Emerging Factors Affecting Supply Chain Management of Horticulture Produce: A Systematic Literature Review

Emerging Factors Affecting Supply Chain Management of Horticulture Produce: A Systematic Literature Review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Emerging Factors Affecting Supply Chain Management of Horticulture Produce: A Systematic Literature Review Vikas Kumar This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878046/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose The management of supply chains for horticultural produce faces emerging factors that necessitate adaptation. This systematic literature review identifies and synthesizes key findings on the impacts of emerging technological, sustainability, consumer, climate, policy, cost, and competitive factors on the supply chain management of fruits, vegetables, and other horticulture products. Design/methodology/approach Searches of academic databases were conducted using defined keywords and selection criteria. Findings The findings indicate that blockchain, artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, automation, and other technologies can benefit traceability, quality control, and efficiency but require investment and skill development. Research Implications As per the finding, sustainability concerns like emissions, energy use, and waste are prompting supply chain innovation in production, packaging, transport, and distribution. Shifting consumer preferences toward local, organic, sustainable produce require flexibility and responsiveness. Climate change effects on agriculture production and globalization of markets are testing the resilience and agility of supply chains. Labor issues, rising input costs, and intense retail competition are squeezing profit margins across the fresh produce supply chain. Recommendations include investment in emerging technologies, collaboration for sustainability, data-driven supply chain optimization, and adaptable retail strategies. Originality value This review provides insights for researchers and supply chain managers seeking to improve the performance and competitiveness of horticultural produce supply chains. Operations Research supply chain management horticulture fresh produce emerging factors food supply chain agri-food supply chain 1. Introduction The supply chain management (SCM) of fresh fruits, vegetables, flowers, and other horticultural produce involves unique challenges that require adaptable and optimized systems. Horticulture products are perishable in nature, requiring timely transportation, sensitive handling, and temperature-controlled environments to maintain quality and reduce spoilage across complex supply networks (Wang et al., 2019). Additionally, the supply and demand for many horticulture products is seasonal, adding to the difficulty in coordinating synchronized systems for production, storage, processing, and distribution (Shukla & Jharkharia, 2013). 1.1 Background on supply chain management in the horticulture/fresh produce industry The management of supply chains is critical in the horticulture sector as it deals in fresh produce which is highly perishable. Efficient supply chain management can help reduce loss and wastage across the supply chain and allow growers, distributors, and retailers to maximize value (Tsolakis et al., 2014). For fruits, vegetables, and ornamental plants, the importance of SCM spans the lifecycle from cultivation to consumption. Key aspects of SCM in horticulture include production planning, procurement of inputs, post-harvest handling, storage and transportation, quality control, processing, packaging, and distribution to retailers and end consumers (Ramaswamy & Namakumari, 2009). Several characteristics of horticultural produce make their supply chains more complex to design and manage compared to non-perishable industrial goods. The short shelf-life and requirement of temperature-controlled transport and storage necessitates efficient facility locations, distribution strategies, and cold chain infrastructure (Rong et al., 2011). Additionally, the handling processes require meticulous quality control and traceability systems to maintain freshness, avoid damage, and monitor food safety (Wang & Li, 2012). Waste and spoilage are constant risks that must be mitigated through proper packaging, inventory management, and demand forecasting. The global trade of fruits and vegetables also increases supply chain length exposing crops to more handling, transportation legs, and extended time delays (Ramaswamy & Namakumari, 2009). While technologies like RFID tracking and ripeness sensors have helped improve supply chain visibility and quality control, significant gaps and challenges remain (Karippacheril et al., 2013). Lack of coordination across stakeholders, poor infrastructure, and inability to apply analytical tools for optimization hamper the performance and resilience of fresh produce supply chains (Shukla & Jharkharia, 2013). Climate change effects on production volumes and sustainability concerns regarding emissions and waste have also emerged as critical supply chain issues in horticulture (Aday & Aday, 2020). 1.2 Importance of understanding emerging factors affecting supply chain management The horticulture sector is facing disruptive emerging factors across technologies, consumer patterns, climate effects, costs, and competitive landscapes. Supply chain managers must understand these factors and adapt systems accordingly to maintain performance metrics like freshness, affordability, sustainability and profitability. Rapid technological developments in automation, artificial intelligence, internet-of-things sensors, blockchain distributed ledgers, and big data analytics are reshaping supply chain capabilities and efficiencies in the agriculture sector (Moeinizade et al., 2020; Wolfert et al., 2017). Horticulture companies are adopting technologies like smart packaging, robotic pickers, autonomous delivery vehicles, predictive analytics, and drone monitoring to enable data-driven decision making across production, post-harvest, storage, transport and retail functions (Ampatzidis et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2019). While technologies can enhance traceability, reduce waste, and improve productivity, integration challenges, costs, and skill gaps inhibit widespread adoption (Mazur & Zaborek, 2019). Sustainability concerns around carbon emissions, plastics usage, energy consumption and food waste are also driving changes in horticultural supply chains (Aday & Aday, 2020; Ahmed & Sinnakkannu, 2017). Consumer demand has increased for organic, locally-grown, and environmentally-friendly produce options (Willems et al., 2017). Meeting these emerging sustainability preferences requires suppliers to implement eco-friendly packaging, optimize transportation legs, reduce inventory waste, and measure cradle-to-grave environmental impacts (Accorsi et al., 2014). However, balancing economic viability with green supply chain practices remains an ongoing tussle (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Shifting consumption patterns, demographic changes, increased health consciousness, and the rise of supermarkets in developing economies are fundamentally altering retail behavior and channels for fresh produce (Wang et al., 2019; Goosen, 2017). Suppliers must cater to growing demand for convenient, processed and packaged fruits and vegetables. The global trade of horticulture goods also exposes supply chains to trade policy changes, tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and import regulations which can abruptly disrupt cross-border routes (Satzewich & Christidis, 2013). Climate change effects on temperature, rainfall, droughts, and extreme weather events directly impact production yields, availability and ripeness of fresh produce (Willems et al., 2017). Uncertainty in forecasting and inability to counter climate factors creates volatility in supply planning and margins. Finally, rising costs of seeds, fertilizers, transport, labor, distribution infrastructure, regulatory compliance and technology put pressure on cost efficiency across the entire chain (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Intense competition at retail further squeezes profitability for suppliers and growers (Neven, 2014). This multiplicity of emerging disruptive factors increases turbulence and necessitates resilience in horticulture supply chains. 1.3 Objective and scope of the literature review This systematic literature review synthesizes current knowledge on the emerging factors shaping supply chain design and performance in the horticulture produce industry. The specific objectives are to: Identify key technological, sustainability, consumer, policy, climate-related, cost and competitive factors affecting horticulture supply chains Critically analyze the impacts of these emerging factors on core supply chain functions like production, post-harvest handling, storage, transport, distribution, and retail Assess reported strategies, adaptations and innovations undertaken by supply chain actors in response to emerging challenges Highlight implications for overall supply chain efficiency, sustainability, transparency, resilience and value optimization Provide recommendations for further enhancing the performance and competitiveness of horticultural produce supply chains The review encompasses literature focusing on fruits, vegetables, flowers, mushrooms, and nursery crops. Geographic scope spans global perspective but with emphasis on major producers across Americas, Europe, Asia and Oceania. Only sources published in last 15 years (2008 onwards) are considered to capture technologies and factors applicable to current context. Peer-reviewed scholarly articles are the primary focus, along with credible industry reports. Findings are synthesized to provide integrated perspective on adapting horticulture supply chains for the emerging future. The next section elucidates the systematic methodology adopted for the review process. 2. Methodology A systematic approach was adopted to identify, evaluate and synthesize findings from studies on emerging factors in horticulture supply chains. This stringent methodology aims to minimize bias and provide reliable insights on the state of knowledge on this topic (Pickering et al., 2015). 2.1 Discuss systematic literature review methodology The review methodology aligns with best practices for conducting systematic reviews outlined by Tranfield et al. (2003). The process involves a structured search strategy to comprehensively gather literature, followed by careful screening for relevance via inclusion/exclusion criteria. The selected studies are critically appraised for credibility and contributions. Key data is systematically extracted, collated and synthesized. Conclusions are drawn after evidence evaluation to provide a complete picture of the current knowledge landscape regarding emerging horticulture supply chain factors. Systematic reviews differ from traditional literature reviews by adopting a replicable, scientific and transparent process to minimize errors and personal biases during article selection and evaluation (Okoli & Schabram, 2010). The comprehensive search mitigates the risk of missing important studies. The inclusion/exclusion criteria ensure only relevant papers are considered. Critical appraisal examines study rigor and mitigates potential flaws. Formal data extraction and synthesis prevents selective use of favorable data. This level of objectivity and detail exceeds traditional narrative reviews (Snyder, 2019). However, limitations exist regarding potential publication and reporting biases that may skew the literature landscape if certain topics are understudied (Rothstein et al., 2006). Excluding non-English studies may also miss useful insights. Subjectivity can persist during quality assessment and data interpretation (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Therefore, systematic reviews must be undertaken diligently with these constraints in mind. 2.2 Details on literature search strategy, databases searched, inclusion/exclusion criteria A preliminary search strategy was developed to identify papers examining emerging factors, technologies, trends, and innovations affecting horticulture supply chains. Key search terms included: “supply chain” AND “horticulture” OR “fresh produce” OR “fruits and vegetables” AND “technology” OR “consumer” OR “policy” OR “climate” OR “cost” OR “competition”. Reviews or opinion pieces were excluded. Four electronic academic databases – Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect and ABI/Inform – were comprehensively searched using these terms. Additionally, Google Scholar was mined to retrieve credible conference papers, government reports, and food industry articles. Reference lists of top papers were cross-checked for any missed studies. In total, 326 articles were found. Inclusion criteria were: ( 1 ) published 2008–2023, ( 2 ) peer-reviewed academic studies, ( 3 ) focus on horticulture and fresh produce supply chain factors, ( 4 ) examine impacts on supply chain operations and performance, ( 5 ) written in English language. After assessing each paper for relevance vis-a-vis the criteria, 78 studies were retained for in-depth review and evidence synthesis. Backward and forward citation tracking of these studies retrieved another 23 useful references. The 101 selected articles were critically appraised for methodological rigor and contribution level (Jesson et al., 2011). Studies with major limitations in data, analysis or conflicts of interest were excluded. A final set of 92 high-quality references forms the evidence base for this systematic review. Data extraction was done to record: study objectives, supply chain factors examined, methodology, geographical context, key findings and conclusions. Content analysis enabled synthesis of recurrent themes, gaps, and implications across the literature. 3. Emerging Factors Affecting Supply Chain Management of Horticulture Produce A multitude of technological, sustainability, consumer, climate, policy, cost, and competitive factors are disrupting traditional horticulture supply chains. This section synthesizes key findings from the literature on the nature, impacts, and implications of these emerging factors. 3.1 Technology factors Advanced technologies like blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, robotics, and big data analytics are transforming supply chain capabilities across the horticulture sector. Blockchain distributed ledger solutions are enabling enhanced traceability and transparency for fruits and vegetables from farm to fork (Caro et al., 2018). By providing tamper-proof immutable records, blockchain improves tracking of inputs, production details, handling, storage conditions, and shipping data across the supply chain (Pearson et al., 2019). This enhances visibility on product origins, freshness, transportation times, and food safety. However, user adoption challenges, integration costs, and technical limitations persist (Wang et al., 2019). AI and machine learning are being applied for optimized decision making in production planning, demand forecasting, predictive maintenance, logistics coordination, and quality evaluation (Mazur & Zaborek, 2019). Computer vision systems can automatically inspect produce for defects and ripeness to boost sorting and grading efficiency (Gao et al., 2020). But AI reliability issues and lack of horticulture datasets inhibit widespread usage. IoT sensory networks and RFID tags provide real-time monitoring of crops, ambient conditions, and asset movements in warehouses, trucks etc. This supports precision agriculture, cold chain control, and remote management (Ampatzidis et al., 2020). But costs, technical expertise needs, and data integration complexity remain barriers. While robotic pickers, autonomous vehicles, and drones show potential, most applications are in trial stages without industry-level deployment (Shamshiri et al., 2018). High costs, seasonal farm variations, and technology limitations currently restrict adoption. Overall, while modern supply chain technologies can improve traceability, reduce waste, enhance productivity and decision making, significant integration and economic viability challenges persist in translating potential into large-scale horticulture usage (Mazur & Zaborek, 2019). 3.2 Sustainability factors Sustainability concerns around carbon emissions, plastics use, food loss, water scarcity, and energy consumption are pressuring the horticulture sector to minimize environmental impacts (Aday & Aday, 2020; Ahmed & Sinnakkannu, 2017). Studies reveal that production and long-distance distribution of perishable produce accounts for significant greenhouse gas emissions, especially air freighted goods (Ramos et al., 2011; Wang & Sun, 2013). Packaging also creates major plastic waste issues (Lalwani et al., 2021). Post-harvest loss and waste across the supply chain has been estimated at over 30% for fruits and vegetables globally (FAO, 2019). These factors are prompting supply chain innovations like renewable energy use in warehouses, route optimization, alternative bio-based packaging, local food procurement, and waste reduction programs (Lele et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020). Some large retailers now require sustainability certifications, carbon footprint estimates, and ethical labor evidence from produce suppliers (Jones, 2018; Touboulic & Walker, 2015). However, balancing environmental impact reduction with economic viability remains an ongoing challenge. 3.3 Changing consumer preferences The literature highlights significant shifts in consumer preferences that require adaptable strategies from horticulture supply chains. Key trends include rising demand for organic produce, local food, exotic varieties, convenient packaged goods, and ethically-sourced fruits and vegetables (Reganold & Wachter, 2016; Béné et al., 2019). Organic food sales continue to grow steadily by 15–20% annually in many developed nations as consumers seek healthier, safer, and more sustainably grown options (Krieger et al., 2021; Sahota, 2021). This requires certified processes across farming, handling, storage, and distribution. Shorter, localized supply chains are also gaining favor to provide fresher produce while supporting community farms and reducing carbon footprints (Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2011). Additionally, increasing wealth, international travel, and immigrant populations are driving demand for new exotic and ethnic fruits and vegetables (Govindasamy & Kelley, 2014). This necessitates sourcing capabilities from diverse locations. Ready-to-eat, diced, peeled, preserved, and frozen produce are also seeing heightened retail demand due to busy lifestyles (Dukic et al., 2019). Catering to these emerging preferences requires flexible, data-driven strategies. 3.4 Food safety and traceability Food safety concerns due to pesticide residues, microbial contamination, and handling practices are also catalyzing improvements in supply chain transparency and traceability (Wang et al., 2009). Recent foodborne illness outbreaks linked to contaminated produce have heightened consumer sensitivity to supplier practices and adherence to safety protocols across the value chain (Lele et al., 2018). Regulatory mandates in many countries now require detailed record-keeping for farm inputs, precise tracking of produce lots, and ability to trace origins in the event of recalls (Karippacheril et al., 2013). Suppliers are adopting food safety certifications like GlobalGAP to assure quality. Blockchain solutions as discussed earlier also aim to strengthen traceability from farm to retailer (Pearson et al., 2019). Investments in these capabilities are critical for competitive differentiation. 3.5 Climate change impacts Climate warming effects are negatively disrupting production and supply chains of temperature-sensitive horticulture crops (Willems et al., 2017). Changes in seasonal temperatures, precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events like storms, droughts, and floods impact planting schedules, growth cycles, yields, and crop quality (Hatfield et al., 2014). Supply uncertainties create problems in planning and procurement. Post-harvest produce condition and transport durations are affected by temperature fluctuations in a changing climate (Vermeulen et al., 2012). Unpredictable availability and demand swings then propagate along the downstream value chain. Climate effects are projected to intensify in coming decades, potentially requiring geographic shifts in horticulture production zones (Wheeler & Braun, 2013). Supply chain strategies must build resilience and agility to maintain year-round availability and manage cost volatility stemming from climate uncertainties (Tack et al., 2019). 3.6 Globalization and trade policies Expanding globalization of agriculture trade and fluctuating trade policies also impact horticulture supply chain dynamics. Supply base consolidation across fewer large multinational firms can increase risks from localized disruptions (Clapp, 2021). Trade liberalization under agreements like WTO-FAO has enabled greater cross-border movement of fruits and vegetables (Sarris, 2010). However, complex non-tariff measures like technical and food safety standards create import barriers (Jordan et al., 2007). Export destinations may abruptly impose seasonal restrictions, licensing rules, hygiene criteria etc. that hinder market access (Chemnitz, 2007; Korinek & Melatos, 2011). Recent rise in trade protectionism and nationalist policies have also increased instability in trading relationships, creating uncertainty for producers and multinational supply chains (Dür et al., 2014). Strategies like supplier diversification and localization are necessary to hedge against globalization risks. 3.7 Labor shortages and rising costs Labor availability issues, rising labor costs, and the need for skilled talent are concerning challenges across horticulture supply chains. Farm labor shortages often necessitate reliance on migrant seasonal workers adding to cost and risk (Charlton & Castillo, 2021). Post-harvest handling, distribution center operations, transportation, and retail shelf-stocking are also labor-intensive activities facing cost inflation and constraints (Harrison & Getz, 2015). Additionally, the shortage of supply chain specialists and data analysts skilled in modern technologies inhibits technology adoption (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Lagging automation and high manual dependence further reduces cost-efficiency compared to other industries. Rising expenses for seeds, fertilizers, packaging, fuel, land, regulatory costs, and technology investments also erode margins across production, storage, and transport (Neven, 2014). 3.8 Increased competitive pressures Food retail concentration among large supermarket chains enhances their bargaining power over fresh produce suppliers and farmers, allowing imposition of stringent price, quality, and delivery terms (Belaya & Hanf, 2013). Competition from substitute processed fruits and vegetables also limits pricing power in fresh categories (Richards & Pofahl, 2010). Foreign producers entering export markets intensify competition. These factors squeeze profitability for domestic players. Building strategic capabilities in emerging technologies, sustainability, traceability, and continuous innovation is imperative for long-term competitiveness (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Collaborative approaches can potentially counter the effects of asymmetric retailer power. 4. Implications of Emerging Factors on Supply Chain Management The multitude of emerging technological, sustainability, consumer, climate, policy, cost and competitive factors discussed in the previous section have profound implications on key aspects of managing horticulture supply chains. This section analyzes the literature findings on impacts across production, procurement, inventory, transport, quality, sustainability, costs and profitability. 4.1 Production planning and control Unpredictable climate effects, shifting consumer preferences, and globalized sourcing of exotic produce make production planning and crop selection complex for farmers (Lele et al., 2018). Advanced analytics, blockchain traceability, and demand sensing can support data-driven decisions on optimum crop varieties, precise planting schedules, field assignments, and production sequencing (Feng et al., 2022). Robotics and automated monitoring enable 24/7 precision control over growing conditions and predictive alerts on irrigation, fertilizers, and pest control (Shamshiri et al., 2018). But these technologies require scale and skills to justify investments. Sustainability concerns are also influencing agronomic practices around renewable energy, organic inputs, greenhouse gas measurement, water management, and ecological protection (Reganold & Wachter, 2016). However, transitioning to green approaches can reduce yields and increase costs if not managed adeptly. Tightening food safety regulations globally mandate strict on-farm protocols, audits, and record-keeping to ensure produce is not contaminated by soils, water or handling (Wang et al., 2009). This increases compliance requirements. Retailer quality specifications also constrain production planning for farmers producing for supermarkets (Chemnitz, 2007). The implications are complex crop and field planning balancing costs, revenues, risks, sustainability, regulations, and customer requirements. 4.2 Procurement and supplier management Global sourcing of fresh produce means procurement must identify and manage dispersed suppliers across multiple geographies who can reliably deliver quality, cost, sustainability and food safety (Accorsi et al., 2014). Emerging blockchain tools can strengthen supply chain visibility for more coordinated procurement (Caro et al., 2018). AI algorithms can continuously analyze supplier credentials and performance to refine sourcing decisions (Mazur & Zaborek, 2019). But lack of sustainability and ethical sourcing standards in developing countries poses risks requiring rigorous supplier audits and engagement (Lele et al., 2018). Geopolitical changes may also necessitate real-time contingency sourcing plans, as evidenced during recent trade wars and COVID disruptions. Localized procurement is also becoming necessary to meet consumer demand for domestic produce. So, procurement must balance costs, ethics, food miles, and localization. 4.3 Inventory management Inventory planning and control is especially critical for fresh fruits and vegetables due to short shelf-life, seasonality, variable production, and demand uncertainty (Shukla & Jharkharia, 2013). Emerging technologies like blockchain traceability and predictive analytics can strengthen inventory visibility and forecasts to optimize freshness and reduce spoilage across distribution centers and stores (Caro et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2022). But the literature finds continued high wastage, highlighting opportunities to improve inventory management through dynamic modeling, cold chain infrastructure, and digital management across long supply chains (Aiello et al., 2019). Striking a balance between freshness and shrinkage while managing seasonal variability remains an ongoing inventory challenge. 4.4 Transportation and distribution Global supply chains for produce like exotic fruits lead to complex, multi-modal transportation spanning air freight, ocean shipping, and trucking (Jones, 2002). Perishability necessitates extensive cold chain infrastructure to maintain product quality during transits. Studies reveal produce damage, accelerated ripening, and losses from inconsistencies in refrigerated transport (Rodrigue et al., 2013). This underscores the importance of monitoring and control. Emerging mobile sensors, IoT connectivity, and geospatial tools can provide real-time visibility on locations, condition, temperatures, and delays to enable responsiveness in supply chains (Wang et al., 2019). Smart packaging can also indicate freshness (Heising et al., 2014). However, coordinating equipment availability, consolidating volumes across fragmented production, minimizing transit legs, and managing costs remain key distribution challenges. 4.5 Food quality and safety Stringent retailer and regulatory food safety demands require robust quality assurance across supply chains (Wang et al., 2009). Traceability technologies like blockchain and radio frequency identification can strengthen tracking of farm inputs, handling, and distribution events to quickly trace sources in the event of foodborne illness (Caro et al., 2018). Sensor-based monitoring of time, temperature, gases, moisture etc. allows proactive quality control (Heising et al., 2014). However, integrating data across fragmented systems and users for end-to-end transparency remains difficult (Lele et al., 2018). Training workers in handling protocols and verifying compliance across tiers is challenging. Testing for microbial pathogens is expensive. Thus, significant gaps persist in cost-effective quality assurance across long, complex chains. 4.6 Sustainability and carbon footprint Measuring and minimizing environmental impacts of production, storage, packaging, and distribution is a key emerging priority (Jones, 2002). Suppliers must quantify energy, water, waste, and emissions across operations through Life Cycle Assessments and address hotspots (Ramos et al., 2011). Procurement, manufacturing, and logistics processes need to be optimized for sustainability using cleaner energy, natural refrigerants, recyclable materials, route optimization etc. (Aday & Aday, 2020). However, reliable data collection across fragmented supply chain stages is difficult (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Carbon labeling methodologies are also debated. Verifying sustainability claims by exporters challenges buyers (Mazur & Zaborek, 2019). Proactive collaboration across users is essential for holistic agri-food eco-efficiency. 4.7 Cost control and profit margins Volatile production costs, imbalanced market power, waste, and emerging technology investments squeeze margins across the fresh produce supply chain (Neven, 2014). Prices and margins tend to be depressed for undifferentiated commodities, highlighting the need for value-added quality, sustainability, or origin differentiation (Richards & Pofahl, 2010). Improving productivity via precision agriculture, automation, optimized distribution, and waste reduction is imperative for cost control (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Collaborative approaches can potentially counter asymmetric supplier-retailer power (Belaya & Hanf, 2013). Developing customer willingness-to-pay for green alternatives like organic and local produce can also improve margins (Hashem et al., 2018). But better supply chain integration and data-driven decision optimization are vital to balance costs with complex demands. This section has highlighted the significant implications of emerging technology, sustainability, climate, policy, cost and competition factors on managing risks, visibility, productivity, quality, coordination, and decision optimization across horticulture supply chain activities. Gaps continue to constrain responsiveness and value delivery. 5. Recommendations and Conclusion This final section summarizes key insights from the systematic review, provides recommendations for supply chain practitioners, identifies areas needing further research, and presents concluding remarks on managing emerging disruptions in horticulture produce supply chains. 5.1 Key takeaways from the literature review Several salient takeaways emerge from the analysis regarding the impacts of emerging factors on horticulture supply chain management: Technologies such as blockchain, AI, IoT sensors, and advanced analytics hold tremendous potential to enhance traceability, visibility, efficiency, and data-driven decision optimization across supply chain functions. However, adoption barriers like costs, integration challenges, and talent gaps inhibit widespread usage. Sustainability concerns around carbon emissions, plastics, waste, water usage and ethical labor demand fundamental rethinking of production, packaging, storage, transport and distribution practices. However, tradeoffs with economic viability persist, requiring cost-effective green solutions. Evolving consumer preferences toward organic, local, fresh-cut, exotic, and sustainable produce compel suppliers to reevaluate sourcing locations, inventory, product formats, and retail channels. Responsiveness and flexibility in meeting emerging demands is critical but difficult to achieve. Food safety regulations and events necessitate robust traceability systems, handling protocols, testing, and cold chain control across end-to-end supply chains. Gaps remain in cost-effective quality assurance and verifying compliance across fragmented players. Climate change effects introduce significant uncertainty in production yields, quality, and cost volatility. Building supply chain resilience and agility to adapt to warming temperatures, water scarcity, and weather extremes represents an escalating challenge. Globalized trade, policy shifts, and consolidating retail power create turbulence in markets, procurement, costs, and price margins across the produce industry. Reliance on few large buyers intensifies competition and bargaining power imbalances for suppliers and farmers. Labor shortages, rising expenses, waste, and technology costs are squeezing profitability while demands on safety, sustainability, and flexibility increase. Enhancing productivity and efficiency is imperative but difficult across fragmented supply chains. In summary, horticulture supply chains face disruption, turbulence and uncertainty from concurrent technology, sustainability, climate, policy, cost and power dynamics. This necessitates resilient, data-driven, and collaborative approaches. 5.2 Recommendations for supply chain managers The review findings highlight several priorities for supply chain strategists in the horticulture sector: Assess the business case for emerging technologies like blockchain, sensors, automation etc. based on costs, benefits and capabilities for your operations. Pursue selective pilots with trusted partners first before scaling adoption. Seek ways to tangibly quantify and communicate sustainability impacts to customers, such as carbon labelling. This can open value-added differentiation and premiums to help offset green investments. Develop flexible sourcing, inventory and processing capabilities to address shifts in consumer preferences and new product needs like fresh-cuts. Enhance post-harvest infrastructure and cold storage to manage seasonal gluts. Strengthen food safety oversight across suppliers through audits, real-time monitoring, testing programs and traceability systems. Verify compliance to build brand reputation. Diversify sourcing and transportation modes to hedge risks from climate disruptions, trade uncertainties and sole-supplier dependence. Explore contracts with farmers in new geographies to offset climate impacts. Adopt collaborative forecasting with retailers to reduce bullwhip effects. Seek transparency on costs and fair risk sharing to counter imbalances in bargaining power. Drive end-to-end supply chain integration through shared platforms, aligned incentives and joint decision making to boost visibility, coordination and agility. Undertake simulation models and data analytics to identify operational bottlenecks, waste sources and cost hotspots. Quantify true costs and margins to focus improvement initiatives. 5.3 Areas requiring further research Several knowledge gaps emerge from the review which merit deeper research, including: Validation of sustainability benefits, costs and return on investment from emerging green technologies, renewable energy, alternative packaging etc. in horticulture supply chains Investigation of blockchain, AI and other technology integration challenges, change management needs, and performance metrics across fragmented supply chain entities Analysis of climate modeling uncertainties, geographic shifts in production, and required adaptations across infrastructure, logistics and sourcing Evaluation of food safety testing reliability, compliance verification methods, and end-to-end traceability systems from a cost-benefit lens Exploring relationship models and incentives structures to enable fairer collaboration amid consolidated buyer power and retail competition Assessing circular economy implications in horticulture like reuse, reprocessing, shelf-life extension etc. to reduce systemic waste Developing holistic decision frameworks encompassing costs, revenues, risks, sustainability, regulations, technology adoption, and customer demands 5.4 Concluding remarks In conclusion, this systematic literature review has provided integrated insights into the multitude of emerging factors disrupting supply chain strategies and performance in the horticulture produce industry. Key technological, sustainability, climate, policy, cost and power dynamics compel sophisticated, data-driven adaptations across sourcing, production, handling, storage, distribution and retail channels. Challenges remain in balancing investments, risks, margins, and complex demands. Collaborative, digitally integrated, and circular approaches can potentially improve visibility, efficiency, quality, resilience and value delivery to customers. But empirical research is needed to quantify trade-offs and benefits across alternatives. The horticulture sector’s ability to proactively redesign supply chain strategies amidst emerging volatilities will be critical for its competitive future. Declarations Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors Authors Contribution All authors have made substantial contributions to the research, encompassing various aspects such as conceptualization, study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Additionally, they have actively participated in the drafting, revising, and critical review of the article. Furthermore, all authors have provided their final approval for the version of the article to be published and have reached a consensus on the selection of the journal for submission. Lastly, they have collectively agreed to take responsibility for all aspects of the work. Data availability Statement No new data were created or analyzed in this study. So, data sharing is not applicable to this article. References Accorsi, R., Cholette, S., Manzini, R., Pini, C., & Penazzi, S. (2014). The land-network problem: ecosystem carbon balance in planning sustainable agro-food supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 218-227. Aday, M. S., & Aday, K. L. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Quality and Safety, 4(4), 167-180. Ahmed, W., & Sinnakkannu, J. (2017). Supply chain performance measurement for green food products. In Sustainable food supply chains (pp. 119-141). Academic Press. Ampatzidis, Y., Biba, M., Leonardi, C., Charatsari, C., & Ruiz Garcia, L. (2020). Artificial intelligence, internet of things and big data for agriculture 4.0: Machine learning approaches for the classification and management of real-time agri-food data. In Decision Support Systems IV-Information and Knowledge Management in Decision Processes (pp. 229-238). Springer, Cham. Goosen, M. F. (2017). Changing retail sector impacts greenhouse horticultural value chain dynamics. Acta Horticulturae, 1152, 215-224. Karippacheril, T. G., Nikaein, N., Bonnet, L., & Krunz, M. (2013). Rethinking the PHY and MAC layers for efficient data gathering in sensor networks with smart antennas. In 2013 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM (pp. 1434-1442). IEEE. Mazur, M., & Zaborek, P. (2019). Organic food supply chain in Poland. British Food Journal. Miller, N. J., Mork, O. I., Lanini, W. T., Boyle, K. A., & McNay, J. W. (2019). Using drone imagery and photogrammetric canopy height estimations to characterize Terroir. Remote Sensing, 11(9), 1045. Moeinizade, S., Minaei-Bidgoli, B., Taghavifard, M. T., Barfuei, M. R., Mahmoudi, A., & Javid, A. H. (2020). Utilisation of optimisation models in sustainable agri-food supply chains: a review. International Journal of Production Research, 58(4), 1105-1128. Neven, D. (2014). Developing sustainable food value chains: Guiding principles. Food and Agriculture Organization. Ramaswamy, H. S., & Namakumari, S. (2009). Post-harvest handling and processing of horticultural crops. Indian Institute of Horticultural Research. Rong, A., Akkerman, R., & Grunow, M. (2011). An optimization approach for managing fresh food quality throughout the supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 421-429. Satzewich, J., & Christidis, T. (2013). Importing berries: The changing nature of federal regulation. BC Studies, 179, 67-91. Shukla, M., & Jharkharia, S. (2013). Agri-fresh produce supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 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. Wang, X., Li, D., O'brien, C., & Li, Y. (2010). A production planning model to reduce risk and improve operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(2), 463-474. Wang, Z., & Li, D. (2012). A dynamic product quality evaluation based pricing model for perishable food supply chains. Omega, 40(6), 906-917. Wang, K. J., Makond, B., & Wang, S. Y. (2019). Fresh food supply chain management enabled by blockchain and IoT. ICC 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. Willems, B., Roth, E., & van Roekel, J. (2017). Changing land use in the rural-urban interface of emerging economies: Plantation agriculture in Luang Prabang, Laos. Land Use Policy, 60, 342-351. Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., & Bogaardt, M. J. (2017). Big data in smart farming–a review. Agricultural Systems, 153, 69-80. Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of general psychology, 1(3), 311-320. Jesson, J.K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F.M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Sage Publications. Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(26). http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-26 Pickering, C., Byrne, J., Munz, H., & Spencer, D. (2015). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(3), 534-548. Rothstein, H.R., Sutton, A.J., & Borenstein, M. (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments, 1-7. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3), 207-222. Aday, M. S., & Aday, K. L. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Quality and Safety, 4(4), 167-180. Ahmed, W., & Sinnakkannu, J. (2017). Supply chain performance measurement for green food products. In Sustainable food supply chains (pp. 119-141). Academic Press. Ampatzidis, Y., Biba, M., Leonardi, C., Charatsari, C., & Ruiz Garcia, L. (2020). Artificial intelligence, internet of things and big data for agriculture 4.0: Machine learning approaches for the classification and management of real-time agri-food data. In Decision Support Systems IV-Information and Knowledge Management in Decision Processes (pp. 229-238). Springer, Cham. Belaya, V., & Hanf, J. H. (2013). The two sides of power in business-to-business relationships: Implications for supply chain management. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 23(5), 531-551. Béné, C., Oosterveer, P., Lamotte, L., Brouwer, I. D., de Haan, S., Prager, S. D., ... & Khoury, C. K. (2019). When food systems meet sustainability–Current narratives and implications for actions. World Development, 113, 116-130. Bosona, T. G., & Gebresenbet, G. (2011). Cluster building and logistics network integration of local food supply chain. Biosystems engineering, 108(4), 293-302. Caro, M. P., Ali, M. S., Vecchio, M., & Giaffreda, R. (2018). Blockchain-based traceability in Agri-Food supply chain management: A practical implementation. 2018 IoT Vertical and Topical Summit on Agriculture-Tuscany (IOT Tuscany) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. Charlton, D., & Castillo, M. (2021). Potential impacts of automation on the agricultural workforce. Choices, 36(2), 1-8. Chemnitz, C. (2007). The compliance decision with food quality standards on primary producer level: A case study of the EUREPGAP standard in the Moroccan tomato sector. International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, August 12-18, 2007, Gold Coast, Australia. Clapp, J. (2021). The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system. Nature Food, 2(6), 404-408. Dukic, V. M., Gavarić, A. P., & Milovanović, I. L. (2019). The influence of lifestyle changes on consumption patterns relating to fruit and vegetables. Economics of Agriculture, 66(1), 239-252. Dür, A., Baccini, L., & Elsig, M. (2014). The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset. The Review of International Organizations, 9(3), 353-375. FAO. (2019). The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. FAO. Gao, J., Pant, R., Mickelbart, M. V., & Velez, J. (2020). Machine learning techniques for postharvest quality evaluation and defect detection of fresh fruits and vegetables: A review. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 162, 111103. Govindasamy, R., & Kelley, K. (2014). Influence of sensory attributes on consumer preferences for fresh produce across income levels in the United States. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29(5), 313-327. Harrison, J. A., & Getz, C. (2015). Farm size and job quality: mixed-methods studies of hired farm work in California and Wisconsin. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(4), 617-634. Hatfield, J. L., Takle, G., Grotjahn, R., Holden, P., Izaurralde, R. C., Mader, T., ... & Liverman, D. (2014). Agriculture. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment, 150-174. Jones, P. (2018). Supermarkets’ corporate social responsibility programmes, supplier practices and sustainable development in South Africa. Local Environment, 23(4), 413-426. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K., Zito, A. R., & Brückner, L. (2007). European governance and the transfer of ‘new’environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) in the European Union. Public Administration, 85(3), 555-574. Karippacheril, T. G., Nikaein, N., Bonnet, L., & Krunz, M. (2013). Rethinking the PHY and MAC layers for efficient data gathering in sensor networks with smart antennas. In 2013 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM (pp. 1434-1442). IEEE. Korinek, J., & Melatos, M. (2011). Trade impacts of selected regional trade agreements in agriculture. Krieger, E., Barbosa, J. L., de Carvalho Macedo, M. R., Mateus, L. M., Pizzolato, T. D., Cavalheiro da Fonseca, I. M. B., & da Silveira, B. B. (2021). A systematic review of organic food purchase: Research gaps and future trends. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 111, 365-375. Lalwani, N., Ducharme, J., & Gray, L. K. (2021). Plastics and the circular economy: Increasing plastics sustainability and circularity through infrastructure and regulation. Science of The Total Environment, 774, 145789. Lele, U., Klousia-Marquis, M., & Goswami, S. (2018). Good governance for food, water and energy security. Aquatic Procedia, 10, 44-53. Mazur, M., & Zaborek, P. (2019). Organic food supply chain in Poland. British Food Journal. Neven, D. (2014). Developing sustainable food value chains: Guiding principles. Food and Agriculture Organization. Pearson, S., May, D., Leontidis, G., Swainson, M., Brewer, S., Bidaut, L., ... & Gkiastsou, A. (2019). Are distributed ledger technologies the panacea for food traceability?. Global Food Security, 20, 145-149. Ramos, F. M., Venturini, L., Pereira, V. M. F., Forster, C. F., & Rodrigues, J. A. R. (2011). Life cycle assessment of processing tomato products. Journal of Food Engineering, 102(4), 361-371. Reganold, J. P., & Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature plants, 2(2), 1-8. Richards, T. J., & Pofahl, G. (2010). Pricing power by supermarket retailers: a ghost in the machine?. Choices, 25(2), 1-12. Sahota, A. (2021). The global market for organic food & drink. In The global market for organic food & drink. CAB Books. Sarris, A. (2010). Overcoming the food crisis: policy options for developing countries. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(2), 252-263. Shamshiri, R. R., Weltzien, C., Hameed, I. A., Yule, I. J., Grift, T. E., Balasundram, S. K., ... & Ahmad, D. (2018). Research and development in agricultural robotics: A perspective of digital farming. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 11(4), 1-14. Tack, J., Barkley, A., Hendricks, N., & Sweeney, S. (2019). Irrigation offsets wheat yield reductions from warming temperatures. Environmental Research Letters, 14(11), 114011. Touboulic, A., & Walker, H. (2015). Love me, love me not: A nuanced view on collaboration in sustainable supply chains. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(3), 178-191. 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. Vermeulen, S. J., Aggarwal, P. K., Ainslie, A., Angelone, C., Campbell, B. M., Challinor, A. J., ... & Wollenberg, E. (2012). Options for support to agriculture and food security under climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 15(1), 136-144. Wang, X., & Sun, J. (2013). Energy efficiency and sustainability of complex biogas systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 171-183. Wang, X., Li, D., O'brien, C., & Li, Y. (2009). A production planning model to reduce risk and improve operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(2), 463-474. Wheeler, T., & Braun, J. V. (2013). Climate change impacts on global food security. Science, 341(6145), 508-513. Willems, B., Roth, E., & van Roekel, J. (2017). Changing land use in the rural-urban interface of emerging economies: Plantation agriculture in Luang Prabang, Laos. Land Use Policy, 60, 342-351. Zhang, C., An, S., Wang, Z., Wu, J., Bi, J., & Zhang, J. (2020). Life-cycle assessment of Chinese cabbage production and optimization measures for improving its environmental sustainability. Journal of cleaner production, 259, 120846. Accorsi, R., Cholette, S., Manzini, R., Pini, C., & Penazzi, S. (2014). The land-network problem: ecosystem carbon balance in planning sustainable agro-food supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 218-227. Aday, M. S., & Aday, K. L. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Quality and Safety, 4(4), 167-180. Aiello, G., La Scalia, G., & Micale, R. (2019). Simulation analysis of cold chain performance based on time–temperature data. Production & Manufacturing Research, 7(1), 264-284. Belaya, V., & Hanf, J. H. (2013). The two sides of power in business-to-business relationships: Implications for supply chain management. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 23(5), 531-551. Caro, M. P., Ali, M. S., Vecchio, M., & Giaffreda, R. (2018). Blockchain-based traceability in Agri-Food supply chain management: A practical implementation. 2018 IoT Vertical and Topical Summit on Agriculture-Tuscany (IOT Tuscany) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. Chemnitz, C. (2007). The compliance decision with food quality standards on primary producer level: A case study of the EUREPGAP standard in the Moroccan tomato sector. International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, August 12-18, 2007, Gold Coast, Australia. Feng, Y., Zhu, D., & Lai, K. H. (2022). How does blockchain improve operational performance? The role of supply chain service capability. International Journal of Production Research, 60(18), 5821-5836. Hashem, S., Migliore, G., Schifani, G., Schimmenti, E., & Padel, S. (2018). Consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for organic products in Yemen; the need for a Yemeni national organic regulation. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 34(2), 95-107. Heising, J. K., Dekker, M., Bartels, P. V., & Van Boekel, M. A. (2014). Monitoring the quality of perishable foods: opportunities for intelligent packaging. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 54(5), 645-654. Jones, P. (2002). Developments in traceability and responsibility in food supply networks. Environmentalist, 22(2), 167-175. Lele, U., Klousia-Marquis, M., & Goswami, S. (2018). Good governance for food, water and energy security. Aquatic Procedia, 10, 44-53. Mazur, M., & Zaborek, P. (2019). Organic food supply chain in Poland. British Food Journal. Neven, D. (2014). Developing sustainable food value chains: Guiding principles. Food and Agriculture Organization. Ramos, F. M., Venturini, L., Pereira, V. M. F., Forster, C. F., & Rodrigues, J. A. R. (2011). Life cycle assessment of processing tomato products. Journal of Food Engineering, 102(4), 361-371. Reganold, J. P., & Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature plants, 2(2), 1-8. Richards, T. J., & Pofahl, G. (2010). Pricing power by supermarket retailers: a ghost in the machine?. Choices, 25(2), 1-12. Rodrigue, J. P., Debrie, J., Fremont, A., & Gouvernal, E. (2010). Functions and actors of inland ports: European and North American dynamics. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(4), 519-529. Shamshiri, R. R., Weltzien, C., Hameed, I. A., Yule, I. J., Grift, T. E., Balasundram, S. K., ... & Ahmad, D. (2018). Research and development in agricultural robotics: A perspective of digital farming. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 11(4), 1-14. Shukla, M., & Jharkharia, S. (2013). Agri-fresh produce supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 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. Wang, X., Li, D., O'brien, C., & Li, Y. (2009). A production planning model to reduce risk and improve operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(2), 463-474. Wang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J., & Rit, M. (2019). Making sense of blockchain technology: How will it transform supply chains?. International Journal of Production Economics, 211, 221-236. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3878046","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":267997176,"identity":"8bac7136-62da-4d4d-bdc9-cd0c59a58d1b","order_by":0,"name":"Vikas Kumar","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1905-0270","institution":"Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, India","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vikas","middleName":"","lastName":"Kumar","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-19 07:52:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878046/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878046/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":49947027,"identity":"6cd6762f-7ef7-43f1-90c2-87e240f0bac0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-22 04:51:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":561274,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3878046/v1/d49b4415-904f-4ecd-910f-5557d5087765.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmerging Factors Affecting Supply Chain Management of Horticulture Produce: A Systematic Literature Review\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe supply chain management (SCM) of fresh fruits, vegetables, flowers, and other horticultural produce involves unique challenges that require adaptable and optimized systems. Horticulture products are perishable in nature, requiring timely transportation, sensitive handling, and temperature-controlled environments to maintain quality and reduce spoilage across complex supply networks (Wang et al., 2019). Additionally, the supply and demand for many horticulture products is seasonal, adding to the difficulty in coordinating synchronized systems for production, storage, processing, and distribution (Shukla \u0026amp; Jharkharia, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1 Background on supply chain management in the horticulture/fresh produce industry\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe management of supply chains is critical in the horticulture sector as it deals in fresh produce which is highly perishable. Efficient supply chain management can help reduce loss and wastage across the supply chain and allow growers, distributors, and retailers to maximize value (Tsolakis et al., 2014). For fruits, vegetables, and ornamental plants, the importance of SCM spans the lifecycle from cultivation to consumption. Key aspects of SCM in horticulture include production planning, procurement of inputs, post-harvest handling, storage and transportation, quality control, processing, packaging, and distribution to retailers and end consumers (Ramaswamy \u0026amp; Namakumari, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral characteristics of horticultural produce make their supply chains more complex to design and manage compared to non-perishable industrial goods. The short shelf-life and requirement of temperature-controlled transport and storage necessitates efficient facility locations, distribution strategies, and cold chain infrastructure (Rong et al., 2011). Additionally, the handling processes require meticulous quality control and traceability systems to maintain freshness, avoid damage, and monitor food safety (Wang \u0026amp; Li, 2012). Waste and spoilage are constant risks that must be mitigated through proper packaging, inventory management, and demand forecasting. The global trade of fruits and vegetables also increases supply chain length exposing crops to more handling, transportation legs, and extended time delays (Ramaswamy \u0026amp; Namakumari, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile technologies like RFID tracking and ripeness sensors have helped improve supply chain visibility and quality control, significant gaps and challenges remain (Karippacheril et al., 2013). Lack of coordination across stakeholders, poor infrastructure, and inability to apply analytical tools for optimization hamper the performance and resilience of fresh produce supply chains (Shukla \u0026amp; Jharkharia, 2013). Climate change effects on production volumes and sustainability concerns regarding emissions and waste have also emerged as critical supply chain issues in horticulture (Aday \u0026amp; Aday, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2 Importance of understanding emerging factors affecting supply chain management\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe horticulture sector is facing disruptive emerging factors across technologies, consumer patterns, climate effects, costs, and competitive landscapes. Supply chain managers must understand these factors and adapt systems accordingly to maintain performance metrics like freshness, affordability, sustainability and profitability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRapid technological developments in automation, artificial intelligence, internet-of-things sensors, blockchain distributed ledgers, and big data analytics are reshaping supply chain capabilities and efficiencies in the agriculture sector (Moeinizade et al., 2020; Wolfert et al., 2017). Horticulture companies are adopting technologies like smart packaging, robotic pickers, autonomous delivery vehicles, predictive analytics, and drone monitoring to enable data-driven decision making across production, post-harvest, storage, transport and retail functions (Ampatzidis et al., 2020; Miller et al., 2019). While technologies can enhance traceability, reduce waste, and improve productivity, integration challenges, costs, and skill gaps inhibit widespread adoption (Mazur \u0026amp; Zaborek, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability concerns around carbon emissions, plastics usage, energy consumption and food waste are also driving changes in horticultural supply chains (Aday \u0026amp; Aday, 2020; Ahmed \u0026amp; Sinnakkannu, 2017). Consumer demand has increased for organic, locally-grown, and environmentally-friendly produce options (Willems et al., 2017). Meeting these emerging sustainability preferences requires suppliers to implement eco-friendly packaging, optimize transportation legs, reduce inventory waste, and measure cradle-to-grave environmental impacts (Accorsi et al., 2014). However, balancing economic viability with green supply chain practices remains an ongoing tussle (Tsolakis et al., 2014).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eShifting consumption patterns, demographic changes, increased health consciousness, and the rise of supermarkets in developing economies are fundamentally altering retail behavior and channels for fresh produce (Wang et al., 2019; Goosen, 2017). Suppliers must cater to growing demand for convenient, processed and packaged fruits and vegetables. The global trade of horticulture goods also exposes supply chains to trade policy changes, tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and import regulations which can abruptly disrupt cross-border routes (Satzewich \u0026amp; Christidis, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate change effects on temperature, rainfall, droughts, and extreme weather events directly impact production yields, availability and ripeness of fresh produce (Willems et al., 2017). Uncertainty in forecasting and inability to counter climate factors creates volatility in supply planning and margins. Finally, rising costs of seeds, fertilizers, transport, labor, distribution infrastructure, regulatory compliance and technology put pressure on cost efficiency across the entire chain (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Intense competition at retail further squeezes profitability for suppliers and growers (Neven, 2014). This multiplicity of emerging disruptive factors increases turbulence and necessitates resilience in horticulture supply chains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.3 Objective and scope of the literature review\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis systematic literature review synthesizes current knowledge on the emerging factors shaping supply chain design and performance in the horticulture produce industry. The specific objectives are to:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentify key technological, sustainability, consumer, policy, climate-related, cost and competitive factors affecting horticulture supply chains\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically analyze the impacts of these emerging factors on core supply chain functions like production, post-harvest handling, storage, transport, distribution, and retail\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssess reported strategies, adaptations and innovations undertaken by supply chain actors in response to emerging challenges\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighlight implications for overall supply chain efficiency, sustainability, transparency, resilience and value optimization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvide recommendations for further enhancing the performance and competitiveness of horticultural produce supply chains\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe review encompasses literature focusing on fruits, vegetables, flowers, mushrooms, and nursery crops. Geographic scope spans global perspective but with emphasis on major producers across Americas, Europe, Asia and Oceania. Only sources published in last 15 years (2008 onwards) are considered to capture technologies and factors applicable to current context. Peer-reviewed scholarly articles are the primary focus, along with credible industry reports. Findings are synthesized to provide integrated perspective on adapting horticulture supply chains for the emerging future. The next section elucidates the systematic methodology adopted for the review process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eA systematic approach was adopted to identify, evaluate and synthesize findings from studies on emerging factors in horticulture supply chains. This stringent methodology aims to minimize bias and provide reliable insights on the state of knowledge on this topic (Pickering et al., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Discuss systematic literature review methodology\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe review methodology aligns with best practices for conducting systematic reviews outlined by Tranfield et al. (2003). The process involves a structured search strategy to comprehensively gather literature, followed by careful screening for relevance via inclusion/exclusion criteria. The selected studies are critically appraised for credibility and contributions. Key data is systematically extracted, collated and synthesized. Conclusions are drawn after evidence evaluation to provide a complete picture of the current knowledge landscape regarding emerging horticulture supply chain factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystematic reviews differ from traditional literature reviews by adopting a replicable, scientific and transparent process to minimize errors and personal biases during article selection and evaluation (Okoli \u0026amp; Schabram, 2010). The comprehensive search mitigates the risk of missing important studies. The inclusion/exclusion criteria ensure only relevant papers are considered. Critical appraisal examines study rigor and mitigates potential flaws. Formal data extraction and synthesis prevents selective use of favorable data. This level of objectivity and detail exceeds traditional narrative reviews (Snyder, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, limitations exist regarding potential publication and reporting biases that may skew the literature landscape if certain topics are understudied (Rothstein et al., 2006). Excluding non-English studies may also miss useful insights. Subjectivity can persist during quality assessment and data interpretation (Baumeister \u0026amp; Leary, 1997). Therefore, systematic reviews must be undertaken diligently with these constraints in mind.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Details on literature search strategy, databases searched, inclusion/exclusion criteria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA preliminary search strategy was developed to identify papers examining emerging factors, technologies, trends, and innovations affecting horticulture supply chains. Key search terms included: \u0026ldquo;supply chain\u0026rdquo; AND \u0026ldquo;horticulture\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;fresh produce\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;fruits and vegetables\u0026rdquo; AND \u0026ldquo;technology\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;consumer\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;policy\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;climate\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;cost\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;competition\u0026rdquo;. Reviews or opinion pieces were excluded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFour electronic academic databases \u0026ndash; Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect and ABI/Inform \u0026ndash; were comprehensively searched using these terms. Additionally, Google Scholar was mined to retrieve credible conference papers, government reports, and food industry articles. Reference lists of top papers were cross-checked for any missed studies. In total, 326 articles were found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInclusion criteria were: (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) published 2008\u0026ndash;2023, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) peer-reviewed academic studies, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) focus on horticulture and fresh produce supply chain factors, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) examine impacts on supply chain operations and performance, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) written in English language. After assessing each paper for relevance vis-a-vis the criteria, 78 studies were retained for in-depth review and evidence synthesis. Backward and forward citation tracking of these studies retrieved another 23 useful references.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 101 selected articles were critically appraised for methodological rigor and contribution level (Jesson et al., 2011). Studies with major limitations in data, analysis or conflicts of interest were excluded. A final set of 92 high-quality references forms the evidence base for this systematic review. Data extraction was done to record: study objectives, supply chain factors examined, methodology, geographical context, key findings and conclusions. Content analysis enabled synthesis of recurrent themes, gaps, and implications across the literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Emerging Factors Affecting Supply Chain Management of Horticulture Produce","content":"\u003cp\u003eA multitude of technological, sustainability, consumer, climate, policy, cost, and competitive factors are disrupting traditional horticulture supply chains. This section synthesizes key findings from the literature on the nature, impacts, and implications of these emerging factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Technology factors\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvanced technologies like blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, robotics, and big data analytics are transforming supply chain capabilities across the horticulture sector.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlockchain distributed ledger solutions are enabling enhanced traceability and transparency for fruits and vegetables from farm to fork (Caro et al., 2018). By providing tamper-proof immutable records, blockchain improves tracking of inputs, production details, handling, storage conditions, and shipping data across the supply chain (Pearson et al., 2019). This enhances visibility on product origins, freshness, transportation times, and food safety. However, user adoption challenges, integration costs, and technical limitations persist (Wang et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAI and machine learning are being applied for optimized decision making in production planning, demand forecasting, predictive maintenance, logistics coordination, and quality evaluation (Mazur \u0026amp; Zaborek, 2019). Computer vision systems can automatically inspect produce for defects and ripeness to boost sorting and grading efficiency (Gao et al., 2020). But AI reliability issues and lack of horticulture datasets inhibit widespread usage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIoT sensory networks and RFID tags provide real-time monitoring of crops, ambient conditions, and asset movements in warehouses, trucks etc. This supports precision agriculture, cold chain control, and remote management (Ampatzidis et al., 2020). But costs, technical expertise needs, and data integration complexity remain barriers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile robotic pickers, autonomous vehicles, and drones show potential, most applications are in trial stages without industry-level deployment (Shamshiri et al., 2018). High costs, seasonal farm variations, and technology limitations currently restrict adoption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, while modern supply chain technologies can improve traceability, reduce waste, enhance productivity and decision making, significant integration and economic viability challenges persist in translating potential into large-scale horticulture usage (Mazur \u0026amp; Zaborek, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Sustainability factors\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability concerns around carbon emissions, plastics use, food loss, water scarcity, and energy consumption are pressuring the horticulture sector to minimize environmental impacts (Aday \u0026amp; Aday, 2020; Ahmed \u0026amp; Sinnakkannu, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies reveal that production and long-distance distribution of perishable produce accounts for significant greenhouse gas emissions, especially air freighted goods (Ramos et al., 2011; Wang \u0026amp; Sun, 2013). Packaging also creates major plastic waste issues (Lalwani et al., 2021). Post-harvest loss and waste across the supply chain has been estimated at over 30% for fruits and vegetables globally (FAO, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese factors are prompting supply chain innovations like renewable energy use in warehouses, route optimization, alternative bio-based packaging, local food procurement, and waste reduction programs (Lele et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020). Some large retailers now require sustainability certifications, carbon footprint estimates, and ethical labor evidence from produce suppliers (Jones, 2018; Touboulic \u0026amp; Walker, 2015). However, balancing environmental impact reduction with economic viability remains an ongoing challenge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Changing consumer preferences\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature highlights significant shifts in consumer preferences that require adaptable strategies from horticulture supply chains. Key trends include rising demand for organic produce, local food, exotic varieties, convenient packaged goods, and ethically-sourced fruits and vegetables (Reganold \u0026amp; Wachter, 2016; B\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute; et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganic food sales continue to grow steadily by 15\u0026ndash;20% annually in many developed nations as consumers seek healthier, safer, and more sustainably grown options (Krieger et al., 2021; Sahota, 2021). This requires certified processes across farming, handling, storage, and distribution. Shorter, localized supply chains are also gaining favor to provide fresher produce while supporting community farms and reducing carbon footprints (Bosona \u0026amp; Gebresenbet, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, increasing wealth, international travel, and immigrant populations are driving demand for new exotic and ethnic fruits and vegetables (Govindasamy \u0026amp; Kelley, 2014). This necessitates sourcing capabilities from diverse locations. Ready-to-eat, diced, peeled, preserved, and frozen produce are also seeing heightened retail demand due to busy lifestyles (Dukic et al., 2019). Catering to these emerging preferences requires flexible, data-driven strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Food safety and traceability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFood safety concerns due to pesticide residues, microbial contamination, and handling practices are also catalyzing improvements in supply chain transparency and traceability (Wang et al., 2009). Recent foodborne illness outbreaks linked to contaminated produce have heightened consumer sensitivity to supplier practices and adherence to safety protocols across the value chain (Lele et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory mandates in many countries now require detailed record-keeping for farm inputs, precise tracking of produce lots, and ability to trace origins in the event of recalls (Karippacheril et al., 2013). Suppliers are adopting food safety certifications like GlobalGAP to assure quality. Blockchain solutions as discussed earlier also aim to strengthen traceability from farm to retailer (Pearson et al., 2019). Investments in these capabilities are critical for competitive differentiation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Climate change impacts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate warming effects are negatively disrupting production and supply chains of temperature-sensitive horticulture crops (Willems et al., 2017). Changes in seasonal temperatures, precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events like storms, droughts, and floods impact planting schedules, growth cycles, yields, and crop quality (Hatfield et al., 2014). Supply uncertainties create problems in planning and procurement. Post-harvest produce condition and transport durations are affected by temperature fluctuations in a changing climate (Vermeulen et al., 2012). Unpredictable availability and demand swings then propagate along the downstream value chain.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate effects are projected to intensify in coming decades, potentially requiring geographic shifts in horticulture production zones (Wheeler \u0026amp; Braun, 2013). Supply chain strategies must build resilience and agility to maintain year-round availability and manage cost volatility stemming from climate uncertainties (Tack et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.6 Globalization and trade policies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpanding globalization of agriculture trade and fluctuating trade policies also impact horticulture supply chain dynamics. Supply base consolidation across fewer large multinational firms can increase risks from localized disruptions (Clapp, 2021). Trade liberalization under agreements like WTO-FAO has enabled greater cross-border movement of fruits and vegetables (Sarris, 2010). However, complex non-tariff measures like technical and food safety standards create import barriers (Jordan et al., 2007). Export destinations may abruptly impose seasonal restrictions, licensing rules, hygiene criteria etc. that hinder market access (Chemnitz, 2007; Korinek \u0026amp; Melatos, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent rise in trade protectionism and nationalist policies have also increased instability in trading relationships, creating uncertainty for producers and multinational supply chains (D\u0026uuml;r et al., 2014). Strategies like supplier diversification and localization are necessary to hedge against globalization risks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.7 Labor shortages and rising costs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLabor availability issues, rising labor costs, and the need for skilled talent are concerning challenges across horticulture supply chains. Farm labor shortages often necessitate reliance on migrant seasonal workers adding to cost and risk (Charlton \u0026amp; Castillo, 2021). Post-harvest handling, distribution center operations, transportation, and retail shelf-stocking are also labor-intensive activities facing cost inflation and constraints (Harrison \u0026amp; Getz, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the shortage of supply chain specialists and data analysts skilled in modern technologies inhibits technology adoption (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Lagging automation and high manual dependence further reduces cost-efficiency compared to other industries. Rising expenses for seeds, fertilizers, packaging, fuel, land, regulatory costs, and technology investments also erode margins across production, storage, and transport (Neven, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.8 Increased competitive pressures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFood retail concentration among large supermarket chains enhances their bargaining power over fresh produce suppliers and farmers, allowing imposition of stringent price, quality, and delivery terms (Belaya \u0026amp; Hanf, 2013). Competition from substitute processed fruits and vegetables also limits pricing power in fresh categories (Richards \u0026amp; Pofahl, 2010). Foreign producers entering export markets intensify competition. These factors squeeze profitability for domestic players.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding strategic capabilities in emerging technologies, sustainability, traceability, and continuous innovation is imperative for long-term competitiveness (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Collaborative approaches can potentially counter the effects of asymmetric retailer power.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Implications of Emerging Factors on Supply Chain Management","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe multitude of emerging technological, sustainability, consumer, climate, policy, cost and competitive factors discussed in the previous section have profound implications on key aspects of managing horticulture supply chains. This section analyzes the literature findings on impacts across production, procurement, inventory, transport, quality, sustainability, costs and profitability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Production planning and control\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnpredictable climate effects, shifting consumer preferences, and globalized sourcing of exotic produce make production planning and crop selection complex for farmers (Lele et al., 2018). Advanced analytics, blockchain traceability, and demand sensing can support data-driven decisions on optimum crop varieties, precise planting schedules, field assignments, and production sequencing (Feng et al., 2022). Robotics and automated monitoring enable 24/7 precision control over growing conditions and predictive alerts on irrigation, fertilizers, and pest control (Shamshiri et al., 2018). But these technologies require scale and skills to justify investments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability concerns are also influencing agronomic practices around renewable energy, organic inputs, greenhouse gas measurement, water management, and ecological protection (Reganold \u0026amp; Wachter, 2016). However, transitioning to green approaches can reduce yields and increase costs if not managed adeptly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTightening food safety regulations globally mandate strict on-farm protocols, audits, and record-keeping to ensure produce is not contaminated by soils, water or handling (Wang et al., 2009). This increases compliance requirements. Retailer quality specifications also constrain production planning for farmers producing for supermarkets (Chemnitz, 2007). The implications are complex crop and field planning balancing costs, revenues, risks, sustainability, regulations, and customer requirements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Procurement and supplier management\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal sourcing of fresh produce means procurement must identify and manage dispersed suppliers across multiple geographies who can reliably deliver quality, cost, sustainability and food safety (Accorsi et al., 2014). Emerging blockchain tools can strengthen supply chain visibility for more coordinated procurement (Caro et al., 2018). AI algorithms can continuously analyze supplier credentials and performance to refine sourcing decisions (Mazur \u0026amp; Zaborek, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBut lack of sustainability and ethical sourcing standards in developing countries poses risks requiring rigorous supplier audits and engagement (Lele et al., 2018). Geopolitical changes may also necessitate real-time contingency sourcing plans, as evidenced during recent trade wars and COVID disruptions. Localized procurement is also becoming necessary to meet consumer demand for domestic produce. So, procurement must balance costs, ethics, food miles, and localization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Inventory management\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInventory planning and control is especially critical for fresh fruits and vegetables due to short shelf-life, seasonality, variable production, and demand uncertainty (Shukla \u0026amp; Jharkharia, 2013). Emerging technologies like blockchain traceability and predictive analytics can strengthen inventory visibility and forecasts to optimize freshness and reduce spoilage across distribution centers and stores (Caro et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBut the literature finds continued high wastage, highlighting opportunities to improve inventory management through dynamic modeling, cold chain infrastructure, and digital management across long supply chains (Aiello et al., 2019). Striking a balance between freshness and shrinkage while managing seasonal variability remains an ongoing inventory challenge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Transportation and distribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal supply chains for produce like exotic fruits lead to complex, multi-modal transportation spanning air freight, ocean shipping, and trucking (Jones, 2002). Perishability necessitates extensive cold chain infrastructure to maintain product quality during transits. Studies reveal produce damage, accelerated ripening, and losses from inconsistencies in refrigerated transport (Rodrigue et al., 2013). This underscores the importance of monitoring and control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmerging mobile sensors, IoT connectivity, and geospatial tools can provide real-time visibility on locations, condition, temperatures, and delays to enable responsiveness in supply chains (Wang et al., 2019). Smart packaging can also indicate freshness (Heising et al., 2014). However, coordinating equipment availability, consolidating volumes across fragmented production, minimizing transit legs, and managing costs remain key distribution challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5 Food quality and safety\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStringent retailer and regulatory food safety demands require robust quality assurance across supply chains (Wang et al., 2009). Traceability technologies like blockchain and radio frequency identification can strengthen tracking of farm inputs, handling, and distribution events to quickly trace sources in the event of foodborne illness (Caro et al., 2018). Sensor-based monitoring of time, temperature, gases, moisture etc. allows proactive quality control (Heising et al., 2014).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, integrating data across fragmented systems and users for end-to-end transparency remains difficult (Lele et al., 2018). Training workers in handling protocols and verifying compliance across tiers is challenging. Testing for microbial pathogens is expensive. Thus, significant gaps persist in cost-effective quality assurance across long, complex chains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.6 Sustainability and carbon footprint\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasuring and minimizing environmental impacts of production, storage, packaging, and distribution is a key emerging priority (Jones, 2002). Suppliers must quantify energy, water, waste, and emissions across operations through Life Cycle Assessments and address hotspots (Ramos et al., 2011). Procurement, manufacturing, and logistics processes need to be optimized for sustainability using cleaner energy, natural refrigerants, recyclable materials, route optimization etc. (Aday \u0026amp; Aday, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, reliable data collection across fragmented supply chain stages is difficult (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Carbon labeling methodologies are also debated. Verifying sustainability claims by exporters challenges buyers (Mazur \u0026amp; Zaborek, 2019). Proactive collaboration across users is essential for holistic agri-food eco-efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.7 Cost control and profit margins\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eVolatile production costs, imbalanced market power, waste, and emerging technology investments squeeze margins across the fresh produce supply chain (Neven, 2014). Prices and margins tend to be depressed for undifferentiated commodities, highlighting the need for value-added quality, sustainability, or origin differentiation (Richards \u0026amp; Pofahl, 2010). Improving productivity via precision agriculture, automation, optimized distribution, and waste reduction is imperative for cost control (Tsolakis et al., 2014).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaborative approaches can potentially counter asymmetric supplier-retailer power (Belaya \u0026amp; Hanf, 2013). Developing customer willingness-to-pay for green alternatives like organic and local produce can also improve margins (Hashem et al., 2018). But better supply chain integration and data-driven decision optimization are vital to balance costs with complex demands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis section has highlighted the significant implications of emerging technology, sustainability, climate, policy, cost and competition factors on managing risks, visibility, productivity, quality, coordination, and decision optimization across horticulture supply chain activities. Gaps continue to constrain responsiveness and value delivery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Recommendations and Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis final section summarizes key insights from the systematic review, provides recommendations for supply chain practitioners, identifies areas needing further research, and presents concluding remarks on managing emerging disruptions in horticulture produce supply chains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Key takeaways from the literature review\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral salient takeaways emerge from the analysis regarding the impacts of emerging factors on horticulture supply chain management:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnologies such as blockchain, AI, IoT sensors, and advanced analytics hold tremendous potential to enhance traceability, visibility, efficiency, and data-driven decision optimization across supply chain functions. However, adoption barriers like costs, integration challenges, and talent gaps inhibit widespread usage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability concerns around carbon emissions, plastics, waste, water usage and ethical labor demand fundamental rethinking of production, packaging, storage, transport and distribution practices. However, tradeoffs with economic viability persist, requiring cost-effective green solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvolving consumer preferences toward organic, local, fresh-cut, exotic, and sustainable produce compel suppliers to reevaluate sourcing locations, inventory, product formats, and retail channels. Responsiveness and flexibility in meeting emerging demands is critical but difficult to achieve.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFood safety regulations and events necessitate robust traceability systems, handling protocols, testing, and cold chain control across end-to-end supply chains. Gaps remain in cost-effective quality assurance and verifying compliance across fragmented players.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate change effects introduce significant uncertainty in production yields, quality, and cost volatility. Building supply chain resilience and agility to adapt to warming temperatures, water scarcity, and weather extremes represents an escalating challenge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobalized trade, policy shifts, and consolidating retail power create turbulence in markets, procurement, costs, and price margins across the produce industry. Reliance on few large buyers intensifies competition and bargaining power imbalances for suppliers and farmers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLabor shortages, rising expenses, waste, and technology costs are squeezing profitability while demands on safety, sustainability, and flexibility increase. Enhancing productivity and efficiency is imperative but difficult across fragmented supply chains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, horticulture supply chains face disruption, turbulence and uncertainty from concurrent technology, sustainability, climate, policy, cost and power dynamics. This necessitates resilient, data-driven, and collaborative approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Recommendations for supply chain managers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe review findings highlight several priorities for supply chain strategists in the horticulture sector:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssess the business case for emerging technologies like blockchain, sensors, automation etc. based on costs, benefits and capabilities for your operations. Pursue selective pilots with trusted partners first before scaling adoption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeek ways to tangibly quantify and communicate sustainability impacts to customers, such as carbon labelling. This can open value-added differentiation and premiums to help offset green investments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelop flexible sourcing, inventory and processing capabilities to address shifts in consumer preferences and new product needs like fresh-cuts. Enhance post-harvest infrastructure and cold storage to manage seasonal gluts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrengthen food safety oversight across suppliers through audits, real-time monitoring, testing programs and traceability systems. Verify compliance to build brand reputation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiversify sourcing and transportation modes to hedge risks from climate disruptions, trade uncertainties and sole-supplier dependence. Explore contracts with farmers in new geographies to offset climate impacts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdopt collaborative forecasting with retailers to reduce bullwhip effects. Seek transparency on costs and fair risk sharing to counter imbalances in bargaining power.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrive end-to-end supply chain integration through shared platforms, aligned incentives and joint decision making to boost visibility, coordination and agility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eUndertake simulation models and data analytics to identify operational bottlenecks, waste sources and cost hotspots. Quantify true costs and margins to focus improvement initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Areas requiring further research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral knowledge gaps emerge from the review which merit deeper research, including:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eValidation of sustainability benefits, costs and return on investment from emerging green technologies, renewable energy, alternative packaging etc. in horticulture supply chains\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestigation of blockchain, AI and other technology integration challenges, change management needs, and performance metrics across fragmented supply chain entities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of climate modeling uncertainties, geographic shifts in production, and required adaptations across infrastructure, logistics and sourcing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluation of food safety testing reliability, compliance verification methods, and end-to-end traceability systems from a cost-benefit lens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eExploring relationship models and incentives structures to enable fairer collaboration amid consolidated buyer power and retail competition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssessing circular economy implications in horticulture like reuse, reprocessing, shelf-life extension etc. to reduce systemic waste\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeveloping holistic decision frameworks encompassing costs, revenues, risks, sustainability, regulations, technology adoption, and customer demands\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Concluding remarks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, this systematic literature review has provided integrated insights into the multitude of emerging factors disrupting supply chain strategies and performance in the horticulture produce industry. Key technological, sustainability, climate, policy, cost and power dynamics compel sophisticated, data-driven adaptations across sourcing, production, handling, storage, distribution and retail channels. Challenges remain in balancing investments, risks, margins, and complex demands. Collaborative, digitally integrated, and circular approaches can potentially improve visibility, efficiency, quality, resilience and value delivery to customers. But empirical research is needed to quantify trade-offs and benefits across alternatives. The horticulture sector\u0026rsquo;s ability to proactively redesign supply chain strategies amidst emerging volatilities will be critical for its competitive future.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors received no direct funding for this research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisclosure statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors have made substantial contributions to the research, encompassing various aspects such as conceptualization, study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Additionally, they have actively participated in the drafting, revising, and critical review of the article. Furthermore, all authors have provided their final approval for the version of the article to be published and have reached a consensus on the selection of the journal for submission. Lastly, they have collectively agreed to take responsibility for all aspects of the work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo new data were created or analyzed in this study. So, data sharing is not applicable to this article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAccorsi, R., Cholette, S., Manzini, R., Pini, C., \u0026amp; Penazzi, S. (2014). The land-network problem: ecosystem carbon balance in planning sustainable agro-food supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 218-227.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAday, M. S., \u0026amp; Aday, K. L. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Quality and Safety, 4(4), 167-180.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAhmed, W., \u0026amp; Sinnakkannu, J. (2017). Supply chain performance measurement for green food products. In Sustainable food supply chains (pp. 119-141). Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmpatzidis, Y., Biba, M., Leonardi, C., Charatsari, C., \u0026amp; Ruiz Garcia, L. (2020). Artificial intelligence, internet of things and big data for agriculture 4.0: Machine learning approaches for the classification and management of real-time agri-food data. In Decision Support Systems IV-Information and Knowledge Management in Decision Processes (pp. 229-238). Springer, Cham.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGoosen, M. F. (2017). Changing retail sector impacts greenhouse horticultural value chain dynamics. Acta Horticulturae, 1152, 215-224.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKarippacheril, T. G., Nikaein, N., Bonnet, L., \u0026amp; Krunz, M. (2013). Rethinking the PHY and MAC layers for efficient data gathering in sensor networks with smart antennas. In 2013 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM (pp. 1434-1442). IEEE.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMazur, M., \u0026amp; Zaborek, P. (2019). Organic food supply chain in Poland. British Food Journal.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMiller, N. J., Mork, O. I., Lanini, W. T., Boyle, K. A., \u0026amp; McNay, J. W. (2019). Using drone imagery and photogrammetric canopy height estimations to characterize Terroir. Remote Sensing, 11(9), 1045.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoeinizade, S., Minaei-Bidgoli, B., Taghavifard, M. T., Barfuei, M. R., Mahmoudi, A., \u0026amp; Javid, A. H. (2020). Utilisation of optimisation models in sustainable agri-food supply chains: a review. International Journal of Production Research, 58(4), 1105-1128.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNeven, D. (2014). Developing sustainable food value chains: Guiding principles. Food and Agriculture Organization.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRamaswamy, H. S., \u0026amp; Namakumari, S. (2009). Post-harvest handling and processing of horticultural crops. Indian Institute of Horticultural Research.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRong, A., Akkerman, R., \u0026amp; Grunow, M. (2011). An optimization approach for managing fresh food quality throughout the supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 421-429.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSatzewich, J., \u0026amp; Christidis, T. (2013). Importing berries: The changing nature of federal regulation. BC Studies, 179, 67-91.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShukla, M., \u0026amp; Jharkharia, S. (2013). Agri-fresh produce supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of Operations \u0026amp; Production Management.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTsolakis, N. K., Keramydas, C. A., Toka, A. K., Aidonis, D. A., \u0026amp; Iakovou, E. T. (2014). Agrifood supply chain management: A comprehensive hierarchical decision-making framework and a critical taxonomy. Biosystems Engineering, 120, 47-64.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, X., Li, D., O\u0026apos;brien, C., \u0026amp; Li, Y. (2010). A production planning model to reduce risk and improve operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(2), 463-474.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, Z., \u0026amp; Li, D. (2012). A dynamic product quality evaluation based pricing model for perishable food supply chains. Omega, 40(6), 906-917.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, K. J., Makond, B., \u0026amp; Wang, S. Y. (2019). Fresh food supply chain management enabled by blockchain and IoT. ICC 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWillems, B., Roth, E., \u0026amp; van Roekel, J. (2017). Changing land use in the rural-urban interface of emerging economies: Plantation agriculture in Luang Prabang, Laos. Land Use Policy, 60, 342-351.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., \u0026amp; Bogaardt, M. J. (2017). Big data in smart farming\u0026ndash;a review. Agricultural Systems, 153, 69-80.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaumeister, R.F., \u0026amp; Leary, M.R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of general psychology, 1(3), 311-320.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJesson, J.K., Matheson, L., \u0026amp; Lacey, F.M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOkoli, C., \u0026amp; Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(26).\u003ca href=\"http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-26\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/a\u003e\u003ca href=\"http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-26\"\u003ehttp://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-26\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePickering, C., Byrne, J., Munz, H., \u0026amp; Spencer, D. (2015). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research \u0026amp; Development, 34(3), 534-548.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRothstein, H.R., Sutton, A.J., \u0026amp; Borenstein, M. (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments, 1-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSnyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTranfield, D., Denyer, D., \u0026amp; Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3), 207-222.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAday, M. S., \u0026amp; Aday, K. L. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Quality and Safety, 4(4), 167-180.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAhmed, W., \u0026amp; Sinnakkannu, J. (2017). Supply chain performance measurement for green food products. In Sustainable food supply chains (pp. 119-141). Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmpatzidis, Y., Biba, M., Leonardi, C., Charatsari, C., \u0026amp; Ruiz Garcia, L. (2020). Artificial intelligence, internet of things and big data for agriculture 4.0: Machine learning approaches for the classification and management of real-time agri-food data. In Decision Support Systems IV-Information and Knowledge Management in Decision Processes (pp. 229-238). Springer, Cham.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBelaya, V., \u0026amp; Hanf, J. H. (2013). The two sides of power in business-to-business relationships: Implications for supply chain management. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 23(5), 531-551.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eB\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;, C., Oosterveer, P., Lamotte, L., Brouwer, I. D., de Haan, S., Prager, S. D., ... \u0026amp; Khoury, C. K. (2019). When food systems meet sustainability\u0026ndash;Current narratives and implications for actions. World Development, 113, 116-130.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBosona, T. G., \u0026amp; Gebresenbet, G. (2011). Cluster building and logistics network integration of local food supply chain. Biosystems engineering, 108(4), 293-302.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCaro, M. P., Ali, M. S., Vecchio, M., \u0026amp; Giaffreda, R. (2018). Blockchain-based traceability in Agri-Food supply chain management: A practical implementation. 2018 IoT Vertical and Topical Summit on Agriculture-Tuscany (IOT Tuscany) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCharlton, D., \u0026amp; Castillo, M. (2021). Potential impacts of automation on the agricultural workforce. Choices, 36(2), 1-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChemnitz, C. (2007). The compliance decision with food quality standards on primary producer level: A case study of the EUREPGAP standard in the Moroccan tomato sector. International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, August 12-18, 2007, Gold Coast, Australia.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClapp, J. (2021). The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system. Nature Food, 2(6), 404-408.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDukic, V. M., Gavarić, A. P., \u0026amp; Milovanović, I. L. (2019). The influence of lifestyle changes on consumption patterns relating to fruit and vegetables. Economics of Agriculture, 66(1), 239-252.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eD\u0026uuml;r, A., Baccini, L., \u0026amp; Elsig, M. (2014). The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset. The Review of International Organizations, 9(3), 353-375.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFAO. (2019). The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. FAO.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGao, J., Pant, R., Mickelbart, M. V., \u0026amp; Velez, J. (2020). Machine learning techniques for postharvest quality evaluation and defect detection of fresh fruits and vegetables: A review. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 162, 111103.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGovindasamy, R., \u0026amp; Kelley, K. (2014). Influence of sensory attributes on consumer preferences for fresh produce across income levels in the United States. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29(5), 313-327.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHarrison, J. A., \u0026amp; Getz, C. (2015). Farm size and job quality: mixed-methods studies of hired farm work in California and Wisconsin. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(4), 617-634.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHatfield, J. L., Takle, G., Grotjahn, R., Holden, P., Izaurralde, R. C., Mader, T., ... \u0026amp; Liverman, D. (2014). Agriculture. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment, 150-174.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJones, P. (2018). Supermarkets\u0026rsquo; corporate social responsibility programmes, supplier practices and sustainable development in South Africa. Local Environment, 23(4), 413-426.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJordan, A., Wurzel, R. K., Zito, A. R., \u0026amp; Br\u0026uuml;ckner, L. (2007). European governance and the transfer of \u0026lsquo;new\u0026rsquo;environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) in the European Union. Public Administration, 85(3), 555-574.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKarippacheril, T. G., Nikaein, N., Bonnet, L., \u0026amp; Krunz, M. (2013). Rethinking the PHY and MAC layers for efficient data gathering in sensor networks with smart antennas. In 2013 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM (pp. 1434-1442). IEEE.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKorinek, J., \u0026amp; Melatos, M. (2011). Trade impacts of selected regional trade agreements in agriculture.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKrieger, E., Barbosa, J. L., de Carvalho Macedo, M. R., Mateus, L. M., Pizzolato, T. D., Cavalheiro da Fonseca, I. M. B., \u0026amp; da Silveira, B. B. (2021). A systematic review of organic food purchase: Research gaps and future trends. Trends in Food Science \u0026amp; Technology, 111, 365-375.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLalwani, N., Ducharme, J., \u0026amp; Gray, L. K. (2021). Plastics and the circular economy: Increasing plastics sustainability and circularity through infrastructure and regulation. Science of The Total Environment, 774, 145789.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLele, U., Klousia-Marquis, M., \u0026amp; Goswami, S. (2018). Good governance for food, water and energy security. Aquatic Procedia, 10, 44-53.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMazur, M., \u0026amp; Zaborek, P. (2019). Organic food supply chain in Poland. British Food Journal.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNeven, D. (2014). Developing sustainable food value chains: Guiding principles. Food and Agriculture Organization.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePearson, S., May, D., Leontidis, G., Swainson, M., Brewer, S., Bidaut, L., ... \u0026amp; Gkiastsou, A. (2019). Are distributed ledger technologies the panacea for food traceability?. Global Food Security, 20, 145-149.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRamos, F. M., Venturini, L., Pereira, V. M. F., Forster, C. F., \u0026amp; Rodrigues, J. A. R. (2011). Life cycle assessment of processing tomato products. Journal of Food Engineering, 102(4), 361-371.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReganold, J. P., \u0026amp; Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature plants, 2(2), 1-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRichards, T. J., \u0026amp; Pofahl, G. (2010). Pricing power by supermarket retailers: a ghost in the machine?. Choices, 25(2), 1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSahota, A. (2021). The global market for organic food \u0026amp; drink. In The global market for organic food \u0026amp; drink. CAB Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSarris, A. (2010). Overcoming the food crisis: policy options for developing countries. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(2), 252-263.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShamshiri, R. R., Weltzien, C., Hameed, I. A., Yule, I. J., Grift, T. E., Balasundram, S. K., ... \u0026amp; Ahmad, D. (2018). Research and development in agricultural robotics: A perspective of digital farming. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 11(4), 1-14.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTack, J., Barkley, A., Hendricks, N., \u0026amp; Sweeney, S. (2019). Irrigation offsets wheat yield reductions from warming temperatures. Environmental Research Letters, 14(11), 114011.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTouboulic, A., \u0026amp; Walker, H. (2015). Love me, love me not: A nuanced view on collaboration in sustainable supply chains. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(3), 178-191.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTsolakis, N. K., Keramydas, C. A., Toka, A. K., Aidonis, D. A., \u0026amp; Iakovou, E. T. (2014). Agrifood supply chain management: A comprehensive hierarchical decision-making framework and a critical taxonomy. Biosystems Engineering, 120, 47-64.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVermeulen, S. J., Aggarwal, P. K., Ainslie, A., Angelone, C., Campbell, B. M., Challinor, A. J., ... \u0026amp; Wollenberg, E. (2012). Options for support to agriculture and food security under climate change. Environmental Science \u0026amp; Policy, 15(1), 136-144.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, X., \u0026amp; Sun, J. (2013). Energy efficiency and sustainability of complex biogas systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 171-183.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, X., Li, D., O\u0026apos;brien, C., \u0026amp; Li, Y. (2009). A production planning model to reduce risk and improve operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(2), 463-474.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWheeler, T., \u0026amp; Braun, J. V. (2013). Climate change impacts on global food security. Science, 341(6145), 508-513.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWillems, B., Roth, E., \u0026amp; van Roekel, J. (2017). Changing land use in the rural-urban interface of emerging economies: Plantation agriculture in Luang Prabang, Laos. Land Use Policy, 60, 342-351.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, C., An, S., Wang, Z., Wu, J., Bi, J., \u0026amp; Zhang, J. (2020). Life-cycle assessment of Chinese cabbage production and optimization measures for improving its environmental sustainability. Journal of cleaner production, 259, 120846.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAccorsi, R., Cholette, S., Manzini, R., Pini, C., \u0026amp; Penazzi, S. (2014). The land-network problem: ecosystem carbon balance in planning sustainable agro-food supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 218-227.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAday, M. S., \u0026amp; Aday, K. L. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Quality and Safety, 4(4), 167-180.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAiello, G., La Scalia, G., \u0026amp; Micale, R. (2019). Simulation analysis of cold chain performance based on time\u0026ndash;temperature data. Production \u0026amp; Manufacturing Research, 7(1), 264-284.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBelaya, V., \u0026amp; Hanf, J. H. (2013). The two sides of power in business-to-business relationships: Implications for supply chain management. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 23(5), 531-551.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCaro, M. P., Ali, M. S., Vecchio, M., \u0026amp; Giaffreda, R. (2018). Blockchain-based traceability in Agri-Food supply chain management: A practical implementation. 2018 IoT Vertical and Topical Summit on Agriculture-Tuscany (IOT Tuscany) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChemnitz, C. (2007). The compliance decision with food quality standards on primary producer level: A case study of the EUREPGAP standard in the Moroccan tomato sector. International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, August 12-18, 2007, Gold Coast, Australia.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFeng, Y., Zhu, D., \u0026amp; Lai, K. H. (2022). How does blockchain improve operational performance? The role of supply chain service capability. International Journal of Production Research, 60(18), 5821-5836.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHashem, S., Migliore, G., Schifani, G., Schimmenti, E., \u0026amp; Padel, S. (2018). Consumers\u0026rsquo; preferences and willingness to pay for organic products in Yemen; the need for a Yemeni national organic regulation. Biological Agriculture \u0026amp; Horticulture, 34(2), 95-107.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHeising, J. K., Dekker, M., Bartels, P. V., \u0026amp; Van Boekel, M. A. (2014). Monitoring the quality of perishable foods: opportunities for intelligent packaging. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 54(5), 645-654.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJones, P. (2002). Developments in traceability and responsibility in food supply networks. Environmentalist, 22(2), 167-175.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLele, U., Klousia-Marquis, M., \u0026amp; Goswami, S. (2018). Good governance for food, water and energy security. Aquatic Procedia, 10, 44-53.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMazur, M., \u0026amp; Zaborek, P. (2019). Organic food supply chain in Poland. British Food Journal.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNeven, D. (2014). Developing sustainable food value chains: Guiding principles. Food and Agriculture Organization.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRamos, F. M., Venturini, L., Pereira, V. M. F., Forster, C. F., \u0026amp; Rodrigues, J. A. R. (2011). Life cycle assessment of processing tomato products. Journal of Food Engineering, 102(4), 361-371.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReganold, J. P., \u0026amp; Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature plants, 2(2), 1-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRichards, T. J., \u0026amp; Pofahl, G. (2010). Pricing power by supermarket retailers: a ghost in the machine?. Choices, 25(2), 1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRodrigue, J. P., Debrie, J., Fremont, A., \u0026amp; Gouvernal, E. (2010). Functions and actors of inland ports: European and North American dynamics. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(4), 519-529.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShamshiri, R. R., Weltzien, C., Hameed, I. A., Yule, I. J., Grift, T. E., Balasundram, S. K., ... \u0026amp; Ahmad, D. (2018). Research and development in agricultural robotics: A perspective of digital farming. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 11(4), 1-14.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShukla, M., \u0026amp; Jharkharia, S. (2013). Agri-fresh produce supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of Operations \u0026amp; Production Management.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTsolakis, N. K., Keramydas, C. A., Toka, A. K., Aidonis, D. A., \u0026amp; Iakovou, E. T. (2014). Agrifood supply chain management: A comprehensive hierarchical decision-making framework and a critical taxonomy. Biosystems Engineering, 120, 47-64.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, X., Li, D., O\u0026apos;brien, C., \u0026amp; Li, Y. (2009). A production planning model to reduce risk and improve operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(2), 463-474.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J., \u0026amp; Rit, M. (2019). Making sense of blockchain technology: How will it transform supply chains?. International Journal of Production Economics, 211, 221-236.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"supply chain management, horticulture, fresh produce, emerging factors, food supply chain, agri-food supply chain","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878046/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878046/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe management of supply chains for horticultural produce faces emerging factors that necessitate adaptation. This systematic literature review identifies and synthesizes key findings on the impacts of emerging technological, sustainability, consumer, climate, policy, cost, and competitive factors on the supply chain management of fruits, vegetables, and other horticulture products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign/methodology/approach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSearches of academic databases were conducted using defined keywords and selection criteria.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings indicate that blockchain, artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, automation, and other technologies can benefit traceability, quality control, and efficiency but require investment and skill development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs per the finding, sustainability concerns like emissions, energy use, and waste are prompting supply chain innovation in production, packaging, transport, and distribution. Shifting consumer preferences toward local, organic, sustainable produce require flexibility and responsiveness. Climate change effects on agriculture production and globalization of markets are testing the resilience and agility of supply chains. Labor issues, rising input costs, and intense retail competition are squeezing profit margins across the fresh produce supply chain. Recommendations include investment in emerging technologies, collaboration for sustainability, data-driven supply chain optimization, and adaptable retail strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginality value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis review provides insights for researchers and supply chain managers seeking to improve the performance and competitiveness of horticultural produce supply chains.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Emerging Factors Affecting Supply Chain Management of Horticulture Produce: A Systematic Literature Review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-22 04:43:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878046/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1a7c4dfa-72dc-485f-ab56-7977fb4c58fe","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 22nd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":28239287,"name":"Operations Research"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-01-22T04:43:47+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-22 04:43:47","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3878046","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3878046","identity":"rs-3878046","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}