Sustainable blooms: a look at environmental practices in U.S. floriculture

The intensification of environmental issues in recent years, notably climate change, has brought sustainability to the forefront of floriculture business strategy. However, the implementation of sustainable practices is not well-documented at the industry level. To better understand the scope and limitations of sustainable practices among flower growers, wholesalers, retail florists, and floral suppliers in the United States, a nationwide survey was implemented through floriculture professional organizations. Information collected on current and planned sustainability measures revealed differences in implementation and future priority among industry segments, with the results indicating segment-specific needs to achieve sustainability goals. Persistent cost and communication barriers point to opportunities for targeted incentives and improved consumer-facing strategies to support broader adoption of sustainable practices. The findings suggest that sustainability planning is an emerging practice in floriculture, with most existing plans implemented in the past 5 years, which underscores the need for continued educational support and outreach for sustainable strategies within floriculture.

1 Introduction

Sustainability in agriculture is defined by 7 U.S. Code § 3103 (19) as “an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long-term—satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base abstract upon which the agriculture economy depends; make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole (United States Code, n.d.).” This definition can encompass a range of practices within an agricultural business, yet relying on a single, universal definition that will apply in every applied context is impractical (Velten et al., 2015). Sustainable agriculture as a concept incorporates practices that improve soil health, promote climate resilience, support farmer and community well-being, and uphold ecological diversity (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, n.d.). For example, implementation on the farm can include practices that lower greenhouse gas emissions, provide food resources to pollinators, or repurpose agricultural waste through innovation (Weggler et al., 2025; Husband et al., 2025; Ayompe et al., 2025).

Within the broader agricultural sector, floriculture refers to the specialized cultivation, harvest, and commercial distribution of flowering and ornamental plants (United States Department of Agriculture, 2022; Hodges et al., 2011). The floriculture supply chain consists of several key segments: growers, who cultivate flowers under open field or controlled-environment conditions; wholesalers, who aggregate and distribute floral products; bouquet assemblers and manufacturers, who prepare mass-market-ready arrangements; transporters, who ensure temperature-controlled logistics; and suppliers who provide provides inputs or equipment required by the other segments; and retail outlets such as florists, grocery stores, big-box retailers, and independent garden centers, who ultimately sell flowers to consumers (de Keizer et al., 2015; Society of American Florists, 2025) The relationships among these groups is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1. A simple cut flower supply chain diagram that illustrates the flow of materials and products from growers, through wholesalers or bouquet assemblers (optional step), and ultimately to retail locations. Suppliers may provide goods to other businesses at any step. Transporters may be hired for movement of flowers and/or goods between any step. Arrows indicate the direction of material and product movement within the system.

1.1 Trends in sustainable business practices

These interconnected businesses do not operate in isolation; instead, they are subject to growing sustainability expectations driven by both corporate and regulatory pressures. Corporate initiatives from large big-box retailers like Walmart's pollinator protection requirements and regulations such as New Jersey's Recycled Content Law place additional motivations for sustainable practices within the floricultural supply chain (Walmart, 2023; State of New Jersey, 2022). Beyond agriculture, sustainability reporting by businesses has increased dramatically over the past decades. According to the KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting, 80% of companies published sustainability reports in 2020 compared to just 13% in 1993 (KPMG International, 2020). Similarly, 73% of large global companies obtained third-party assurance for sustainability disclosures in 2023, compared to 51% 5 years earlier (International Federation of Accountants, AICPA, and CIMA, 2025).

Motivations for adopting sustainability practices vary widely. Stakeholder pressure from influential buyers and suppliers can be a significant driver of a business's sustainability adoption. Large clients can leverage their legitimacy and purchasing power to compel suppliers to enhance environmental performance, especially in areas like emissions tracking and sustainable sourcing (Li et al., 2025; Montes-Sancho et al., 2022; Ellram et al., 2022). However, when a business has a strong sustainability orientation, as defined as an organizational philosophy and set of values that prioritize sustainability, external pressure becomes less critical (Vidal et al., 2023). In fact, businesses with this internal commitment tend to adopt sustainability practices at even higher rates, regardless of outside demands on sustainable practices. Research on U.S. firms across industries shows that those with elevated sustainability orientation not only comply with external requirements but proactively adopt advanced circular economy and social supply chain initiatives, even beyond stakeholder pressures (Croom et al., 2024).

Another important motivation for sustainability adoption is the pursuit of competitive advantage. Early strategy studies in the 1990s argued that environmentally oriented investments within a company's operations can simultaneously lower costs and differentiate products (Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Hart, 1995). Subsequent empirical work with U.S. manufacturers confirmed that businesses embracing proactive environmental strategies enjoy higher return on assets and market valuation than less environmentally active peers (Russo and Fouts, 1997; Carter and Rogers, 2008). By investing resources into sustainability initiatives, companies can not only respond to rising environmental regulations and growing consumer demand for sustainability, but can also gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace through waste reduction, productivity improvements, premium pricing, and enhanced corporate image (Chen, 2008). Strong buyer-supplier collaborations can accelerate sustainability innovations and bolster mutual performance (Dash et al., 2018; Vachon and Klassen, 2008). In addition, process-focused initiatives, such as “lean-and-green” production, often yield operational gains combined with broader environmental benefits such as reduced waste and lower pollution (Li et al., 2025; King and Lenox, 2001).

1.2 Market advantage in floriculture

Within the U.S. floral sector, consumer demand underscores strategic opportunities surrounding sustainability. Floral products generate significant consumer interest in the U.S., with 44% of adults purchasing cut flowers or arrangements, accounting for $36.5 billion in yearly sales (Whitinger, 2024).

A small but growing body of willingness-to-pay research suggests that sustainably positioned floral goods are valued by consumers. Yue et al. (2010a) found consumers who focused on ecological attributes, though a smaller market segment (14% of total consumers), are highly motivated by sustainability and willing to pay significant premiums—up to $2 more—for plants with eco-friendly attributes such as energy-saving practices, plantable containers, and local/domestic production. In this same study, the larger mainstream consumer segment (78% of the total market) also valued sustainable practices but were willing to pay only modest premiums. This indicates that while broad interest in eco-friendly products exists, the strongest pricing potential lies with targeting environmentally focused buyers. In another study, Yue et al. (2010b) reported similar premiums for plastic-alternative containers and containers designated with a lowered carbon footprint. A recent nationwide survey of more than 2,000 consumers corroborated these patterns, with about 60% of respondents stating they are more likely to purchase from environmentally responsible florists, and roughly half would pay at least 10% more for flowers with attributes such as local origin or compostable green waste streams (Etheredge et al., 2024). Together, these findings suggest that clear sustainability positioning can translate into revenue growth and product differentiation for floral businesses.

In a survey of Midwestern U.S. flower growers from the mid-2010's, Hall et al. (2009) found two dominant factors influencing the adoption of sustainable practices on the farm: concerns about the ease of implementation and perceived risk. At the time, growers did not express customer demand for sustainable practices or pressure from state regulators to adopt sustainability measures, although the majority (63%) had implemented sustainable practices in their operations. Smaller floriculture operations (one to five acres) were more likely to adopt sustainable practices compared to larger farms (greater than 10 acres). The survey suggested two areas of potential support: (1) educational efforts to reduce the perception of grower risk when implementing sustainability practices and (2) assistance with communicating benefits to consumers. Since the publishing of Hall et al. (2009), no further work has been established with other regional growers or segments of the floriculture industry on their sustainability practices.

1.3 Study goals and hypotheses

Although sustainable business practices are increasingly documented, it remains unclear how widely they are currently implemented or prioritized within the national floral industry, particularly practices specific to floriculture. This study seeks to pinpoint where different industry segments align or diverge in their practices and to highlight opportunities for targeted education and resource development. The study also aimed to identify which sustainability practices are most widely implemented and which practices industry members plan to adopt in the future.

Based on this review of existing literature, the research team formed the following hypotheses:

1Ho: Implementation of sustainability practices will be the same across the industry segments.

• 1Ha: Implementation of sustainability practices will vary depending on the industry segment because pressures and motivations vary. Differences in the adoption of sustainable business practices will be evident in descriptive statistics across industry segments.

2Ho: Floriculture businesses, no matter the size, will implement sustainability practices similarly within an industry segment.

• 2Ha_1: Smaller floriculture farms will be more likely to have implemented sustainability practices, consistent with Hall et al. (2009).

• 2Ha_2: For other industry segments, the reverse is predicted, as larger businesses will have greater resources to implement sustainability programs.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Protocol

All protocols and instruments were approved by the university Institutional Review Board (IRB #26771). An online survey instrument was administered from March 27 to August 20, 2024. Online survey instruments are used widely as accepted market research methods to ensure data accuracy and high quality of data collection across the U.S. There are measures in place to also reduce human error and survey expenses vs. mailed or phone survey methods (Dillman et al., 2009; Cobanoglu et al., 2001). Using online surveys can have disadvantages, especially if the sampling database contains the same panelists under different accounts or “double dipping” with multiple responses from the same panelist (Deihl and Johnson, 2024). The researchers addressed this concern by checking for responses that appeared duplicative based on collected business details. None were identified.

Prior to the survey administration, two groups of reviewers, the American Floral Endowment (AFE) board of trustees (20 individuals from all floriculture industry segments) and an additional independent group of 10 florists, wholesalers, growers, and suppliers reviewed the survey instrument for accuracy and clarity. Adjustments were made per segment to accurately represent business information and operations. For example, instead of average distance of delivery, radius was used; revenue categories were adjusted for wholesalers and florists to be consistent with minimum and maximum levels of revenue, as compared to minimum and maximum levels of revenue for suppliers and growers, which were taken from the USDA Floriculture Report (2020).

The survey instrument was disseminated among the American Floral Endowment (AFE), Wholesale Florist and Florist Supplier Association (WFFSA), Association of Specialty Cut Flower Growers (ASCFG) and Society of American Florists (SAF) associations membership lists. Survey distribution and follow-up were informed by Dillman's tailored design method (Dillman, 2007), with an initial email invitation and two reminder emails sent at approximately one-month intervals through the AFE membership list. This was to ensure representation by floriculture companies participating in each sector of the floral industry supply chain, as there is not a complete national business registration list for each segment as for other industries, for example the horticultural nursery industry. Screening questions included the requirement of participants to be adults 18–65 years old, and own or manage a floriculture business. Those who did not fulfill these requirements were not included. The provided email open rates per association ranged from 31.6% to 59.4% among the associations.

The survey questions were adapted from Hall et al. (2009) and Khachatryan et al. (2020), and additional questions were generated by evaluating a past informal survey's results on sustainability practices by the research team. The four parts of the survey were (1) characteristics of the business, (2) sustainability practices, (3) sustainability views and communication, and (4) other demographics. Thirty questions constituted the four survey parts (survey instrument questions and flow included in Supplementary Appendix A).

Questions within the blocks were randomized within variable options and between questions to maintain randomization (Chaudhuri and Mukerjee, 2020). The middle two blocks on perceptions and practices were randomized between blocks. The characteristics block was not randomized as it was the block of questions used to branch the survey to each specific segment of questions. The demographic block of questions was not randomized and was left to the end of the survey design.

Businesses received an email from the association with approved IRB language inviting them to participate in the survey. If the firm was interested in participating, they were directed to the Qualtrics survey link. Qualtrics survey software (Seattle, WA) is a cloud-based experience management software commonly used for survey development and distribution logistics. The survey instrument was formatted to direct the participant to answer questions based on the industry segment selected during an initial branching question. If the participant agreed to consent to the survey, they continued on to the segment question and then onto four question blocks. The average time spent on the survey was 15 min. There was no financial incentive offered to the participants for their participation.

A total of 107 complete responses (from a total of 171 collected responses) represented seven different areas of the floral industry (Table 1). The total distribution list of AFE reached 3,517 potential participants, and 107 responses represents 3% of that total. This is likely an undercount of the total sampling frame, as the survey was distributed through additional channels. Therefore, the response rate of 3% represents an upper bound.

Table 1

Table 1. Response rate in count and percentage per industry sector.

Industry segments in floriculture are not mutually exclusive, as there is immense omnichannel movement and merging occurring in the floral industry (Jenkins et al., 2024). Instead, the firms were asked to designate their primary area of business activity that they participate within. Due to the low number of responses in independent garden center, bouquet assembler, and transporter segments, these three segments (n=8) were not included in the analysis to protect firm anonymity and keep statistical power. All regions of the United States (Northeast, Midwest, South, and Pacific/West) were represented in each industry category.

2.2 Statistical analyses

Analyses were performed in STATA statistical software (College Station, TX, USA). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences in sustainability practices across industry segments, including wholesalers, retail florists, growers, and suppliers and any differences based on business size. When significant differences were found, Tukey's post hoc test was conducted to identify which segments differed statistically from one another.

A post-hoc power analysis based on the observed effect size (Cohen's f = 0.35) and total sample size (n = 99; after dropping lowest response categories) indicated that the one-way ANOVA had a statistical power of 0.81 at α = 0.05, suggesting sufficient power to detect moderate to large differences in sustainability adoption across floriculture industry segments. Small effects cannot be detected, and cautiousness is observed in results interpretation of small effect sizes.

3 Results

The following section presents results on sustainability in the U.S. floriculture industry across six themes: current and future sustainability practices, sustainability plan implementation, sustainability certifications, barriers to adoption, perceptions of future factors, and motivating influences. Where applicable, statistical analyses highlight differences among industry segments, providing insight into both common patterns and unique challenges across the supply chain. Each of the four groups explored in the results had representation from all four U.S. Census-designated regions—Northeast, South, Midwest, and West (United States Census Bureau, n.d.).

Among growers, 74% grew cut flowers, 34% herbaceous perennials, 29% cut greenery, 18% propagative materials, 18% flowering plants in containers, 13% indoor foliage, and 8% bedding plants (respondents could select multiple categories). Most of the responses came from small farms, with 82% of participants growing on 5 acres or less. The rest of the responses came from farmers growing on 10 acres or more (18%).

Wholesalers' primary customers included retail florists (56%), grocery stores (17%), garden centers (16%), and other wholesalers (11%). Participants were allowed to select more than one choice. Most responses came from wholesalers with an annual revenue of $5,000,000 or more (60%), then $1 million to $4,999,999 (30%), and, lastly, $250,000 to $499,999 (10%).

For florists, most received cut flowers from wholesalers (68%), followed by local growers (48%), international growers (45%), mass merchandisers (7%), other florists (3%), and garden centers (3%). The largest category of responses came from florists with an annual revenue of less than $250,000 (32%), followed by greater than $5 million (23%), $1 million to $4,999,999 (19%), $500,000 to $999,999 (16%), and $250,000 to $499,999 (10%).

The top customers for the surveyed suppliers were growers (23%), followed by wholesalers (21%), garden centers (13%), mass merchandisers (11%), supermarkets (11%), direct to public (8%), retail florists (7%), and landscapers (6%). Most responses came from suppliers with an annual revenue of $5,000,000 or more (69%), then $1 million to $4,999,999 (21%) and $250,000 to $499,999 (5%). Some participants chose not to disclose revenue (5%).

3.1 Current and future sustainability practices

Figure 2 highlights the top sustainability practices currently in place (left) and those under consideration (right) across four major segments of the U.S. floriculture industry: growers, retail florists, suppliers, and wholesalers. Current adoption rates vary by segment, but several shared priorities emerge. For example, recycling containers appears among the top five practices in every group, with especially high implementation among wholesalers (73%) and suppliers (68%). Energy reduction and LED lighting also rank prominently for suppliers and wholesalers, indicating a focus on operational efficiency. For suppliers, the mean total number of sustainability practices adopted per business was 8.9, with a range of 0 to 18 sustainability practices. For wholesalers, the mean total number of sustainability practices adopted per business was 5.3, with a range of 2 to 7 sustainability practices. Growers, meanwhile, most commonly report recycling (58%), composting (55%), and fertilizer/runoff mitigation (50%), showing a tendency toward soil and input management. The mean total number of sustainability practices adopted per farm was 6.5, with a range of 0 to 19 on-farm sustainability practices. Retail florists emphasize LED lighting (68%), recycling (61%), and use of recycled materials (52%), signaling attention to both energy use and packaging impacts. For florists, the mean total number of sustainability practices adopted per business was 5.8, with a range of 0 to 18 sustainability practices. Thus, 1Ho implementation of sustainability practices will be the same across the industry segments, is not supported as the current practices and future practices are different among the industry segments.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Top sustainability practices currently implemented (gray; left) and identified for future adoption (blue; right) across four segments of the U.S. floriculture industry. Bar lengths indicate the percentage of survey respondents within each segment who selected each practice. Data reflect the most commonly selected practices in each category.

For the grower segment, the top current sustainability practices overlap with Hall et al. (2009) for recycling (top practice in both surveys), composting (#2 in this study; #4 for Hall), and biological controls (#5 in both surveys). Fertilizer/runoff mitigation is higher in this more recent study (#3 in this study; #8 for Hall) and perennial plantings top this study's list of current practices while not appearing in the earlier study. For sustainability practices that growers are considering for the future, alternative substrates topped both surveys. These comparisons provide insights into shifting priorities in sustainability for growers, as well as which practices have remained salient over the past 15 years.

Looking ahead, the survey responses reveal divergent priorities for future adoption by segment. Wholesalers show the highest interest in fuel-efficient vehicles (45%), likely due to their role in distribution logistics. Retail florists most frequently plan to reduce packaging (33%) or adopt electric vehicles (23%), suggesting increased attention to transportation and material waste. Among suppliers, interest is spread across energy alternatives and packaging improvements, each cited by roughly one-third of respondents. Growers expressed plans to adopt practices like peat-free substrate (24%), plastic-alternative packaging (21%), fuel-efficient vehicles (21%), and integrated pest management (21%). These trends suggest that even when overall sustainability is a priority across all segments represented in the survey responses, future efforts are being tailored to each group's operational roles.

Comparisons between large and small businesses in the floriculture industry suggest few differences. This finding supports 2Ho, floriculture businesses, no matter the size, will implement sustainability practices similarly within an industry segment. When all four segments were evaluated together (total sample), there was no overall difference based on business size (e.g., acreage for farms and revenue for all other segments) for perceived value of sustainability practices, implementation (total number of practices), or barriers to sustainability (ANOVA). However, florists with annual revenues under $250,000 were more likely to communicate their sustainability practices to customers than florists with revenues exceeding $5 million (Tukey HSD post hoc test, p=0.013). No other within group differences were significant for florists based on size. There were no differences found for the total number of current sustainability practices when industry segments were compared to each other in ANOVA analysis.

3.2 Sustainability plan implementation

Across all industry segments surveyed, the adoption of formal sustainability plans remains uneven (Figure 3). Suppliers remain the most advanced in formal sustainability planning, with nearly two-thirds (63%) already operating under a plan and a further quarter actively considering one (26%). However, most suppliers in the study were large-scale operations, which may explain the high rates of formal sustainability planning in that segment. Cai et al. (2024) found that large firms, such as those in the S&P 500, are more likely to have formal sustainability governance structures, such as dedicated committees and executive oversight, which can enhance their ability to engage in long-term planning, ESG reporting, and third-party sustainability initiatives. As a result, their sustainability actions often take the form of formal internal management systems and strategic planning frameworks.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Proportion of businesses in each floriculture segment that currently have a formal sustainability plan (gray) vs. those considering developing one (blue).

Florists also show strong engagement in this area, with 39% currently implementing a plan and 41% considering one. In contrast, only 18% of growers and 27% of wholesalers reported having a plan, with growers showing greater interest in planning (29%) compared to wholesalers (18%). These findings suggest significant opportunities for outreach and support, especially for segments with lower plan adoption but high consideration rates, such as growers. All respondent businesses who reported the age of their sustainability plans indicated that the plans had been implemented within the past five years. Thus, 1Ha is further supported, as there appear to be differences in the extent to which sustainability plans are implemented across segments of the floriculture industry.

3.3 Sustainability certifications

Overall, certification rates among domestic cut flower businesses across all segments remain low based on this sample and information from prior studies (Hall et al., 2009). An earlier nationwide survey of U.S. greenhouse and nursery crop producers found that weak buyer demand and lack of price premiums, along with concerns about incentives, uncertain profits, and cash flow, were major barriers to pursuing sustainability certifications relative to the effort and cost involved (Dennis et al., 2010).

Table 2 describes the percentage of sustainability certifications adopted by each industry segment, as well as the top certifiers reported by survey respondents. Suppliers reported the highest percentage of sustainability certification (21.0%), followed by retail florists (9.7%), growers (5.3%), and wholesalers (0%).

Table 2

Table 2. Sustainability certifications by industry segment.

In addition to variability in adoption rates, differences were reported in the levels of certification. Suppliers and growers reported certification through global standards, such as Veriflora, MPS, and Florverde. Among florists, the certification programs were primarily through local entities. Wholesalers reported no certifications.

3.4 Barriers to sustainability practice implementation

The survey asked participants about barriers to sustainability practice implementation, and the top barriers are shown in Table 3 (all available alternative options to select from are listed in Supplementary Appendix A). While the cost of implementation was the most frequently cited barrier in all groups, additional obstacles varied. Labor availability and time were pressing concerns for growers, whereas retail florists highlighted low customer demand and product limitations. Suppliers and wholesalers expressed uncertainty around the profitability of sustainability efforts and the challenge of modifying existing systems. These results emphasize that cost is a universally shared barrier, while the second and third barriers differ by segment, reflecting unique operational constraints in each industry segment.

Table 3

Table 3. Top barriers to sustainability by industry segment.

Retail florists reported a higher number of barriers to sustainable practices [F_{(3, 95)} = 32.29; p < 0.001]. The mean number of barriers reported for each group are as follows: florists = 7.5, supplier = 2.2, wholesaler = 2.1, and grower = 1.8. This result could reflect that florists are located downstream in the supply chain, and downstream businesses often face difficulty enacting upstream sustainability changes because they lack direct visibility and often must rely on intermediaries, creating information bottlenecks (Wilhelm et al., 2016). This challenge is reinforced in food and agricultural supply chains, where downstream actors often have little contractual leverage over sub-suppliers (Grimm et al., 2014). In addition, retail florists' position within the supply chain places them in direct contact with end consumers and their concerns. Consistent with broader research on sustainable sourcing practices, end-consumer pressure on companies has been demonstrated to influence sustainability adoption (Thorlakson et al., 2018). Greater perceived consumer pressure paired with downstream supply chain positioning could explain the higher reported barriers to sustainable practice implementation.

3.5 Perception of future factors

Survey respondents were asked to rank factors impacting their business's future as not important, minor importance, important, and very important. The list of possible drivers included: ability to hire competent management, ability to hire and retain competent hourly employees, balance of power with suppliers/vendors, balance of power with buyers/customers, climate change, competition/price undercutting, debt capital, environmental regulations, equity capital, general economic conditions, land, labor costs, market demand, other government regulations (non-environmental), company's managerial expertise, supply-chain disruption/input procurement, water supply, weather, fuel costs, and health care costs/mandated benefits.

The top selections for each segment are summarized in Table 4 by ranked by order of importance. The top factors in order of importance for growers were weather, market demand, and general economic conditions in the United States. The top factors for retail flowers were labor costs, supply chain disruption/input procurement, and a three-way tie for the third factor with market demand, general economic conditions in the United States, and ability to hire and retain hourly employees. The top factors for suppliers are supply chain disruption/input procurement, a three-way tie for the second factor with labor costs, general economic conditions in the United States, and competition/price undercutting, and, for the third factor, a two-way tie with balance of power with buyers/customers and the ability to hire and retain hourly employees. The top factors for wholesalers are market demand, a four-way tie for the second factor with ability to hire and retain hourly employees, general economic conditions, fuel costs, and health care costs/mandated benefits, and, for the third factor, competition/price undercutting. These results are in line with top ranked factors in the U.S. green industry bulletin (Khachatryan et al., 2020) where weather uncertainty, market demand, labor, own managerial expertise, and ability to hire competent hourly employees were the top five factors affecting the general business environment in 2018 (latest report of the overall horticulture industry firms).

Table 4

Table 4. Top factors affecting business outlook for floriculture growers, retail florists, suppliers, and wholesalers.

3.6 Motivating factors for sustainability

Survey participants were asked what factors motivated them to practice sustainability in their business. Participants selected from the following motivations which encompassed personal values and business management: customer preferences, employees, personal beliefs, climate change concerns, other environmental concerns, responsibility to community and society, brand differentiation, conserve resources within business, regulations, and customers willingness to pay more, government incentives, and business partners.

The top selections for each segment are summarized in Table 5 by ranked order. The top ranked motivations for growers, in order of importance, were responsibility to community and society, personal beliefs, and conserving resources within business. For retail florists, the top motivations were personal beliefs, responsibility to community and society, and climate change concerns. The top ranked motivation for suppliers was responsibility to community and society, personal beliefs, and a two-way tie for the third motivation of differentiation/branding and conserving resources within business. The top motivation for wholesalers were a two-way tie for first with customer preferences and conserving resources within business, the second motivation being employees, and the third motivation being a three-way tie among personal beliefs, climate change concerns, and responsibility to community and society.

Table 5

Table 5. Top motivations for sustainable practices by industry segment.

4 Conclusion

The findings of this study illustrate the current practices, future plans, motivations and barriers to sustainable practices in the U.S. floral industry and provide a more comprehensive reflection of the entire supply chain, compared to prior segment-specific work.

1Ho is rejected because implementation of current sustainability practices, as well as plans for future practices, varied by industry segment. As such, segment-specific needs emerged from the data. For instance, information on electric and fuel-efficient transportation may be most relevant for wholesalers and retail florists who are often responsible for deliveries, while resources on peat alternatives would better serve growers who require growing media for production. These results can provide insight to industry members and researchers about the direction of sustainability in each floriculture segment, as well as the overall supply chain.

However, when the total number of sustainability practices for each group were tallied, no differences were found among the industry segments. This supports that while there was variation present among the types of practices, the overall sustainable activity exists at similar levels among segments in this survey. This partially supports 2Ho where floriculture firms will implement practices similarly and may represent the sample of a self-selecting group already interested in sustainability, which could narrow differences among segments. The survey relied on opt-in participation primarily from membership in industry groups. As such, the results reflect businesses who would voluntarily take a survey about sustainability and likely have interest in the subject. Similarly, if many are members of professional associations or connected to extension services, they may share similar levels of awareness and engagement. The sample omits businesses that are not connected with industry groups, as formal business lists do not exist for cut flower growers like other areas of the ornamental horticulture industry (ex. state-level Plant Licenser registrations). Future studies could be designed for enhanced outreach to these underrepresented floral industry members, particularly for small to medium-sized businesses. In addition, participation among certain industry segments (growers and retail florists) was more robust than others (wholesalers, suppliers, independent garden retail centers, bouquet assemblers/manufacturers, and transporter/logistics), in part because of the combination of a strong presence of formal organizations for florists and growers and the large number of businesses belonging to these groups. In addition, the response rate was low (3% or less), which reflects another limitation in drawing conclusions for the entire floriculture industry. Future efforts at national surveys should try to boost participation, perhaps through monetary incentives, and the information presented through this analysis may help participants see the value of completing future surveys.

Some topics such as plastic reduction and recycling appear to have broad relevance across all segments of the industry as each step of the supply chain requires packaging materials. Globally, this is a prominent issue in sustainable supply chains, with organizations such as The Circular Plastics Alliance, a European Commission-driven initiative that combines efforts from industry, academia, and public authorities with the goal of boosting the EU market for recycled plastics (European Commission, 2019). While the effort has yet to succeed, the United Nations recently hosted a summit in August 2025 to pass a treaty to lower levels of global plastic production (United Nations Environment Programme, 2025). In the United States, the U.S. Plastics Pact has formed among American companies to set targets for increasing reusable, recyclable, or compostable packaging (United States Plastics Pact, 2021).

The comparisons between large and small businesses in the floriculture industry represented by this study suggest no overall difference based on business size for perceived value of sustainability practices, implementation, or barriers to sustainability, so 2Ho is accepted. However, several segments examined were overrepresented in small (growers) or large (wholesalers and suppliers) categories which can make comparisons more difficult.

Sustainability planning resources tailored to the floriculture industry presents a ripe area for advancement. Of all the businesses surveyed who currently have a sustainability plan in place, those plans are new (implemented within the past 5 years). This suggests that the practice of sustainability planning is emerging in floriculture, and well-suited for additional support provided by educational resources, particularly for small and medium-size floriculture businesses. For organizations offering resources for sustainability planning in floriculture, tailoring to the specific motivations and concerns of each industry segment identified in this study can strengthen program effectiveness. This research emphasizes breadth across areas of sustainability and more detailed investigations into specific aspects would complement these broader sector-wide findings. In addition, critical dimensions of sustainability—such as water management and conservation—that did not emerge as a leading current or planned practice in this study could benefit from additional information to raise awareness of these beneficial practices.

Within the overall supply chain, florists can act as “first responders” for consumer concerns based on their downstream placement. This is supported by the evidence within this study that florists reported a higher number of barriers to sustainability, as well as smaller florists' greater likelihood of communicating sustainable practices to their customers compared to large florists, the only statistical difference among groups based on size. This group merits additional investigation to gain deeper insight into consumer perceptions of sustainability in floriculture.

This study indicates that cost-related concerns and communication barriers remain persistent challenges to broader adoption, even among floral businesses that highly value sustainability measures. Similar to Hall et al. (2009), this underscores areas of potential support such as enhanced outreach, financial incentives, and educational resources, which can lower barriers of sustainable practice adoption. Outreach can facilitate stakeholder engagement and disseminate best practices. Financial incentives help mitigate the economic risks associated with transitioning to more sustainable operations, and future efforts could focus on the perception of financial risk for businesses as well as connecting businesses with existing financial incentive programs. Well-structured educational programs can build the technical capacity of industry members by providing the knowledge and tools necessary to implement environmentally responsible practices. In addition, greater effort around sustainability communication to consumers, once practices are in place, would help improve the overall business model by creating differentiation in a competitive marketplace, increasing customer loyalty, and potentially enabling premium pricing (Agu et al., 2024; Etheredge et al., 2024).

Finally, localized and regional surveys could supplement these findings by capturing additional trends at finer geographic scales, offering further insights to inform targeted interventions and resource development.

Data availability statement

De-identified data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by North Carolina State University Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

AS: Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Conceptualization. AL: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Visualization, Data curation. MK: Resources, Validation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. Funding support was received from the American Floral Endowment.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. AI-supported graphical tools were used to streamline figure production while maintaining author oversight.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2026.1691106/full#supplementary-material

References

Agu, E., Iyelolu, T., Idemudia, C., and Ijomah, T. (2024). Exploring the relationship between sustainable business practices and increased brand loyalty. Int. J. Manag. Entrepreneurship Res. 6, 2463–2475. doi: 10.51594/ijmer.v6i8.1365

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ayompe, L., Masso, C., Epie, W., Crook, E., and Egoh, B. (2025). Insect-based organic waste management: a sustainable pathway to enhanced ecosystem services and food security. Front. Sustain. 6:1620925. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2025.1620925

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cai, X., Xiang, H., Neskorodieva, I., and Durmanov, A. (2024). Interrelation between human capital management and ESG engagement: evidence from SandP 500 firms. Human. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11:1654. doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-04189-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carter, C., and Rogers, D. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38, 360–387. doi: 10.1108/09600030810882816

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chaudhuri, A., and Mukerjee, R. (2020). Randomized Response: Theory and Techniques. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.1201/9780203741290

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, Y. S. (2008).The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitive advantages of firms. J. Bus. Ethics. 77, 271–286. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9349-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., and Moreo, P. J. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax, and web-based survey methods. Int. J. Mark. Res. 43, 441–452. doi: 10.1177/147078530104300401

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Croom, S., Spetic, W., Marshall, D., and McCarthy, L. (2024). Impact of social sustainability orientation and supply chain practices on operational performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 38, 2344–2366. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-03-2017-0180

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dash, A., Das, S., Sushanta, T., and Sudarson, N. (2018). Supply chain coordination voyage towards supplier relationship management: a critical review. Int. J. Procur. Manag. 11, 586–607. doi: 10.1504/IJPM.2018.094355

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

de Keizer, M., van der Vorst, J., Bloemhof, J., and Haijema, R. (2015). Floricultural supply chain network design and control: industry needs and modelling challenges. J. Chain Netw. Sci. 15, 61–81. doi: 10.3920/JCNS2014.0001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Deihl, M., and Johnson, P. (2024). “Double-dipping: a review of duplicate responses within and between online panel samples,” in Harris Poll Presentation at AAPOR Conference (Alexandria, VA: AAPOR).

Google Scholar

Dennis, J. H., Lopez, R. G., Behe, B. K., Hall, C. R., Yue, C., and Campbell, B. L. (2010). Sustainable production practices adopted by greenhouse and nursery plant growers. HortScience 45, 1232–1237. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.45.8.1232

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd Edn. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.

Google Scholar

Dillman, D., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., and Messer, B. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Soc. Sci. Res. 38, 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ellram, L., Tate, W., and Saunders, L. (2022). A legitimacy theory perspective on Scope 3 freight transportation emissions. J. Bus. Logist. 43, 123–145. doi: 10.1111/jbl.12299

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Etheredge, C., Waliczek, T., and DelPrince, J. (2024). Comparison of United States consumers' perceptions and willingness to pay for sustainable environmental practices in the retail floral industry based on geographical regions. HortTechnology 34, 20–26. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH05324-23

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

European Commission (2019). Declaration of the Circular Plastics Alliance. Available online at: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-09/cpa-declaration.pdf

Google Scholar

Grimm, J., Hofstetter, J., and Sarkis, J. (2014). Critical factors for sub-supplier management: a sustainable food supply chains perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152, 159–173. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hall, T. J., Dennis, J. H., Lopez, R. G., and Marshall, M. I. (2009). Factors affecting growers' willingness to adopt sustainable floriculture practices. HortScience 44, 1346–1351. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.44.5.1346

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 986–1014. doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.951228003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hodges, A., Hall, C., and Palma, M. (2011). Economic contributions of the green industry in the United States in 2007–08. HortTechnology 21, 628–638. doi: 10.21273/HORTTECH.21.5.628

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Husband, S., Cankar, K., Catrice, O., Chabert, S., and Erler, S. (2025). A guide to sunflowers: floral resource nutrition for bee health and key pollination syndromes. Front. Plant Sci. 16:1552335. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1552335

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

International Federation of Accountants AICPA, and CIMA. (2025). More Global Companies Seek Assurance on Sustainability Reporting. Available online at: https://www.aicpa-cima.com/news/article/more-global-companies-seek-assurance-on-sustainability-reporting-study-by

Google Scholar

Jenkins, E., Knuth, M., Hall, C., and Palma, M. (2024). Shifts in the American floriculture industry: comparing international and domestic growers. Acta Hortic. 1404, 559–566. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2024.1404.75

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khachatryan, H., Hodges, A., Hall, C. R., and Palma, M. A. (2020). “Production and marketing practices and trade flows in the United States Green Industry, 2018,” in S-1065 Multistate Research Project Report. Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors, Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin #421. Available online at: https://saaesd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/National-Green-Industry-Survey-Summary-Report-2019-final-08.30.2020-1-2-2.pdf

Google Scholar

King, A., and Lenox, M. (2001). Lean and green? An empirical examination of the relationship between lean production and environmental performance. Prod. Oper. Manag. 10, 244–256. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2001.tb00373.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

KPMG International (2020). The Time Has Come: KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2020. Available online at: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf

Google Scholar

Li, X., Li, Y., Li, G., and Xu, J. (2025). Sustainable supply chain management practices and performance: the moderating effect of stakeholder pressure. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 12:336. doi: 10.1057/s41599-025-04676-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Montes-Sancho, M., Tachizawa, E. M., and Blome, C. (2022). Financial and market impacts of buyer–supplier sustainability asymmetries: empirical evidence from sensitive industries. J. Clean. Prod. 370:133256. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133256

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Porter, M., and van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment–competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Persp. 9, 97–118. doi: 10.1257/jep.9.4.97

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Russo, M., and Fouts, P. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 40, 534–559. doi: 10.2307/257052

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Society of American Florists (2025). The U.S. Floriculture Industry Trends and Statistics. Available online at: https://safnow.org/trends-statistics/floral-industry-facts/

Google Scholar

State of New Jersey (2022). New Jersey's Recycled Content Law (P.L. 2021, c. 391). Available online at: https://www.nj.gov/dep/dshw/recycled-content/

Google Scholar

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (n.d.). What is Sustainable Agriculture? Available online at: https://www.sare.org/wp-content/uploads/What-is-Sustainable-Agriculture.pdf

Google Scholar

Thorlakson, T., de Zegher, J., and Lambin, E. (2018). Companies' contribution to sustainability through global supply chains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 2072–2077. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1716695115

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

United Nations Environment Programme (2025). Talks On Global Plastic Pollution Treaty Adjourn Without Consensus. Available online at: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/talks-global-plastic-pollution-treaty-adjourn-without-consensus

Google Scholar

United States Census Bureau (n.d.). Census Regions and Divisions of the United States. Available online at: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf

Google Scholar

United States Code (n.d.). 7 U.S. Code § 3103—Definitions. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. Available online at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/3103?terms=3103andurl=/uscode/html/uscode07/usc_sec_07_00003103–−000-.html

Google Scholar

United States Department of Agriculture (2022). Floriculture Crops: 2022 Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Available online at: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/6w924b89s/ft849130d/5q47tr35q/floran22.pdf

Google Scholar

United States Plastics Pact (2021). Roadmap to 2025. Available online at: https://usplasticspact.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/USPact_Roadmap-to-2025.pdf

Google Scholar

Vachon, S., and Klassen, R. (2008). Environmental management and manufacturing performance: the role of collaboration in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 111, 299–315. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.030

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Velten, S., Leventon, J., Jager, N., and Newig, J. (2015). What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review. Sustainability 7, 7833–7865. doi: 10.3390/su7067833

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vidal, N. G., Spetic, W., Croom, S., and Marshall, D. (2023). Supply chain stakeholder pressure for the adoption of sustainable supply chain practices: examining the roles of entrepreneurial and sustainability orientations. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 28, 598–618. doi: 10.1108/SCM-08-2021-0370

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Walmart (2023). Product Supply Chain Sustainability. Available online at: https://corporate.walmart.com/purpose/esgreport/environmental/product-supply-chain-sustainability

Google Scholar

Weggler, K., Gerster, E., and Messner, J. (2025). The benefit of fodder legumes as dairy feeding source for reducing greenhouse gas emissions of modelled farms. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 9:1583852. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1583852

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Whitinger, D. (2024). National Gardening Survey. Southlake, TX: National Gardening Association. Available online at: https://gardenresearch.com/view/national-gardening-survey-2024-edition/

Google Scholar

Wilhelm, M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V., and Paulraj, A. (2016). Sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: understanding the double agency role of the first-tier supplier. J. Oper. Manag. 41, 42–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2015.11.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yue, C., Campbell, B., Hall, C., Behe, B., Dennis, J., and Khachatryan, H. (2010a). U.S. consumer preferences for sustainable plant attributes. HortScience 45, 566–573. doi: 10.1002/agr.21435

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yue, C., Hall, C., Behe, B., Campbell, B., Dennis, J., and Lopez, R. (2010b). Are consumers willing to pay more for biodegradable containers than for plastic ones? Evidence from hypothetical conjoint analysis and nonhypothetical experimental auctions. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 42, 757–772. doi: 10.1017/S1074070800003941

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar