considerations in the form of increased agricultural productivity (Ortiz, Alarcón, Pérez, & Alemany, 2019); (c) coordination across supply chain entities to integrate and become more goal oriented (d) finally, the adoption measures towards sustainable agribusiness by integrating Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) issues to promote sustainable development (Ashfaq et al., 2019). Sustainable factors of production, distribution and retailing help in improving the agri-based Indian economy by focusing on Agri-food supply chain systems. Agri-food production and distribution plays an important role in world economy, as key supply to multiple industries and essentially, by becoming the backbone for the developing countries (Aggarwal & Srivastava, 2016; Siddh, Soni, Jain, Sharma, & Yadav, 2017). The economic sustainability can only be obtained in A-FSC when post-harvest losses could be decreased through proper supply chain practices (Borah & Dutta, 2019; Kalia & Parshad, 2015). The other challenge that the Indian (A-FSC) is facing is smallholders being the primary stakeholders and their slow pace of adaptation towards recent technologies. Smallholders are the primary stakeholders of the agricultural supply chain in India. Their adoption of technology, and advanced agricultural practices, can boost agricultural growth. This article aims at finding out a sustainable framework for the Indian (A-FSC).

Rationale of the Study

Previous researches are confined to the organizational factors and lack possible interventions on sustainable practices and performances. Based on the literature review, there is a need for further research to understand issues in strengthening adoption of individual innovative practices in the A-FSC. The major practices adopted by the AFSC are focused towards the need of the masses; agri-food operations integrated environmental considerations in the form of increased agricultural productivity; coordination across supply chain entities to Integrated and become more goal oriented; and finally, the concept of Sustainable agribusiness by integrating ESG issues to promote Sustainable development (Weber & Feltmate, 2016). More constructs can be drawn from the literature review, and a strategic framework can be suggested to assess the A-FSC. Also, specific to developing countries, various geographical and socio-economic limitations including (a) land holding; (b) lack of extension activities (namely, farmers’ education and training); (c) lack of legal framework to support farmer’s rights in case of forward contracts; and (d) lack of innovation and pre-harvesting are addressed in the present study.

Theoretical Framework

The distribution of food products is now a major societal issue due to increasing awareness and concerns of the public on the availability and safety of foods being consumed. Therefore, a highly responsive and sustainable A-FSC is required. The available literature on subject theme is not location specific, and also does not provide with clear direction that how socio-economic dimension can get influence with food security, production and traceability (Ahumada & Villalobos, 2011; Van der Vorst, Beulens, & van Beek, 2000). At present, particularly in developing countries, food consumers demand a wide coverage of information related to either the availability of agricultural products in supermarkets or the farming, marketing, distribution, transportation and processing activities related to foods being consumed (Ahumada & Villalobos, 2009, 2011; Engelseth, Wongthatsanekorn, & Charoensiriwath, 2014). Therefore, agri-supply chain issues should be taken more into consideration for academic research to connect customers, especially to meet profitable up-market demands. Theoretically, the A-FSCs emerge as a network in which purpose, inter-linkage, membership and borderlines are attributed with fuzzy properties. It implies the need to develop knowledge on coordination, which is purely lacking in previous research. Figure 1 illustrates the A-FSC. Based on various aforesaid scenarios, researchers in the area of A-FSC management should develop underpinning theories on various operational issues like smallholder farming and forward market linkage (logistics outsourcing).The study uses supply chain management theories to understand the integration of A-FSC networks to evaluate the research question. The initial set of theories used in this research includes transaction cost theory and resource-based view for understanding the strategic alliances, their trade-off and core-competency assessment of the A-FSCs. This study is an attempt to identify and examine the factors and pertinent issues influencing adoption of sustainable A-FSC practices in India. Table 1 shows the recent Literature on Agri-food Sustainable Supply Chain Practices.

Table 1.

Recent Literature Review on Agri-food Sustainable Supply Chain Practices

Sl.No.	Author (s) and Year	Research Objectives/Research Questions	Level of Analysis	Methodology		Setting	Major Findings	Research Gap
Sl.No.	Author (s) and Year	Research Objectives/Research Questions	Level of Analysis	Tool of Analysis	Approach Adopted	Setting	Major Findings	Research Gap
1	Ulvenblad, Ulvenblad , and Tell (2019)	Examine how agri-food producers are using sustainable business models (SBMs) to innovate their business	Firm	Thematic analysis	Telephonic survey	Agri-food producers from Sweden	This study has used eight types of innovation practices in SBMs. The sustainable business practices not only focus on optimization but also on transforming the organization and building an ecosystem. Out of survey companies, many follow the ‘maximize material and energy efficiency’ and ‘Act as steward’. Many firms in agri-food measure their success in terms of social and environment factor than pure financial terms. The value intention of agri-food entrepreneurs is a critical building block in SBM.	The study used predefined archetypes (Bochen et al., 2014); there is always a risk due to this deductive approach. Therefore, more factors are needed to identify the threat in influencing the adoption of sustainable practices by the agri-food entrepreneurs.
2	Banaeian, Mobli, Fahimnia, Nielsen, and Omid (2018)	Selecting a green supplier for agri-food sector	Firm	Fuzzy set theory in TOPSIS, VIKOR and GRA	Expert Opinion	Iranian manufacturer of edible vegetable oils and detergents	The three fuzzy methods, namely, TOPSIS, VIKOR and GRA, are applied for the selection of a green supplier. The results indicate that all the three methods show and identify the same supplier. However, GRA requires less complexity on computational part to produce the same results.	A Strategic framework to evaluate the performance of a green agri-food supply chain (A-FSC) can be developed using fuzzy methods studied. Various variables studied can be incorporated in the future studies.
3	Stone and Rahimifard (2018)	Identify the multi-dimensional aspects of resilience in AFSCs to develop a resilience based framework	—	Literature Review	Meta-analysis	—	Disruptions in A-FSCs are common. Therefore the identified factors of resilience should concern about the maintenance of core functions and also should acclimatize to the changing market and climatic conditions.	Adapting the framework for a developing world setting is something the authors aim to investigate in future work.
4	Naik and Suresh (2018)	Ensure the involvement of farmers in the networks of sourcing to comply with the food safety and quality regulations	—	Round table views	Thematic analysis	–	Category management firms can play an important role in integrating the producer, retailer and consumer. The category management firms can help the farmers to do the sorting, packaging and taking the produce to shelf of retail organization. This model can be developed on the basis of sharing and collaboration.	Various challenges in context to sustainable agricultural and retail supply chains in context of typical mountain states including: (a) land holding; (b) lack of extension activities (namely, farmers education and training); (c) lack of legal framework to support farmer’s rights in case of forward contracts; lack of innovation and pre-harvesting supply chain integration instrumentation by government research agencies, remain unexplored and required further investigations.
5	Mangla et al. (2018)	Recognize and analyse the key enablers for sustainable practices and initiatives in A-FSCs	Firm	Fuzzy DEMATEL and ISM-MICMAC	Expert opinion	Vegetable and fruit supply retailer from India	The enablers such as ‘pressure from different governmental and non-government bodies (E1)’, ‘support and incentives by different agencies for carrying out sustainable initiatives (E2)’, ‘keeping customer and stakeholder requirements in mind (E3)’, ‘understanding the importance of the benefits and sustainable initiatives (E4)’, ‘commitment of management (E5)’, ‘monitoring and ongoing supply chain activities (E8)’ belong to cause group and can be worked upon.	The study focused on causal relationship among the enablers identified. However, few enablers with extreme influential capabilities may gradually become obsolete in the future, and similarly, few enablers gradually become important as soon as the industry becomes more advanced and responsive. Therefore, new studies are required to be carried out to verify existing work using various techniques like factor analysis and path analysis.
6	Rueda et al. (2017)	Analyse the instruments that agri-food firms use for promoting the sustainability in their supply chains and how these decisions are made	Firm	Classification and thematic analysis	Case study	Different companies which are either producer, manufacturer, retailer or all of them	Firms which are not having cleaner technologies to advance their environmental performance would like to carry out their operations at some other place. The firms with advanced and cleaner technologies have a better control on their supply chain, and real-time law enforcement can have a better compliance to environmental regulations. An analytical framework has been developed to understand the sustainability of cleaner technologies across agri-food firms.	More constructs can be used to examine the adoptability of the analytical framework in context to sustainability as the major determinant from the viewpoint of the stakeholders in an A-FSC.
7	Tasca, Nessi, and Rigamonti (2017)	Design and compare the sustainable supply chains from life cycle assessment (LCA) view	Supply chain	Descriptive analysis	Case study	Two different A-FSCs from Italy	14 Environmental and human health impact classes were compared, and no investigated farming technique has a better profile in environmental perspective. In terms of achieving higher yield, integrated farming is preferred over organic farming. Therefore, organic farming practices need to be improved from yield and fertilization view.	Various strategic aspects of A-FSC are remain uncovered including sourcing, external influences, and operational and development perspective. Further studies can be carried out to integrate LCA for value creation in the A-FSC.
8	Notarnicola et al. (2017)	Identify and discuss the challenges for life cycle assessment in agri-food supply systems	—	Literature review	Meta-analysis	—	Sustainable production and consumption require an ecosystem and life cycle approach to achieve the objective of sustainability. Each activity involved in ‘from field to fork’ requires integration between agricultural system, processing, manufacturing and distribution. It can be further extended to food waste management.	Empirical research can be carried out on decision variables discussed in the study; the potential findings can help policymakers in developing countries towards the development of sustainable future food systems.
9	Siddh et al. (2017)	Identify the current status of agri-fresh food supply chain (FSC) quality and recommend the gaps in current literature	—	Literature review	Thematic analysis	—	Sustainability, information sharing and information quality and logistics management are few critical areas for ensuring A-FSC quality. The other areas like the collaboration with key supplier to ensure A-FSC quality can be explored.	Operational challenges including small landholding among farmers, lack of more feasible technologies for agricultural practices, can be addressed in future research, and new solutions can be suggested to improve the A-FSC quality and effectiveness.
10	Manning and Soon (2016)	Categorize the mechanisms via benchmarking to design and drive sustainable practices and improvement in FSC	—	Literature review	Meta-analysis	—	Study used the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) criteria in FSC for improving the sustainability. The indicator of sustainability scoring approach helps in formulating the strategic goals of the firm and leads to more specific objectives. The operational and time-bound objectives can enhance the product integrity and brand value of the firm.	Sustainability issues in developing countries can be further examine using the various indicators under Social, Ecological and Economic dimensions of TBL approach.

Source: The authors.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Research Methodology

The Study and Data Source

The study area for the research includes all 13 districts of Uttarakhand, India. The population includes registered farmers under Federation system of UGVS, Department of Agriculture. The study has been conducted in two sequential phases: (a) initially, qualitative method was used to determine and verify construct identified through literature review and (b) a framework was proposed based on a review of the literature and semi-structured interviews with ASFC partners operating in Uttarakhand.

Empirical Model

The constructs were empirically investigated through survey research using a semi-constructed questionnaire. Figure 2 illustrates the detailed research process framework, and the details of each phase are explained here:

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

Phase 1: After the identification of construct through the review of literature, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the objective to validate, construct and identify new variables influencing the adoption of sustainable A-FSC. Purposive sampling method has been used to select the respondent based on their role and scope in the overall supply chain of agri-food products and in consistent with the objective of the study. A total of four rounds of interviews were held across 31 agri-food federations, their supply chain partners and enablers (including NGOs, etc.). The aim of the series of interviews was to develop understanding and verify various sources that influence adoption of sustainable supply chain practices across the A-FSC entities. The data were collected over a period of 7 months from 1 March to 20 September 2018. Semi-Structured interviews included the questions related to the issues that influence the adoption and growth of sustainable A-FSC in the area. The selection of the respondents was critically based on their role, participation and significance in the AFSC, through literature review and explorative studies in the past.

Phase 2: This phase involves instrument development, pre-test and research survey through a questionnaire for the empirical validation of the construct. Following are the details: twenty-five variables representing five constructs were administered to 20 experts (two representatives from Agriculture Department, Government of Uttarakhand, two A-FSC traders, two NGOs, two cooperative/federation members, two corporate firm representatives, two trader local aggregators, two commission agents, two large traders and four academic researchers). The pre-test was conducted to evaluate the meaningfulness of the questions and to test whether any item needed to be weeded out or added. The exercise resulted in rephrasing of some of the construct names and variables. Table 2 exhibits a variety of factors that influence adoption of sustainable supply chain practices across AFSC Network. Figure 3 illustrates the factors incorporated in the study for exploratory factor analysis.

After the pre-test, the questionnaire was reviewed by eight experts (two government regulators, two A-FSC traders, two corporate firm representatives and two academic researchers) to determine the face validity and content validity of questionnaire. Content validity requires review of questionnaire from seven or more experts (DeVon et al., 2007). The survey instruments measure five latent constructs and their associated 25 attributes through self-reporting questionnaire. A cover letter was also included in the questionnaire to provide general information about the objectives and proposed implications of the study. The participants were requested to rate on a 7-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree).

Table 2.

Factors Influencing Adoption of Sustainable Supply Chain Practices Among Agri-food Supply Chain Partners

Constructs/Items	Purpose	Measure
Construct 1 :Efficiency and flexibility
Item 1: Production costs/distribution costs and transaction costs	Combined costs of raw materials and labour in producing goods/combined costs of distribution, including transportation and handling cost. The costs other than the money price that are incurred in trading goods or services (e.g., searching cost, negotiation costs and enforcement costs).	The sum of the total costs of inputs used to produce output/services (fixed and variable costs). The sum of searching costs (the costs of locating information about opportunities for exchange), negotiation costs (costs of negotiating the terms of the exchange), enforcement costs (costs of enforcing the contract).
Item 2: Profits and return on investments	The positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting all expenses. A measure of a foundation’s profitability that measures how effectively the firm uses its capital to generate profit.	Total revenue less expenses and ratio of net profit to total assets.
Item 3: Inventory	A firm’s merchandise, raw materials and finished and unfinished products which have not yet been sold but are the part of the current assets in the balance sheet of the agribusiness federation.	The sum of the costs of warehousing of products, capital and storage costs associated with stock management and insurance.
Item 4: Volume flexibility	The ability to change the output levels of the agricultural produce.	Calculated by demand variance and maximum and minimum profitable output volume during any period of time.
Item 5: Delivery flexibility	The ability to change planned delivery dates.	The ratio of the difference between the latest time period during which the delivery can be made and the earliest time period during which the delivery can be made and the difference between the latest time period during which the delivery can be made and the current time period.
Construct II: Responsiveness
Item 6: Fill rate	Percentage of units ordered that are shipped on a given order to local and regional mandis.	Actual fill rate is compared with the target fill rate.
Item 7: Product lateness	The amount of time between the promised product delivery date and the actual product delivery date.	Delivery date minus due date.
Item 8: Customer response time	The amount of time between an order being made and its corresponding delivery.	The difference between the time an order is made and its corresponding delivery.
Item 8: Taste	Determined by the sweetness, mealiness and aroma of a vegetable/fruit.	Brix value, which is measurement of a soluble dry substance in a liquid (providing an approximate measure of sugar content).
Item 9: Shelf life	The length of time a packaged food will last without deteriorating.	The difference in time between harvesting or processing and packaging of the product and the point in time at which it becomes unacceptable for consumption.
Item 10: Product safety and health	The amount of time product remain safe for consumption	Determined by the expiry date of the product
Construct III: Product reliability, convenience and characteristics
Item 11: Product reliability	Refers to the compliance of the actual product composition with the product description.	Number of registered complaints by AFSC partners.
Item 12: Convenience	The information provided on the packaging is useful, complete and easy understandable.	Number of registered complaints AFSC partners.
Item 13: Traceability	Traceability is the ability to trace the history, application or location of a product using recorded identifications.	Information availability, use of barcodes, standardization of quality systems.
Item 14: Storage and transport conditions	Standard conditions required for transportation and storage of the products that are optimal for good quality.	Measure of relative humidity and temperature, complying with standard regulations.
Item 15: Working conditions	Standard conditions that ensure a hygienic, safe working environment, with correct handling and good conditions.	Compliance with standard regulations.
Construct IV: Environmental aspects
Item 16: Energy use	The amount of energy used during the production process.	The ratio of cubic meters of gas used per square meter of glasshouse.
Item 17: Water use	The amount of water used during the production process.	The ratio of litres of water used per square meter of land under the vegetables.
Item 18: Pesticide use	A permitted amount of pesticides used in the production process.	The amount and the frequency of pesticide use complying with standard regulations.
Item 19: Recycling/reuse	Collected used product from crop, packaging, etc., that is disassembled, separated and processed into recycled products, components and/or materials or reused, distributed or sold as used, without additional processing.	Percentage of materials recycled/reused.
Construct V: Marketing
Item 20: Promotion	Activities intended to increase market share for product (e.g., branding, pricing and labelling) supported by UGVS under ‘Ajeevika’ project.	Increase in number of customers and sales.
Item 21: Customer service	The provision of labour and other resources, for the purpose of increasing the value that buyers receive from their purchases and from the processes leading up to the purchase.	Ratio of provision of recourses used to increase customer service to increased sales.
Item 22: Display in stores	Demonstration of the product in the store.	Increase in number of customers and sales.
Item 23: Forward linkage	The direct supply of Agri-products to retail customer.	Increase in number of sales through stable and sustained supply chains.
Item 24: Reverse logistics	Activities inclusive of taking back the unconsumed stock to the federation office.	Increase in customer ‘value’.
Item 25: Complaint redressal	The provision to settle complaints by business customer at mandis or direct business point.	Increase the market value.

Source: The authors.

The Sample and Data Collection

All 31 federations in Uttarakhand were considered as the sample for the study. The ownership and trading decision lies with the farm producer himself. Therefore, individual supply chain entities are taken as a sample unit. AFSC partners act as enablers with the objective to optimize the financial performance of the system. Therefore, AFSC partners (downstream) become the major respondents along with the federation members (elected farmers from the respective blocks⁵) who were selected as the sample of the study. Purposive sampling was deemed appropriate for the current study, as it was used to select the sample involved in planning and implementation of sustainable supply chain strategy in their respective federations. For data collection, semi-structured questionnaires were shared and filled by the research team under the project, and the questionnaire was also personally administrated at different district-level project offices (called as district project offices).

Table 3.

Sampling Framework

Population coverage	The universe of the proposed study is Uttarakhand, India. In the present study, performance of agro-food supply chain actors/partners/enablers towards the sustainable agri-food industry in the state of Uttarakhand is measured from the integrated perspective of resources, carrying capacity and community and customers.
Sampling type	Purposive sampling
Sample unit	The sample unit for the proposed research study shall be agri-food supply chain (A-FSC) entities (including villages/individuals/SHGs/federation/cooperative/company/traders-local/aggregator/commission agent/large traders, etc.).
Sample size	N = 1100 (930 representatives from producer groups/federation members; 170 supply chain intermediaries including, mandi traders, transporters, NGOs and other backward and forward supply chain entities).

Source: The authors.

A total of 1100 questionnaires were personally administrated, out of which, only 730 questionnaires were found ‘fit’ for analysis (i.e., the response rate of 66.36%). Hence, 730 questionnaires were used in the study for final analysis, representing all 31 Federations under the project area. Further, it was ensured that respondent must have the experience of (A-FSC) activities (planning, post-harvesting activities, packaging, storage and distribution, etc.). Participants validated the crucial role of constructs identified through the review of literature. The participants also proposed few operational issues that have emerged as significant reasons for adoption of sustainable A-FSC practices. These include issues and concerns related to: deal with the mounting challenges of human–wildlife conflicts, cross cultural issues and IT adoption challenges. Table 3 depicts the sampling framework used in the study.

Data Analysis

Descriptive Analysis (N = 1000)

The total respondents taken in the study were 1100 A-FSCP/entities across the network including 930 producer group/federation members from 31 federations, 170 supply chain intermediaries (including mandi traders, transporters, NGOs and other backward and forward supply chain entities). The sample presents a larger representation of the A-FSCPs in India.

Principal Component Analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) is being used to determine the factor(s) that account for maximum variance in the whole data set (Abdi & Williams, 2010; Bro & Smilde, 2014; Jolliffe, 2011). The statistical software used for analysis was IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 22. PCA was done to eliminate items having a factor loading less than 0.40. It was found that all variables have a correlation greater than 0.40. Two items were eliminated as they failed to meet the established criteria of cross loading less than 0.50. For 23 items, PCA was further carried out. Various other statistical techniques were carried out including varimax to minimize the complexities among factors by maximizing the variance of factor loadings on each factor and to improve the interpretability of solution loadings on each factor (Brown, 2014; Field, 2009). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measures also show significant adequacy as 0.899, which is higher than the threshold value 0.60 (Abdi & Williams, 2010). Thus, the sample size used was found to be sufficient for carrying out the study.

Validity and Reliability

Content validity signifies, if the constructs included in the survey instruments are relevant for the purpose of the study and exhibit the complete range of items covered in the study (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In the present study, the value of the Cronbach’s alpha Coefficient was found to be reliable, ranging between 0.87 and 0.955, which is considered as significant and above the acceptance rate of 0.60 (Cronbach, 1951; Vaske, Beaman, & Sponarski, 2017)

Efficiency and Flexibility

The first factor ‘Efficiency and Flexibility’ comprised five items with factor loadings ranging from 0.772 to 0.553 and accounted for 15.25 per cent of total variance. This implies a relationship between cost decision and flexibility in operations. This has been highlighted in the previous researches also (Van der Spiegel, 2004). However, it was found that one item ‘Inventory’ is the key variable that influences the overall efficiency and flexibility of the federation.

Figure 3.

Source: The authors.

Responsiveness

The second factor plays a prominent role in making A-FSC more effective for remote and mountain locations like Uttarakhand. This factor comprised of five items with factor loadings ranging from 0.710 to 0.674 and accounted for 8.269 per cent of the total variance.

Product Reliability, Convenience and Characteristics

The third factor taken for the study was product reliability, convenience and characteristics. The factor comprises of five items, with factor loadings ranging from 0.822 to 0.722 and accounted for 14.332 per cent of the total variance. Previous research also shows that various features such as product reliability, convenience, traceability are the essential elements for a sustainable AFSC entity (Persson & Olhager, 2002; Womack & Jones, 2002; Yu & Xiao, 2017).

Environmental Aspects

The fourth factor taken in the study is environmental aspect of AFSC agri entities individually and collectively. The factor was captured by five items, with factor loadings ranging from 0.853 to 0.766. The results supported the strong correlation between the items including energy and water use. Also, it shows a strong correlation between pesticide use and recycling/reuse. The results are in agreement with the previous studies (Corrêa & Xavier, 2013; Manzini & Accorsi, 2013; Sarkis, Zhu, & Lai, 2011).

Marketing

The fifth factor, marketing, comprises of five items including promotion, customer service, display in the stores, forward linkage, reverse logistics and complaint redressal. The factor was captured by five items, with factor loadings ranging from 0.722 to 0.533. The results show a strong correlation between promotion, customer service and forward and backward linkage. The results confirm the previous work (Yan, Chen, & Li, 2017; Yu & Xiao, 2017).

Discussion

The present research is an attempt to enhance the understanding of the subject in the developing economies. The results of this study have demonstrated that even in relatively less developed economies like India, orientation to robust and sustainable supply chain is one of the means through which the organizations can develop their supply chain strategy. The results of this study confirm that by managing security and risk across all supply chain functions, the organizations can use it as a differentiation strategy for improved business performance. The findings provide a strong support for orientation on sustainability and performance. Although the data collected for this study are confined to agri-firms in Uttarakhand, India, they are consistent with those obtained in more developed countries. Since this is the first study that explores robust and secure supply chain for agro-firms with supply chain focus, previous incidences of manufacturing cannot be compared.

Conclusion

The novelty of the present study lies in the identification of the factors that influence the adoption of sustainable supply chain practices and examining the various issues pertaining to sustainable agro-business activities in the region of Uttarakhand, India. Through the review of literature and semi-structured interview with AFSC partners, five constructs with twenty-seven attributes were revealed. These constructs were further purified through the process of repetitive iterations where three items with cross loadings and low loadings were removed. The first part of the discussion involved the identification of five factors that influence the adoption of sustainable AFSC activities in India, namely: (a) efficiency (includes, production and distribution cost, transaction costs, profit, return on investments, inventory); (b) flexibility (includes, volume flexibility, delivery flexibility, backorders, lost sales (due to transit damages/losses)); (c) responsiveness (includes, fill rate, product lateness, customer response time, lead time, customer complaints, shipping errors); (d) product quality (includes, appearance, taste, shelf life, product safety and health, salubrity); (e) product reliability and convenience (viz. product reliability, convenience, process quality); (f) production system characteristics (includes, traceability, storage and transport conditions), working conditions; (g) environmental aspects (includes, energy use, water use, pesticide use, recycling/reuse); and (h) marketing (includes, promotion, customer services, display in stores).

It also provides perspectives on how these factors influence the adoption of sustainable AFSC practices in the context of Uttarakhand. Further results empirically established that significant differences do not exist in terms of supply chain practices across 31 federations, which indicates equal importance has been attached to these factors. The other part of the study examines the current state of sustainable A-FSC practices, with the focus on key bottlenecks in adoption of sustainable practices, kind of support required to bolster sustainable operations efforts, most common sustainable initiative adopted by the federations and most important benefits of adoption of sustainable agri-food SC practices.

The majority of respondents (74.65%) reported reduced resource consumption as the most important benefits of adoption of sustainable agro-food practices, followed by gaining competitive advantage in local mandis and reputational benefits of adopting sustainable supply chain practices. It must be noted that adoption of sustainable supply chain practices leads to better market positions to the farmers. This suggests that there is a conscious effort by Department of Agriculture, through the external grant, to promote sustainable A-FSC practices by adopting new measure towards perpetual and smart farming methods that give them better agricultural productivity and revenue.

Managerial Implications

This study is one of the first efforts on assessing sustainable supply chain practices in India, with the special reference to Uttarakhand state. The results of this empirical study have two novel contributions. First, identification of factors contributing to the adoption of sustainable agri-food activities in Uttarakhand will serve as a guiding tool for the other newly formulated and mountain states where farming is a challenging exercise. Second, examination of pertinent issues with focus on major bottlenecks in adoption, support required, key benefits and most common sustainable agribusiness practices will also provide new understanding about the sustainable post-harvesting techniques in India.

It is imperative to develop a model that promotes sustainability as well as integrated collaboration model. For the purpose of additional literature review, the study shall consider such methods that were known to extend sustainable supply chain and also collaboration in supply chain management in a comprehensive manner. Furthermore, evaluation related to assessment method must also be considered to check the strength of collaboration among stakeholders.

Research Limitations

Sustainability in A-FSC emerged as a multi-disciplinary research topic that creates a balance between social responsibility, environmental preservation and economic prosperity, and further research into the area of sustainability has reached a point where supply chains need to be considered from new perspectives. These factors are led by the objective of achieving sustainability (Akkerman, Farahani, & Grunow, 2010; Bogataj & Bogataj, 2007; Carter & Rogers, 2008; Corrêa & Xavier, 2013; Manzini & Accorsi, 2013; Sarkis et al., 2011). This study is the first to assess sustainable A-FSC issues in the Indian context. The results are expected to provide valuable insights to the academicians into the various constructs of adoption of sustainable activities, especially in developing economies and also significantly contribute the extant research dearth in the field of sustainable post-harvesting techniques in India. Previous literature witnessed limited research for developing countries in this direction. Therefore, the present study could be a fruitful effort in that direction although it also suffers from certain limitations. The sample size of the study is relatively small and limited to Uttarakhand only. Thus, the future research may try to validate these results by including the representatives from larger sample size. The overall findings of the study shall contribute towards understanding issues and challenges the ASC stakeholders are facing. However, the potential findings would contribute to the development of sustainable food grain production and safety strategies for the Uttarakhand state.

The results are not only interesting but also significant. Based on aforesaid discussion and limitations, following are some areas for future research directions:

The framework that has emerged can be tested for larger sample, so as to enable more specific generalizations. Further scope is available to analyse identified factors with real-life case study and minimize the impact by using decision scenario analysis.

AFSC study could provide for specific recommendations for different industries.

An extension of the present study to the service sector may also be attempted. Firms in India are currently expanding and moving towards expansions and gaining more competitiveness; in this light, the findings of this thesis will provide a major support to them in assessing their supply chain sustainability and performance.

The intensive research work and labs are required in state like Uttarakhand, especially where supply chain activities can be tested and analysed.

Longitudinal research is more feasible in this research area because variations exist due to the perishable nature of products and climate change.

This study further extends to identify four mitigation strategies where right trade-off is required according to industry. What if scenarios analysis can be done to achieve benchmark performance of supply chain for minimum impact on risk and security. This clearly demonstrates the use of such study and research on these key factors and strategies to minimize the impact and improve supply chain risk and security visibility in food firms.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the article. Usual disclaimers apply.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Sudhanshu Joshi

Rohit Kumar Singh

Manu Sharma

References

Abdi

, & Williams

L. J.

(2010). Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics , 2(4), 433–459.

Aggarwal

, & Srivastava

M. K.

(2016). Towards a grounded view of collaboration in Indian agri-food supply chains: A qualitative investigation. British Food Journal , 118(5), 1085–1106.

Ahumada

, & Villalobos

J. R.

(2009). Application of planning models in the agri-food supply chain: Review. European Journal of Operational Research , 196(1), 1–20.

Ahumada

, & Villalobos

J. R.

(2011). A tactical model for planning the production and distribution of fresh produce. Annals of Operations Research , 190(1), 339–358.

Akhtar

, Tse

Y. K.

, Khan

, & Rao-Nicholson

(2016). Data-driven and adaptive leadership contributing to sustainability: Global agri-food supply chains connected with emerging markets. International Journal of Production Economics , 181, 392–401.

Akkerman

, Farahani

, & Grunow

(2010). Quality, safety and sustainability in food distribution: A review of quantitative operations management approaches and challenges. Or Spectrum , 32(4), 863–904.

Aramyan

L. H.

, Oude Lansink

A. G.

, Van Der Vorst

J. G.

, & Van Kooten

(2007). Performance measurement in agri-food supply chains: A case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 12(4), 304–315.

Ashfaq

, Hassan

, Abbas

, Razzaq

, Mehdi

, Ariyawardana

, & Anwar

(2019). Critical issues at the upstream level in sustainable supply chain management of agri-food industries: Evidence from Pakistan’s citrus industry. Sustainability , 11(5), 1326.

Bajpai

(2015). India’s second green revolution: Portends for future and possible alternatives. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy , 4(3), 289–326.

10.

Banaeian

, Mobli

, Fahimnia

, Nielsen

I. E.

, & Omid

(2018). Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. Computers & Operations Research , 89, 337–347.

11.

Banasik

, Kanellopoulos

, Bloemhof-Ruwaard

J. M.

, & Claassen

G. D. H.

(2019). Accounting for uncertainty in eco-efficient agri-food supply chains: A case study for mushroom production planning. Journal of Cleaner Production , 216, 249–256.

12.

Banasik

, Bloemhof-Ruwaard

J. M.

, Kanellopoulos

, Claassen

G. D. H.

, & van der Vorst

J. G.

(2018). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for green supply chains: A review. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal , 30(3), 366–396.

13.

Battersby

(2017). MDGs to SDGs–new goals, same gaps: The continued absence of urban food security in the post-2015 global development agenda. African Geographical Review , 36(1), 115–129.

14.

Beets

W. C.

(1990). Raising and sustaining productivity of smallholder farming systems in the tropics: A handbook of sustainable agricultural development . Alkmar, Holland: AgBe Publishing.

15.

Bhat

, & Jõudu

(2019). Emerging issues and challenges in agri-food supply chain. In Accorsi

, & Manzini

(Eds.), Sustainable food supply chains (pp. 23–37). Massachusetts, United States: Academic Press.

16.

Birthal

P. S.

, Kumar

, Negi

D. S.

, & Roy

(2015). The impacts of information on returns from farming: Evidence from a nationally representative farm survey in India. Agricultural Economics , 46(4), 549–561.

17.

Bogataj

, & Bogataj

(2007). Measuring the supply chain risk and vulnerability in frequency space. International Journal of Production Economics , 108(1–2), 291–301.

18.

Bollani

, Claudia

P. A.

, & Stefaan

V. D.

(2017). Innovation and social responsibility in food ingredients market. Global Business and Economic , 20, 1–29.

19.

Borah

, & Dutta

(2019). Trends in beverage packaging. In Grumezescu

, & Butu

(Eds.), Trends in beverage packaging (pp. 1–19). Massachusetts, United States: Academic Press.

20.

Bro

, & Smilde

A. K.

(2014). Principal component analysis. Analytical Methods , 6(9), 2812–2831.

21.

Brown

T. A.

(2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research . New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

22.

Brusset

, & Teller

(2017). Supply chain capabilities, risks, and resilience. International Journal of Production Economics , 184, 59–68.

23.

Carter

C. R.

, & Rogers

D. S.

(2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management , 38(5), 360–387.

24.

Celio

, Scott

C. A.

, & Giordano

(2010). Urban–agricultural water appropriation: The Hyderabad, India case. Geographical Journal , 176(1), 39–57.

25.

Chavas

J. P.

(2008). On the economics of agricultural production. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , 52(4), 365–380.

26.

Corrêa

H. L.

, & Xavier

L. H.

(2013). Concepts, design and implementation of reverse logistics systems for sustainable supply chains in Brazil. Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management , 6(1), 1–25.

27.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika , 16(3), 297–334.

28.

Dania

W. A. P.

, Xing

, & Amer

(2018). Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production , 186, 851–864.

29.

Dasgupta

(2018). Technological change and political turnover: The democratizing effects of the green revolution in India. American Political Science Review , 112(4), 918–938.

30.

Davis

, Winters

, Carletto

, Covarrubias

, Quiñones

E. J.

, Zezza

… DiGiuseppe

(2010). A cross-country comparison of rural income generating activities. World Development , 38(1), 48–63.

31.

Department of Food and Public Distribution. (2013). National food security act (NFSA), 2013: Public distribution, NFSA and computerization. Ministry of Consumer Affair, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. Retrieved from http://dfpd.nic.in/nfsa-act.htm

32.

DeVon

H. A.

, Block

M. E.

, Moyle–Wright

, Ernst

D. M.

, Hayden

S. J.

, Lazzara

D. J.

… Kostas–Polston

(2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 39(2), 155–164.

33.

Engelseth

, Wongthatsanekorn

, & Charoensiriwath

(2014). Food product traceability and customer value. Global Business Review , 15(4_suppl), 87S–105S.

34.

ET News. (2010, July 7). Definition of ‘public distribution system’. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/public-distribution-system

35.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS . London, UK: SAGE Publications.

36.

Fischer

, Hartmann

, Reynolds

, Leat

, Revoredo-Giha

, Henchion

… Gracia

(2009). Factors influencing contractual choice and sustainable relationships in European agri-food supply chains. European Review of Agricultural Economics , 36(4), 541–569.

37.

Gereffi

, & Lee

(2012). Why the world suddenly cares about global supply chains. Journal of Supply Chain Management , 48(3), 24–32.

38.

Govindan

(2018). Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Production Economics , 195, 419–431

39.

Herrero

, Thornton

P. K.

, Power

, Bogard

J. R.

, Remans

, Fritz

… Watson

R. A.

(2017). Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: A transdisciplinary analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health , 1(1), 33–42.

40.

Hinrichs

C. C.

(2003). The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies , 19(1), 33–45.

41.

Hsu

C. C.

, Choon Tan

, Hanim Mohamad Zailani

, & Jayaraman

(2013). Supply chain drivers that foster the development of green initiatives in an emerging economy. International Journal of Operations & Production Management , 33(6), 656–688.

42.

Iakovou

, Bochtis

, Vlachos

, & Aidonis

(2016). Supply chain management for sustainable food networks . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

43.

Johnson

G. I.

, & Hofman

P. J.

(2004). Agri-product supply-chain management in developing countries . Proceedings of a workshop, Bali, Indonesia, 19–22 August 2003. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).

44.

Jolliffe

(2011). Principal component analysis. In Lovric

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp. 1094–1096). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

45.

Joshi

(2017). Strategic mapping of supply chains and market feasibility for potential SHG clusters . Uttarakhand, India: Uttarakhand Forest Resource Management Project (UFRMP), Government of Uttarakhand.

46.

Joshi

(2018). Mentoring 31 federations and livelihood collectives . Uttarakhand, India: Uttarakhand Gramya Vikas Samiti, Government of Uttarakhand.

47.

Jost

, Kyazze

, Naab

, Neelormi

, Kinyangi

, Zougmore

… Nelson

(2016). Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Climate and Development , 8(2), 133–144.

48.

Kalia

, & Parshad

V. R.

(2015). Novel trends to revolutionize preservation and packaging of fruits/fruit products: Microbiological and nano-technological perspectives. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition , 55(2), 159–182.

49.

Luo

, Ji

, Qiu

, & Jia

(2018). Agri-food supply chain management: Bibliometric and content analyses. Sustainability , 10(5), 1573.

50.

Magrini

M. B.

, Anton

, Cholez

, Corre-Hellou

, Duc

, Jeuffroy

M. H.

… Walrand

(2016). Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system. Ecological Economics , 126, 152–162.

51.

Mangla

S. K.

, Luthra

, Rich

, Kumar

, Rana

N. P.

, & Dwivedi

Y. K.

(2018). Enablers to implement sustainable initiatives in agri-food supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics , 203, 379–393.

52.

Manning

, & Soon

J. M.

(2016). Development of sustainability indicator scoring (SIS) for the food supply chain. British Food Journal , 118(9), 2097–2125.

53.

Manzini

, & Accorsi

(2013). The new conceptual framework for food supply chain assessment. Journal of Food Engineering , 115(2), 251–263.

54.

Marsden

, Banks

, & Bristow

(2000). Food supply chain approaches: Exploring their role in rural development. Sociologiaruralis , 40(4), 424–438.

55.

Matopoulos

, Vlachopoulou

, Manthou

, & Manos

(2007). A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: Empirical evidence from the agri-food industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 12(3), 177–186.

56.

Meena

S. R.

, Meena

S. D.

, Pratap

, Patidar

, & Daultani

(2019). Strategic analysis of the Indian agri-food supply chain. OPSEARCH , 56(3), 1–18.

57.

Naik

, & Suresh

D. N.

(2018). Challenges of creating sustainable agri-retail supply chains. IIMB Management Review , 30(3), 270–282.

58.

Nilsson

, Griggs

, & Visbeck

(2016). Policy: Map the interactions between sustainable development goals. Nature News , 534(7607), 320.

59.

Notarnicola

, Sala

, Anton

, McLaren

S. J.

, Saouter

, & Sonesson

(2017). The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production , 140, 399–409.

60.

Ortiz

, Alarcón

, Pérez

, & Alemany

M. M. E.

(2019). Identifying the main uncertainties in the agri-food supply chain. In Mula

, Barbastefano

, Díaz-Madroñero

, & Poler

(Eds.), New global perspectives on industrial engineering and management (pp. 221–229). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

61.

Parwez

(2016). A conceptual model for integration of Indian food supply chains. Global Business Review , 17(4), 834–850.

62.

Pellegrini

, & Fernández

R. J.

(2018). Crop intensification, land use, and on-farm energy-use efficiency during the worldwide spread of the green revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(10), 2335–2340.

63.

Rada

(2016). India’s post–green–revolution agricultural performance: What is driving growth?. Agricultural Economics , 47(3), 341–350.

64.

Rao

, & Swaminathan

M. S.

(2017). A farmer-led approach to achieving a malnutrition-free India. Agricultural Research , 6(1), 1–7.

65.

Rasul

(2016). Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the sustainable development goals in South Asia. Environmental Development , 18, 14–25.

66.

Rueda

, Garrett

R. D.

, & Lambin

E. F.

(2017). Corporate investments in supply chain sustainability: Selecting instruments in the agri-food industry. Journal of Cleaner Production , 142, 2480–2492.

67.

Sarkis

, Zhu

, & Lai

K. H.

(2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. International Journal of Production Economics , 130(1), 1–15.

68.

Schmutz

, Kneafsey

, Kay

C. S.

, Doernberg

, & Zasada

(2018). Sustainability impact assessments of different urban short food supply chains: Examples from London, UK. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , 33(6), 518–529.

69.

Sharma

Y. K.

, Mangla

S. K.

, Patil

P. P.

, & Uniyal

(2018). Analyzing sustainable food supply chain management challenges in India. In Mangey

, & Paulo

D. J.

(Eds.), Soft computing techniques and applications in mechanical engineering (pp. 162–180). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

70.

Shepon

, Harper

, Troen

, Ulanovsky

, Oron

, Ohad

, & Berry

E. M.

(2018). Call for action for food security and sustainability in Mediterranean countries. In Meybeck

, Redfern

, Hachem

, Capone

, & Dernini

(Eds.), Development of voluntary guidelines for the sustainability of the Mediterranean diet in the Mediterranean region , 97. Valenzano (Bari).

71.

Siddh

M. M.

, Soni

, Jain

, Sharma

M. K.

, & Yadav

(2017). Agri-fresh food supply chain quality (AFSCQ): A literature review. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 117(9), 2015–2044.

72.

Sinha

(2013). Cost of implementing the national food security act. Economic & Political Weekly , 48(39), 31.

73.

Soosay

, & Kannusamy

(2018). Scope for Industry 4.0 in Agri-food supply chain. In Kersten

, Blecker

, & Ringle

C. M.

(Eds.), The road to a digitalized supply chain management: Smart and digital solutions for supply chain management . Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL) 2018 (pp. 37–56). Berlin, Germany: Epubli GmbH.

74.

Stone

, & Rahimifard

(2018). Resilience in agri-food supply chains: A critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 23(3), 207–238.

75.

Tabachnick

B. G.

, & Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

76.

Tasca

A. L.

, Nessi

, & Rigamonti

(2017). Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains: An LCA comparison between two alternative forms of production and distribution of endive in northern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production , 140, 725–741.

77.

Tsolakis

N. K.

, Keramydas

C. A.

, Toka

A. K.

, Aidonis

D. A.

, & Iakovou

E. T.

(2014). Agrifood supply chain management: A comprehensive hierarchical decision-making framework and a critical taxonomy. Biosystems Engineering , 120, 47–64.

78.

Tumushabe

J. T.

(2018). Climate change, food security and sustainable development in Africa. In Oloruntoba

S. O.

, & Falola

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of African politics, governance and development (pp. 853–868). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

79.

Ulvenblad

P. O.

, Ulvenblad

, & Tell

(2019). An overview of sustainable business models for innovation in swedish agri-food production. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences , 16(1), 1–22.

80.

Van der Vorst

J. G.

(2000). Effective food supply chains: Generating, modelling and evaluating supply chain scenarios . S.I. and S.N.

81.

Van der Vorst

J. G.

, Beulens

A. J.

, & van Beek

(2000). Modelling and simulating multi-echelon food systems. European Journal of Operational Research , 122(2), 354–366.

82.

Vaske

J. J.

, Beaman

, & Sponarski

C. C.

(2017). Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s Alpha. Leisure Sciences , 39(2), 163–173.

83.

Verdouw

C. N.

, Robbemond

R. M.

, Verwaart

, Wolfert

, & Beulens

A. J. M.

(2018). A reference architecture for IoT-based logistic information systems in agri-food supply chains. Enterprise Information Systems , 12(7), 755–779.

84.

Wiengarten

, Humphreys

, Gimenez

, & McIvor

(2016). Risk, risk management practices, and the success of supply chain integration. International Journal of Production Economics , 171, 361–370.

85.

K. J.

, Liao

C. J.

, Tseng

M. L.

, Lim

M. K.

, Hu

, & Tan

(2017). Toward sustainability: Using big data to explore the decisive attributes of supply chain risks and uncertainties. Journal of Cleaner Production , 142, 663–676.

86.

Yan

, Chen

, & Li

(2017). Evaluation of agri-product supply chain competitiveness based on extension theory. Operational Research , 19, 1–28.

87.

, & Xiao

(2017). Pricing and cold-chain service level decisions in a fresh agri-products supply chain with logistics outsourcing. Computers & Industrial Engineering , 111, 56–66.

88.

Zhou

, Zhou

, Qi

, & Li

(2019). Research on coordination mechanism for fresh agri-food supply chain with option contracts. Kybernetes , 48(5), 1134–1156.

89.

Zsidisin

G. A.

, & Smith

M. E.

(2005). Managing supply risk with early supplier involvement: A case study and research propositions. Journal of Supply Chain Management , 41(4), 44–57.