Yongjie Xue1
Muhammad Mohsin
Ana Mehak- 1School of Economics, Shandong Women’s University, Jinan, China
- 2School of Public Administration, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China
- 3College of Economics and Management, Hebei Agriculture University, Baoding, China
- 4College of Economics, Jiujiang University, Jiujiang, China
The global agri-food system (AFS) is increasingly vulnerable to a complex web of economic, environmental, and geopolitical disruptions. This review paper critically examines the economic vulnerabilities embedded within agri-food supply chain (AFSC), focusing particularly on smallholder farmers, export-oriented economies, and the broader risks associated with globalization. Drawing on recent crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine conflict, the paper explores how systemic shocks disrupt production, distribution, and consumption, leading to increased food insecurity, especially in the Global South. Key issues include limited financial access, infrastructural deficits, digital exclusion, and food price volatility. The paper highlights a range of mitigation strategies, including policy reform, digital technology adoption (e.g., blockchain, internet of things), local food system strengthening, financial risk transfer instruments, and collaborative capacity building. Through global case studies and critical analysis, the paper identifies persistent research gaps—particularly regarding informal food systems and the contextual adaptability of technological innovations. It calls for interdisciplinary approaches and multi-stakeholder cooperation to foster resilient, inclusive, and sustainable AFSs capable of withstanding future shocks. Moreover, this paper advances key Sustainable Development Goals by protecting smallholder livelihoods (SDG 1 and 2), promoting digital agriculture and infrastructure (SDG 9), improving supply chain transparency (SDG 12), and addressing climate risks with adaptive strategies (SDG 13). It lays a foundation for resilient and sustainable AFSs through policy and innovation.
1 Introduction
The agri-food system (AFS) is composed of diverse and intricate activities ranging from sustainable food production to its responsible disposal. Hence, it involves all the intermediate stages through which food is generated, refined, delivered and ultimately utilized (Vallejo-Rojas et al., 2015; Borsellino et al., 2020). However, AFSs are constantly evolving and becoming more and more complex in response to several factors such as globalization and technological innovations (Charatsari et al., 2022; Cricelli et al., 2024). The evolution of AFSs from local and subsistence-based to global and commercial-based is truly remarkable. This incredible transformation is heavily dependent on increased productivity and efficiency due to digitalization (Requier-Desjardins et al., 2003; Carmela Annosi et al., 2020). Now, it is possible to consume food produced from other distantly located geographic regions involving complex agri-food supply chains (AFSCs) and passing through diverse regulatory frameworks. This global reach has fortified food security and produced new opportunities for producers (Irani and Sharif, 2016; Alabi and Ngwenyama, 2023). However, on the other hand, intricate structure of food networks rendered it prone to diverse vulnerabilities. Climate change, geopolitical tensions, labor shortages, trade restrictions, infrastructure weaknesses, market volatility, and technological disruptions can all introduce vulnerabilities at various points in AFSC. The effects of even a small disruption can be enormous (Ali et al., 2023; Mkumbukiy et al., 2025). Thus, it is crucial to study these economic risks to support global food security and the Sustainable Development Goals of Zero Hunger (SDG 2); Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12) and Climate Action (SDG 13).
Considerable amount of global labor force is associated with agriculture. This percentage is notably elevated in developing nations where agriculture serves as the principal source of subsistence, especially in rural regions (Blanco and Raurich, 2022; Mohsin et al., 2024). Furthermore, agriculture utilizes land and worsens environmental problems like soil erosion, deforestation, and greenhouse gases, which make sustainability harder to achieve (Francaviglia et al., 2023; Singh et al., 2024). AFSCs play a crucial role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by directly influencing food security, sustainable agriculture, and climate-related action. For instance, SDG 2, depend on efficient and resilient AFSCs to ensure food availability and access. Similarly, SDGs 12 and 13, which focus on responsible consumption and production and climate action, are deeply impacted by the way AFSCs manage waste, resources, and reduce emission in food production and distribution (El Bilali et al., 2021; Sannou et al., 2023). AFSCs involve a lot of different players, from small-scale farmers to huge multinational companies, and each faces their own set of challenges and limitations. For instance, smallholder farmers often have trouble getting access to credit, technology, or even proper market info. On the other hand, large corporations struggle with the complexity of their supply chains, staying compliant with regulations, and navigating market shifts. These challenges are distinct, but for AFSCs to function effectively, collaboration is key. For this, each group may need tailored solutions, but cooperation is essential (Williams et al., 2023). Recent years have seen intense disturbances in the distribution network resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, threatening food security and causing economic disruption globally (Nicola et al., 2020; Alabi and Ngwenyama, 2023). The Middle East and North Africa regions have seen grain price spikes due to geopolitical instability between Russia and Ukraine (Kozielec et al., 2024). Resilient supply chains can withstand acute or chronic disruptions and are more adaptable to long-term systemic changes. Thus, ensuring robustness of distribution networks has become a primary concern of the governments (Katsaliaki et al., 2022; Nakandala et al., 2025).
AFSCs play a key role in ensuring food security, the health of soils is still the foundation for long-term food production. A balanced approach, that acknowledges both sustainable land management (SDG 15) and efficient supply chains (SDG 2), is essential for achieving true global food security. Producers, manufacturers, sellers, buyers, and consumers are intricately interwoven throughout these supply networks (Cook et al., 2011; Cirone et al., 2023). A single failure in the trade corridor can really cause disruptions with AFSC (Katsaliaki et al., 2022; Gorton et al., 2006). Small household farmers, in particular, deal with all kinds of challenges, like limited access to credit, market info, and reliable irrigation systems. On top of that, delays or disruptions in getting things like fertilizers, seeds, and pesticides can seriously disrupt food production. When these key inputs are missing or late, it’s not just the farmers who suffer rather the whole AFS is affected (Rao et al., 2017; Balana et al., 2022). Early warning systems coupled with climate smart agriculture can enhance the robustness of distribution networks (van Ginkel and Biradar, 2021). Studies also suggest the adoption of tools like satellite imaging, traceability, blockchain, and digital monitoring to cope with supply chains risks (Sengupta et al., 2022; Bosona and Gebresenbet, 2023; Wang et al., 2024).
The resilient AFSC is crucially important in this modern era. However, published literature does not present a comprehensive picture of the economic vulnerabilities as well as their mitigation. Most of the studies discuss individual disruptions ignoring their interconnectedness (Ackleson and Kastner, 2011; Ali et al., 2023; Dovbischuk, 2023). Since, AFSCs have evolved at a global scale so through understanding of their economic vulnerabilities and their mitigation aspects are of prime concern to the world in order to achieve SDGs. These studies hold significant importance in developing countries, where AFSCs are more vulnerable to disruptions and there is a scarcity of scientific research to suggest mitigation strategies (Kumar and Agrawal, 2023; Hasan et al., 2023). Furthermore, the use of technological innovations in order to achieve resilient AFSCs is also insufficient (Joshi et al., 2023). The study was undertaken by collecting and analyzing published academic papers, reports and other reliable information using a review approach. The literature reviewed captures risks in AFSCs their economic impacts and possible ways to mitigate them. This study highlights supply chain resilience concerns and solutions using agricultural insights, economic theory, and management ideas.
This study adopts an integrative approach by bridging insights gained from AFSC operations, agriculture economics, and risk management. This review aims to address the following questions: What are the main economic risks impacting AFSC? What are the impacts of these risks on various countries and groups? What kind of disruptions, like weather events, political issues, or labor shortages, cause the most problems to supply chain? What techniques, including new tools like blockchain and satellite surveillance, are able to reduce these risks and strengthen supply chains? The remainder of this study is split into eight major sections offering a thorough investigation of supply chain risks in AFSs. Section 2 outlines the structure and complexity of AFSCs, discussing their stages, inherent characteristics, and the implications of globalization and lean system designs. Section 3 classifies the various types of risks affecting these systems, including climate-related, economic, logistical, labor, regulatory, technological, and social risks. Section 4 delves into the economic vulnerabilities of AFSs, particularly focusing on smallholder farmers, export-dependent economies, and infrastructure weaknesses in developing regions. Section 5 presents a range of mitigation and risk management strategies, such as policy interventions, financial tools, technological innovations, and supply chain redesign. Section 6 provides case studies of recent disruptions, such as the COVID-19 outbreak, the Ukraine-Russia conflict, and environmental challenges, illustrating real-world consequences of supply chain fragility. Section 7 identifies major deficiencies in the literature and suggests pathways for upcoming interdisciplinary studies. Finally, Section 8 wraps up with an overview of findings and provides policy suggestions to enhance the resilience and sustainability of global AFSCs.
2 Structure and complexity of AFSCs
The first stage in AFSC is the procurement of input materials, (Stage 1—Inputs; Figure 1). This includes seeds, fertilizers, agrochemicals, and farming equipment, which serve as the foundation for agricultural production. The second stage (Stage 2—Farm) is the food production stage, involving cultivation, harvesting, and animal husbandry. This stage corresponds to “Farm” in Figure 1 and plays a central role in determining the overall sustainability of the supply chain. Environmental and social aspects such as soil health, water consumption, fertilizer emissions, biodiversity conservation, and fair labor practices, are key considerations at this stage. Technology also contributes to improving agricultural efficiency and minimizing resource waste through precision farming and smart monitoring systems. The third stage (Stage 3—Processing) is the production of finished products through processing, value addition, and packaging of the raw materials. One crucial aspect of this stage is to align balance between demand and supply (Rathor et al., 2022). Technology is crucial for increasing production efficiencies and decreasing resource waste (Chiang et al., 2021). The fourth stage (Stage 4—Distribution) is the transportation of finished products from production sites to the warehouses for temporary storage or timely distribution (Rathor et al., 2022). As indicated in Figure 1, this stage encompasses storage, transport, and cold-chain logistics. This stage considers environmental, social, and economic factors to achieve sustainable as well as responsible supply chain characteristics (Hou et al., 2015). For example, environmental dimensions may include reducing carbon emissions from transportation, improving energy efficiency, and adopting cleaner logistics solutions. Inventory management is crucial for reducing warehouse holding costs and efficient order delivery. The fifth stage (Retail and Consumers) involves order fulfillment. This stage involves picking and shipping products to either retailers or consumers. The speed and accuracy of this stage greatly impacts consumer satisfaction (Rathor et al., 2022). It also connects closely to consumer feedback mechanisms and demand drivers, as reflected in Figure 1. Advanced tools like internet of things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and blockchain help minimize disruptions in the distribution network. These technologies also support earlier stages, such as farming and processing, by improving traceability, monitoring production efficiency, and ensuring sustainability compliance. IoT enables real-time tracking to prevent losses, AI optimizes decision-making and inventory management, though it struggles with sudden demand spikes. The blockchain ensures transparency and security, despite potential vulnerabilities. Together, these technologies can enhance supply chain efficiency as well as its robustness (Katsaliaki et al., 2022; Moberg et al., 2004).
Figure 1. Structure of the agri-food supply chain.
Since, food products are perishable therefore they needs to be efficiently handled and properly stored to sustain their quality. Moreover, seasonal demand fluctuations make pricing strategies and inventory management a complicated task. Natural disasters arise food safety issues and disrupt supply chains (Kuizinaitė et al., 2023). Researchers have proposed optimization models to deal with such risks (Taşkıner and Bilgen, 2021). Furthermore, the adoption of advanced tools like AI, IoT, and blockchain is helping to enhance the robustness of the supply network (Dadi et al., 2021; Menon and Jain, 2024). Supply chains have shifted from a local to global scale interconnecting multiple actors through complex relationships (Menon and Jain, 2024). This transformation has also expanded sustainability considerations to include carbon credits, energy efficiency, and reductions in transportation-related emissions across all stages of the supply chain. This transformation of the supply chains confers both challenges as well as opportunities. They face a range of risks including traceability, imbalance between supply and demand, and food security and its safety. However, digital technologies are facilitating to cope with these risks efficiently (Dadi et al., 2021). Integration of local actors, such as small-scale farmers, into the complex and evolving global supply chains is challenging particularly for countries having large populations like China (Zhang and Aramyan, 2009).
The upsurge of global value chains promises efficient trade in food products. These chains integrate AFSC by the fragmentation of products on the international scale (Katsaliaki et al., 2022; Xiao et al., 2017). The worldwide value chains have made it possible for emerging nations to participate in international markets and boost their economy (Del Prete et al., 2017; Mao, 2021). Global AFSCs contribute to environmental problems, like deforestation, soil degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions due to resource-heavy production and long-distance transportation. They also create economic disparities, with small farmers often getting lower compensation, while larger corporations benefit from economies of scale, leading to market imbalances and food insecurity (Sun, 2018). Application of lean principles to streamline supply chain is gaining popularity. These principles also help to reduce waste. However, by applying these principles, supply chain become more prone to vulnerabilities raising concerns about their resilience (Taylor, 2006; Krstic et al., 2023). Thus, achieving balance between the distribution network efficiency and its robustness presents a challenge to the managers (Joshi et al., 2023). Implementation of block chain technology can help to achieve efficiency and traceability in agri-food distribution networks (Chen et al., 2021; Toader et al., 2024).
3 Classification of supply chain risks
3.1 Environmental and climate-related risks
Environmental factors such as droughts, heatwaves, and floods significantly affect agricultural productivity and the agricultural food supply chain (AFSC) (Malik et al., 2022; Ali et al., 2023). Droughts reduce soil moisture, leading to crop failures, higher market prices, and lower farm incomes. These economic challenges are further exacerbated by intermediaries capturing a substantial share of value and farmers’ dependence on costly agricultural inputs. Although drought-resistant crop varieties can mitigate some adverse effects, their performance still depends on maintaining healthy soils. Extreme weather events and soil degradation further undermine resilience, underscoring the importance of sustainable soil management (Kundzewicz et al., 2002; Renard et al., 2023). According to Khan et al. (2020), rice and wheat production in Pakistan are particularly vulnerable to climate-related risks, which could result in a projected GDP loss of USD 19.5 billion by 2050. Extreme weather events also damage transportation infrastructure, causing logistical delays and supply disruptions. Climate-induced changes are expected to reduce crop yields by approximately 23% by 2050 and increase price volatility (Haile et al., 2017). This decline in production could affect global GDP by up to 4.6% by 2060 (Tan et al., 2024). Rising agricultural commodity prices can also reduce domestic consumption, particularly in urban areas (Khan et al., 2020). This not only strains household budgets but also disrupts key dimensions of food security, particularly availability and access. When prices surge, food accessibility becomes limited for many households, and production slowdowns further constrain overall food availability. Consequently, the efficiency of supply chains deteriorates, intensifying food insecurity in regions already facing limited access to essential resources (Malik et al., 2022).
3.2 Economic and market risks
Price volatility of the agri-food products negatively affects their supply, particularly from developing countries. In countries with poor infrastructure and high inflation, price instability leads to reduced production (Subervie, 2008). Price volatility increases production costs, especially for fertilizers, pesticides, and seeds, making it harder for farmers to sustain production. These rising input costs limits their ability to invest in essential resources, leading to reduced productivity and inefficiencies through AFSCs. In order to mitigate price volatility risk, firms can employ scientific approaches such as real options valuation and total cost of ownership (Gaudenzi et al., 2020). Disruptions like COVID-19 can cause input shortages, affecting production and making agricultural products more costly (Hobbs, 2021). Systematic issues in agri-food logistics, coupled with poor resource management, have resulted in over 33% of food losses, exacerbating global food insecurity (Joshi et al., 2023). Food waste reduces food availability, drives up prices, and limits access to nutrients for vulnerable groups. Moreover, complex supply chains complicate food traceability and management, further exacerbating these challenges (Chen et al., 2021). This absence of transparency can result in food safety problems, fraudulent behavior as well as loss of consumer trust (Menon and Jain, 2024). The loss of consumer confidence in food supply can disrupt market demand and market access, while the imbalance and vertical integration of market forces may lead to unfair conditions for suppliers and limit the participation of smallholders within the distribution network (Young and Hobbs, 2002). The COVID-19 crisis and additional disruptions revealed weaknesses in the agricultural food supply chains, reduced productivity and diversity, and worsened access problems in poorly integrated and less developed areas (Swinnen and Vos, 2021). Solutions for this include the use of circular economy principles (Borrello et al., 2016) and blockchain technologies aimed at improving traceability (Chen et al., 2021; Menon and Jain, 2024).
3.3 Logistics and infrastructure risks
Dependence on logistics and infrastructure can put companies at risk in terms of storage issues, transportation problems, and port troubles. Such problems can severely disrupt the food distribution network along with the performance of the company and its processes from supplier to customer (Ali and Govindan, 2021; Abu Nahleh et al., 2023). The outbreak of COVID-19 led to issues with transportation, inadequate storage facilities, food loss, and a shortage of labor, all of which impacted the availability, access, utilization, and stability of food. These disturbances not only disrupted food production and supply but also compromised food quality, freshness, hygiene, and cost-efficiency, exacerbating food insecurity in both the Global North as well as Global South (Abu Nahleh et al., 2023). Incorporating Industry 4.0 technology (I4T) can offset the negative impacts of operational risks affecting the performance of agricultural food distribution networks (Ali and Govindan, 2021). Digital transformation minimizes operational risk such as in COVID-19. In South Asia, the research conducted on logistics operation, more especially in transportation and warehousing functions, can enhance supply chain resilience (Umar and Wilson, 2023).
3.4 Labor and workforce risks
Seasonal and migrant worker shortages coupled with strikes have heavily affected all links of AFSC (Kuizinaitė et al., 2023). Human workforce is very important for smooth functioning of supply chain. During periods of labor shortages, Canada’s peak agricultural season and its reliance on temporary immigrant worker programs may result in disruptions, food losses, and reduced competitiveness (Preibisch, 2010). Alterations in immigration labor policies have afforded employers more sway in terms of staffing rights. This serves to underscore the value of immigrant labor in tackling shortages and sustaining productivity and stability in the labor market. As per Abu Nahleh et al. (2023), food losses and logistics disruptions occurred along the food value chain due to labor shortages, increased transportation costs, and limited storage capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The deficiencies in AFSC have unmasked their vulnerabilities and their dependence on a flexible labor strategy like digitization and automation (Ali and Govindan, 2021; Dadi et al., 2021).
3.5 Political and regulatory risks
An export ban or regulatory changes are the main risks that can disrupt AFSC. It can disrupt the global supply chain of food and agriculture. Most importantly, it can impact countries that lack self-sufficiency in agri-food (Kuizinaitė et al., 2023). According to Koppenberg et al. (2020), more than 20 countries have AFSC disruptions. Unanticipated governmental rules and regulatory changes could threaten the agri-food distribution. Because of coronavirus disrupting the border and food trade, better policy measures could limit the number of interruptions. The measures may relate to border delays, certification and food trade rules (Deconinck et al., 2020). The agri-food distribution faces major risk standards due to government policy reforms and compliance measures (Kuizinaitė et al., 2023). Excessive and inadequate regulation can harm the agricultural food sector, as excessive regulation may limit innovation and competitiveness, while insufficient regulation can lead to instability, including food safety issues, fraud, and unethical behavior (Zhao et al., 2017; Kuizinaitė et al., 2023). Changes in regulations can disrupt the flow of goods within the supply chain, leading to delays and inefficiencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, sudden border and certification rule changes led to shipment delays and spoilage of perishable agri-food products. Adjusting a company’s production, package, or even the bus one of those cargo ships or trucks is likely to be costly. As per the study by Srivastava and Dashora (2021) and Menon and Jain (2024), to alleviate those risks, the policymakers and the stakeholders within the industry should look for innovative ways to achieve a balance between effectiveness and security. This can be achieved with the help of electronic traceability technology and blockchain, through which transparency and compliance can be enhanced.
3.6 Technological and cyber risks
Researchers have proposed adopting digital monitoring tools and innovations (such as AI, IoT and blockchain) to improve the traceability, openness, and efficiency of agricultural food distribution networks, which cyber-attacks could significantly compromise (Dadi et al., 2021; Ali and Govindan, 2021). According to Dadi et al. (2021), automation and digital platforms may help in handling issues concerning food safety and traceability but might also cause new risks. Tech platforms such as IoT, blockchain, and AI can help simplify processes and combat vulnerabilities and setbacks within the agricultural food distribution network (Ali and Govindan, 2021). For example, digital traceability systems can boost efficiency, support food protection, and increase openness throughout the distribution network (Charlebois et al., 2024). Digital twins can help create more transparency, reduce lead time, respond to unforeseen events, and make better use of current practices and resources. However, these technologies also bring new risks. Adoption of Industry 4.0 requires skilled workers, funding and economic benefits. Agricultural food supply chain can also face data privacy and cybersecurity threats from digital platforms (Saha et al., 2024). Technological solutions in agriculture rely heavily on global supply chains, which can create new vulnerabilities. Many of the components for technologies like IoT, blockchain, and AI come from far-off, expensive suppliers in the Global North. This dependence makes these systems prone to disruptions, which, honestly, raises questions about their long-term reliability and security. Moroever, sustainability could also be a big issue.
3.7 Social and consumer risks
The agricultural food supply chain is significantly affected by changes in consumer demands—for example, the growing preference for organic, plant-based, and sustainable foods. These changes require adjustments in production, processing, and distribution systems, supported by technologies such as blockchain to improve tracking and transparency (Bhat et al., 2021; Toader et al., 2024). Shifting consumer demands are driving changes in the AFSC. To remain competitive and respond to evolving market needs, organizations must adopt digital technologies and sustainable practices (Ali and Govindan, 2021; Krstic et al., 2023). Food recalls caused by contamination or labeling errors negatively affect consumer trust and brand reputation. Surveys show that consumers are particularly concerned about recalls involving gluten-free products (Liu S. et al., 2023). However, when companies manage recalls in a transparent and efficient way, they can maintain consumer confidence. Corporate social media can help reduce the impact on stock prices, which tend to fall more sharply after a first recall than after multiple recalls (Wang et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2015).
4 Economic vulnerabilities in AFSs
4.1 Vulnerabilities of smallholder farmers
Small farmers are economically vulnerable due to constraints on financing, insurance, and technology, as presented in Table 1. In addition, dependence on imported agricultural inputs such as mineral fertilizers, agrochemicals, and machinery exposes both Global South and Global North countries to international price and supply fluctuations. These dependencies increase production costs and food insecurity risks during global crises (Hatab, 2022; Liu L. et al., 2023; Hussein and Knol, 2023). Stringent collateral demands, high interest rates, and limited access to affordable credit imposed by financial institutions severely hinder their ability to invest in new production methods, risk management strategies, and modern technologies (Teye and Quarshie, 2021; Amarnath et al., 2023). This lack of credit channels restricts farmers from investing in modern technologies needed to boost productivity and reduce food insecurity (Teye and Quarshie, 2021). The majority of small-scale farmers do not have access to low-cost crop loss insurance, leaving them heavily impacted by extreme weather events. Gumbi et al. (2023) stated that small farmers could benefit from digital agriculture to solve their problems. However, it is not widely adopted because digital systems are weak, digital skills are low, costs are high, and infrastructure is poor. Using image-based insurance (PBI) can improve coverage for small farmers. Policies, improved rural infrastructure, and combined solutions like weather insurance, agricultural advice, and climate-resistant seeds should be implemented to enhance smallholder farmers’ capacity to cope (Ceballos et al., 2019; Teye and Quarshie, 2021; Amarnath et al., 2023). Smallholder farmers face rising costs due to dependence on imported inputs and soil degradation. This economic fragility are compounded by price volatility, unsustainable practices, and lack of financial support, highlighting the need for systemic policy changes.
Table 1. Summary of economic vulnerabilities in agri-food systems.
Small farmers are very vulnerable in the agricultural food system due to their low resource base, high transaction costs, and operational compliance problems, as presented in Figure 2. This figure presents an overview of AFS, showing sequential stages, input, production, processing, distribution, retail/trade, and consumption, along with their interconnected vulnerabilities. The middle section highlights cross-cutting risks, while the lower part classifies them into five dimensions, viz., economic, technological, institutional, environmental, and social. Economic and technological issues arise from limited finance and weak digital adoption, whereas environmental and social challenges like climate change, resource degradation, poverty, and gender disparities intensify vulnerabilities across stages. The coronavirus outbreak revealed this problem, especially in Sri Lanka, as a result of transportation and demand disruptions, which worsened economic conditions (Ortmann and King, 2010). Small farmers without financial buffers were hard hit by external shocks. Farmers help build overall resilience capacity of AFSC, but they tend to be viewed as the least resilient ones in AFSC (Zhao et al., 2022). We need to tackle the susceptibility of small farmers in order to ensure their resilience and the sustainability of AFS. Strategies like developing alternative food networks, promoting collective action, and using digital technology can help reduce these vulnerabilities (Ortmann and King, 2010; Belhadi et al., 2024). As per Karunarathna et al. (2023), supply of agricultural inputs, loans, and subsidies by the government may lead to stabilization and sustaining of small farmer operations.
Figure 2. Systematic vulnerabilities in agri-food systems.
4.2 Export-oriented economies
AFSC depends on global markets for its inputs and outputs, which makes domestic economies more vulnerable. This can be seen in Ghana’s cocoa and Malaysia’s palm oil sectors. The pandemic has shown these weaknesses in the sector (Tan et al., 2023). Because of this reliance on global markets, food supply and demand might become unbalanced. At the same time, that reliance can create opportunities for resilience. Traders are critical to linking corporate sustainability targets to real-world impacts in food supply chains (Grabs and Carodenuto, 2021). Through better global connections, risks coming from market dependency can be reduced. To address the challenges of AFSC dependency, countries should develop supply chains with resilience by innovation, early warning mechanism and a middle path between global participation and domestic food security measures (Manikas et al., 2022; Joshi et al., 2023). The financial and industrial limits in developing regions make it hard to implement advanced infrastructure. These areas face challenges not just with limited capital and outdated infrastructure, but also with a shortage of skilled labor and the time-consuming need to train the workforce to manage new technologies properly. Furthermore, applying digital technologies including approaches such as ‘Agri-Food 4.0’ can contribute to lowering food waste, enable real-time tracking, and support scalability (Dadi et al., 2021). Using IoT, big data, and blockchain can assist in establishing traceability and enhancing the efficiency of AFSC systems in developing regions. However, a major challenge for many countries is securing substantial investment for infrastructure development, especially in rural areas with limited access to energy, internet, and logistics, compounded by a lack of financial resources and technical expertise (Bhat et al., 2021; Ahmadzadeh et al., 2023).
4.3 Impact on food prices and household budgets
As highlighted in the introduction, food security encompasses not only the availability of food but also its access, stability, and utilization. The rise in food costs has impacted family budgets and nutritional stability, especially for vulnerable groups in low-income nations. A 50% hike in food price leads to a reduction of 5–15% in energy intake and a cut of 10–30% in iron intake, depending on income effects (Bouis et al., 2011). In India, the rise in food costs brings a higher likelihood of children becoming malnourished. The rate of emaciation in children, for example, rose from 18.8% in 2006 to 28.0% in 2009 (Vellakkal et al., 2015). When shortages arise, families switch to cheaper brands, purchase larger quantities and plant vegetable gardens. Shortages can affect food quality and variety, especially for the poor and female headed households. As noted by Welch and Graham (2000), malnutrition is not only a result of agricultural inefficiencies but also of poverty, which is a critical barrier to achieving food security. It is necessary to act on these angles simultaneously to give us food security and nutrition (which includes health) through agricultural production and food systems (Welch and Graham, 2000; Haddad, 2000).
5 Mitigation and risk management approaches
5.1 Policy and governance solutions
The agricultural food supply chain can experience reduced risk and disruption through policy and governance solutions, provided by the farm, Table 2. According to Charlebois et al. (2024), food security, regulatory frameworks, emergency plans, and digital traceability are possible through national food strategies and trade agreements. OECD countries have adopted digital traceability systems to enhance supply chain performance, strengthen food safety, and boost transparency, while simultaneously reinforcing the robustness of disadvantaged SMEs (Ali et al., 2022; Charlebois et al., 2024). The food distribution network functions effectively amid the Covid-19 pandemic, meaning cross-border trade agreements are essential to ensure continuous food flow during the crisis (Hobbs, 2021). Geopolitical occurrences could interrupt agricultural supply chains, highlighting the necessity for robust trade agreements (Belhadi et al., 2024). As per Hong et al. (2023), the government adversely impacts global supply chain performance through trade-related policies and non-tariff measures. Similarly, they promote stability and resilience through research and development incentives, domestic demand stimulation, and subsidy design. Local food systems, including smallholder farms and community networks, help with resilience by being more flexible and not relying so much on global supply chains during disruptions. Technology like blockchain help adaption, while supportive policies strengthen resilience at both the levels (Quayson et al., 2020; Trivellas et al., 2020; Rejeb et al., 2022).
Table 2. Comparison of risk mitigation tools in agri-food systems.
5.2 Financial instruments and risk transfer
Financial instruments and risk-sharing methods such as agricultural insurance, micro-credit, and weather-indexed insurance can help reduce risks linked to AFSC. According to Al-Maruf et al. (2021), climate-linked crop insurance may lessen the effects of climate-related risks, as demonstrated in a pilot project in Bangladesh. This approach connects the cost of disasters to weather variables and is a better risk transfer mechanism than standard crop insurance. On the contrary, products based on indices improve the likelihood of accessing micro-credit by small agricultural producers and transferring the risk of disaster to the global market (Skees and Barnett, 2006). The effectiveness of different financial instruments, including the WIBCI, depends on the context and the state of their use. A limited amount of data, high cost and illiteracy of farmer insurance, etc., are the challenges (Al-Maruf et al., 2021). As per Ali and Govindan (2021), the use of Industry 4.0 technology in AFSC can mitigate both operational and financial risks during conditions like the COVID-19. AFSC risk management strategy is an integrated set of financial tools, risk transfer mechanisms and technological means. How effective it is, depends on education, participation in additional strategies, and integration with a range of other resilience factors like traceability, collaboration, and agility (Mishra and El-Osta, 2002; Zhao et al., 2017). Future research should make cross-border comparisons and adopt a multi-sectoral approach to better understand risk and sustainable management in AFSCs (Zhao et al., 2024).
5.3 Technological innovations
AFSC is one of the strategic areas where blockchain and IoT as well as AI should be used to reduce risks, improve traceability and operation efficiency, as illustrated in Figure 3. This figure illustrates technological interventions across AFSC from input to consumption, showing the flow of goods and information. The middle section highlights key technologies such as IoT and sensors, precision agriculture using drones and GIS, blockchain and QR codes, and mobile apps supported by AI, robotics, and digital platforms that enhance forecasting, automation, and market connectivity. These technologies facilitate transparency, monitoring, forecasting, and inventory management in real-time (Rui and Sundram, 2024). AgriBlockIoT, a platform built on blockchain and IoT, aims at improving tracking in AFSC (Odimarha et al., 2024). Quick detection of contaminated items for precise recall helps improve food safety by reducing foodborne illnesses (Oriekhoe et al., 2024). But, the SMEs bear the burden of things like high costs, shortage of skilled labour, data security issues, and the employees’ limited technical knowledge (Rui and Sundram, 2024; Odimarha et al., 2024). It is advised to run pilot projects, train workers, secure data, and get help from government and industry to help address these issues. The bottom section of Figure 3 summarizes the key outcomes of these technological applications, including improved resilience to shocks (e.g., climate or pandemic), increased productivity, reduced waste, enhanced traceability, and inclusion of smallholders through mobile and low-cost digital tools. By tackling these challenges, organizations can create a sustainable and effective AFSC, improving global market presence while also promoting long-term environmental, social, and economic sustainability (Rui and Sundram, 2024; Odimarha et al., 2024).
Figure 3. Technological interventions in the agri-food supply chain.
5.4 Local food systems and supply chain flexibility
By shortening supply chains, forming farmer cooperatives, and engaging in urban agriculture, local and regional food systems are strengthened with a view to increasing resilience and sustainability, lessening dependence on global networks, as well as enhancing nutritional stability in areas like the UAE (Sharma et al., 2023). The COVID-19 pandemic underscores that managing interruptions strategically starts with a careful assessment of options available in supply chain design and flexibility. Supplier diversification and multiple procurement are strategies that can help manage disruption effects by reducing the chances of reliance on a single source (Tomlin, 2006; Saghafian and Van Oyen, 2016). Effective inventory management strategies, like positional strategies, help reduce risks in the supply chain. Techniques such as Risk Exposure Index (REI) and Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) can identify the optimal inventory layout (Gao et al., 2019). The transition from food services to food retail demands readjustments within the agricultural product supply network, since interruptions could occur (Tomlin, 2006; Hobbs, 2021). By investing in strategies like flexible sourcing and multiple delivery locations, supply chain issues can be resolved. Reliability of AFSC can be further improved with supplier diversification. Also, strategic inventory management will help enhance agricultural food supply chain resilience. Building on the earlier points about the importance of flexibility and strategic management in supply chains, investing in automation, digitization, and online deliveries will be key to strengthening resilience and lessen dependence on global networks (Hobbs, 2021). These technologies can directly address the vulnerabilities as discussed before, like disruptions in supply chains, by boosting efficiency, enabling real-time monitoring, and increasing adaptability within agricultural food systems. These shifts, if properly implemented, might be a game-changer in tackling future disruptions.
5.5 Collaborative education and capacity building
The importance of public-private partnerships is to use resources, share infrastructure, and plan for the long-term disruptions a man-made or natural disaster can cause, to increase robustness as well as efficiency of AFSC (Gabler et al., 2017). It is especially important that there be public-private cooperation in urban water distribution design. Regional cooperation between public utilities can contribute to enhancing the reliability along with financial stability of the water provision (Gold et al., 2022). Collaborating with public authorities and private enterprises, alongside global cooperation and capacity building, may enhance food supply resilience by improving access to resources, knowledge, and innovations while reducing risks associated with AFSC. According to Zhao et al. (2022), developing training programs and coordinating the efforts of farmers, associations, and other stakeholders can improve adaptability and supply chain resilience. When farmers and workers interact regularly and share knowledge, they better handle challenges that could cause disruption. Digital technology also aids in the design of resilience strategies and uncertainty management in AFSCs (Belhadi et al., 2024). Figure 4 presents the resilience solutions framework comprising five pillars that enhance AFS resilience. These include policy and governance (strategies and regulations), financial instruments (insurance and credit), technological innovations (IoT, AI, blockchain), local food systems (shorter supply chains and diversification), and capacity building (training and partnerships). Together, they improve resilience, reduce vulnerability, and strengthen food security and risk management.
Figure 4. Resilience solutions framework for agri-food systems.
6 Case studies of recent disruptions
The COVID-19 pandemic caused labor shortages within meatpacking and produce cultivation due to employee infections of COVID-19 at manufacturing facilities and farms (Hobbs, 2021), as shown in Figure 5. This figure illustrates a timeline of key global disruptions from 2015 to 2024 and their cascading impacts on AFSC. Events such as El Niño droughts, COVID-19, the Russia–Ukraine war, and ongoing inflation are linked with impacts including food insecurity, rising prices, and supply chain fragility. The figure emphasizes how overlapping crises have compounded vulnerabilities, highlighting the urgent need for more resilient, adaptive, and diversified AFSs. Food losses occurred because of labor disruptions, higher transportation costs, and poor storage facilities during the pandemic (Abu Nahleh et al., 2023). As dietary habits shifted from hospitality sectors to grocery retail, the associated supply chains faced supply, logistics, and distribution challenges that destabilized the economy, especially among SMEs (Hobbs, 2021; Ramanathan et al., 2021). The coronavirus pandemic caused adverse impacts on nutritional stability and income sources worldwide, particularly in areas that had weak supply chains, high poverty, and market informality before the pandemic (Swinnen and Vos, 2021). The agricultural food sector fast-tracked the implementation of intelligent technologies and Industry 4.0 solutions during the worldwide health crisis, resulting in improved business processes and reduced operational risks (Ali and Govindan, 2021). Investment in online delivery infrastructure has permanently altered the food retailing landscape. The COVID-19 crisis exposed both the vulnerabilities as well as resilience of AFSC. It has led to not only a growth in online retailing of food and agricultural goods but also a rise in the use of digital technologies. Many believe these changes may last long, leading to greater automation and digitalization, and possibly more flexible supply chain configurations (Hobbs, 2021; Ali and Govindan, 2021; Suali et al., 2024).
Figure 5. Timeline of recent disruptions in agri-food systems.
Due to the war, pre-existing problems in AFSC have worsened, as illustrated in Table 3. Panic, inflation, and food insecurity have crippled import-dependent regions (Hussein and Knol, 2023). The halt in cereal shipments out of Russia and Ukraine has caused serious disruption to global grain trade, particularly wheat. Many countries have faced wheat supply shocks, with nearly 30 countries suffering. Fertilizer supply has also seen disruption, given that Russia is a major supplier of natural gas and fertilizers (Ben Hassen and El Bilali, 2022; Esfandabadi et al., 2022; Liu L. et al., 2023). According to Hatab (2022), the war affects the food supply chain via fuel sectors, transport corridors, farm supplies, rising food costs, and commercial restrictions. This has especially adverse effects on access to adequate food and dietary health in Africa. As a result, many people are now struggling with poverty and hunger. Agricultural food networks and low-income communities are more exposed to increasing energy costs, and high food prices worsen malnutrition and dietary standards (Arndt et al., 2023). The war between Russia and Ukraine has significantly impacted worldwide food availability. Across Africa and other regions reliant on imports, the conflict underscores the vulnerability of food systems. We require more positive approaches toward improving the global food supply. Furthermore, creating resilient and diversified supply chains is necessary (Ben Hassen and El Bilali, 2022; Hatab, 2022).
Table 3. Classification of agri-food disruptions by event type.
Natural disasters like floods in Pakistan, droughts in East Africa, and wildfires in Australia damage agricultural food supply chains and result in significant economic and social losses. In 2015/2016, southern Africa experienced severe droughts associated with El Niño that destroyed crops and livestock, leaving around 40 million individuals requiring global support (Nhamo et al., 2019). Climate change-related disasters like wildfires and droughts can devastate agriculture, leading to crop failures, escalating food costs, heightened poverty, and inadequate access to nutrition, especially in trade-dependent countries with vulnerable agricultural systems (Verschuur et al., 2021). Natural calamities harm the economy in many ways. For example, it will affect agricultural production, market access, trade, and food supply. Also, it will negatively impact farm income and employment generation. Increased food insecurity and malnutrition is likely to impact the poorest communities most (Tirivangasi, 2018). After climate-related shocks damage agriculture, it is essential to have strong and resilient AFSC to ensure sustainable food systems. Measures to mitigate these risks could be to adopt the Industry 4.0 technology, make traceability systems, cooperate and agility, and invest in irrigated agriculture and more variety of crops (Zhao et al., 2017; Nhamo et al., 2019; Ali and Govindan, 2021). Adaptation interventions and policies that assist agricultural communities to establish resilient systems are crucially important (Tirivangasi, 2018; Nhamo et al., 2019).
7 Discussion
Despite intensity along with extent of studies on the agro-food distribution network, several important challenges remain underexplored, as shown in Table 4. Most past studies looked at big supply chains, like ones involving trade, big farms, and advanced tech. Most of these studies look at themes like sustainability, digital innovation and adaptability within industrial scale distribution systems (Dadi et al., 2021; Rejeb et al., 2021; Ali et al., 2022). Local and informal food networks, though often overlooked, are very important for food access and livelihoods, especially in both developing and industrialized countries. In the Global North, these systems face big challenges like land degradation and fewer farmers, making them more reliant on big supply chains. By strengthening local food systems, we can make them more resilient to global disruptions. Globalization has made everyone vulnerable, showing that local supply chains within a global framework are essential for food security. Berti and Mulligan (2016) observe how regional food centers assist connecting small-scale farmers to customers and build better food supply chains. These local systems help promote the concept of shared value, as well as contribute to the existence of small farms in a very competitive environment (Jia et al., 2024). This topic has not been studied enough. Therefore, further investigation will help us learn how these local food systems work and how to make them stronger.
Table 4. Identified gaps in literature and future research directions.
Future studies should compare informal and traditional food systems with formal suppliers chain. This refers to informal systems and facilities that fill the gaps. Researchers can analyze how a local food system responds to crises like the COVID-19 outbreak, that, while disrupting the broader global distribution network, demonstrated the local market’s potential resilience (Sid et al., 2021; Chavez-Miguel et al., 2024). Another important area of research refers to employing digital tools (e.g., blockchain, mobile applications) to enhance trust, tracking, and openness within informal food networks (Bhat et al., 2021; Chiaraluce et al., 2024). Researchers should further explore the broader impacts of local food systems on environment, economy, and society, especially in rural areas. Interdisciplinary methods are urgently needed to study the agricultural food supply chain thus improving it. The systems are complex in nature and comprise many interrelated components, from land use and food production to food processing, transport and consumption. Systems must always be treated holistically by researchers, as there are many interactions and feedback loops between system components (Horton et al., 2017; Basset, 2024). As per Dadi et al. (2021), the above technologies can help in lessening food waste, improving efficiency as well as expanding production scale.
8 Conclusion
AFS faces many economic vulnerabilities that threaten nourishment availability and the reliability of distribution networks. Smallholder farmers rank among those hardest hit because of restricted availability of finance, insurance, and modern technology (SDG 1 and SDG 2). Export-dependent economies also face risks when global markets are disrupted, as seen during the coronavirus outbreak and the Russia-Ukraine war. Increasing food costs persist in impacting economically disadvantaged families, limiting their capacity to purchase healthy food. To address these challenges, several solutions can be applied. These include better policies, investment in digital technologies (SDG 9), improved infrastructure, and access to financial tools such as crop insurance and microcredit. Supporting local food systems, building flexible and shorter supply chains, and encouraging cooperation between governments, private sectors, and farmers are also important. Recent crises have shown the necessity of developing robust AFSs capable of adapting to disruptions and recovering quickly. Future strategies must focus on education, innovation, and collaboration to strengthen the entire food supply chain. In this way, we are able to guarantee a more secure, sustainable (SDG 12), as well as fair food system for all, while enhancing resilience to climate-related risks (SDG 13).
Author contributions
YX: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Data curation. JY: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition. MM: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Data curation. AM: Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of the Ministry of Education (24YJC630261); the Science Research Project of the Hebei Education Department (BJS2023052); the Social Science Development Research Project of Hebei Province 2023 (20230302013); the Social Science Planning Program in Shandong Province (24CGLJ36); and the International Collaborative Science and Innovation Finance (Jinan) Innovation Laboratory (JNSX2023078).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research 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 authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
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.
References
Abu Nahleh, Y., Al Ali, B., Alzarooni, S., Almulla, S., Al Ali, H., and Alteneiji, F. (2023). The impact of COVID-19 on supply chain in UAE food sector. Sustainability 15:8859. doi: 10.3390/su15118859
Ackleson, J., and Kastner, J. (2011). Borders and governance: an analysis of health regulation and the Agri-food trade. Geopolitics 16, 7–26. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2010.493767
Ahmadzadeh, S., Ramanathan, R., Ajmal, T., and Duan, Y. (2023). A comprehensive review on food waste reduction based on IoT and big data technologies. Sustainability 15:3482. doi: 10.3390/su15043482
Alabi, M. O., and Ngwenyama, O. (2023). Food security and disruptions of the global food supply chains during COVID-19: building smarter food supply chains for post COVID-19 era. Br. Food J. 125, 167–185. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-03-2021-0333
Ali, I., Arslan, A., Tarba, S., and Mainela, T. (2023). Supply chain resilience to climate change inflicted extreme events in Agri-food industry: the role of social capital and network complexity. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 264:108968. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108968
Ali, I., and Govindan, K. (2021). Extenuating operational risks through digital transformation of Agri-food supply chains. Prod. Plan. Control 34, 1165–1177. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2021.1988177
Ali, I., Sadiddin, A., and Cattaneo, A. (2022). Risk and resilience in Agri-food supply chain SMEs in the pandemic era: a cross-country study. Int J Log Res Appl 26, 1602–1620. doi: 10.1080/13675567.2022.2102159
Al-Maruf, A., Sarker, P. K., Rida, T. N., Mira, S. A., Rahman, M. S., and Jenkins, J. C. (2021). Piloting a weather-index-based crop insurance system in Bangladesh: understanding the challenges of financial instruments for tackling climate risks. Sustainability 13:8616. doi: 10.3390/su13158616
Amarnath, G., Taron, A., Ghosh, S., and Alahacoon, N. (2023). Bundled climate-smart agricultural solutions for smallholder farmers in Sri Lanka. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7:1145147. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1145147
Arndt, C., Diao, X., Dorosh, P., Pauw, K., and Thurlow, J. (2023). The Ukraine war and rising commodity prices: implications for developing countries. Glob. Food Secur. 36:100680. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2023.100680
Balana, B. B., Mekonnen, D., Haile, B., Hagos, F., Yimam, S., and Ringler, C. (2022). Demand and supply constraints of credit in smallholder farming: evidence from Ethiopia and Tanzania. World Dev. 159:106033. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106033
Basset, C. (2024). Soil security: the cornerstone of national security in an era of global disruptions. Soil Secur. 16:100154. doi: 10.1016/j.soisec.2024.100154
Belhadi, A., Kamble, S., Subramanian, N., Singh, R. K., and Venkatesh, M. (2024). Digital capabilities to manage Agri-food supply chain uncertainties and build supply chain resilience during compounding geopolitical disruptions. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 44, 1914–1950. doi: 10.1108/ijopm-11-2022-0737
Ben Hassen, T., and El Bilali, H. (2022). Impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war on global food security: towards more sustainable and resilient food systems? Foods 11:2301. doi: 10.3390/foods11152301
Berti, G., and Mulligan, C. (2016). Competitiveness of small farms and innovative food supply chains: the role of food hubs in creating sustainable regional and local food systems. Sustainability 8:616. doi: 10.3390/su8070616
Bhat, S. A., Sultan, M., Sofi, I. B., and Huang, N.-F. (2021). Agriculture-food supply chain management based on blockchain and IoT: a narrative on enterprise blockchain interoperability. Agriculture 12:40. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12010040
Blanco, C., and Raurich, X. (2022). Agricultural composition and labor productivity. J. Dev. Econ. 158:102934. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.102934
Borrello, M., Lombardi, A., Cembalo, L., and Pascucci, S. (2016). The seven challenges for transitioning into a bio-based circular economy in the Agri-food sector. Recent Pat. Food Nutr. Agric. 8, 39–47. doi: 10.2174/221279840801160304143939
Borsellino, V., Schimmenti, E., and El Bilali, H. (2020). Agri-food markets towards sustainable patterns. Sustainability 12:2193. doi: 10.3390/su12062193
Bosona, T., and Gebresenbet, G. (2023). The role of blockchain technology in promoting traceability systems in Agri-food production and supply chains. Sensors 23:5342. doi: 10.3390/s23115342
Bouis, H. E., Eozenou, P., and Rahman, A. (2011). Food prices, household income, and resource allocation: socioeconomic perspectives on their effects on dietary quality and nutritional status. Food Nutr. Bull. 32, S14–S23. doi: 10.1177/15648265110321s103
Carmela Annosi, M., Brunetta, F., Capo, F., and Heideveld, L. (2020). Digitalization in the Agri-food industry: the relationship between technology and sustainable development. Manag. Decis. 58, 1737–1757. doi: 10.1108/MD-09-2019-1328
Ceballos, F., Kramer, B., and Robles, M. (2019). The feasibility of picture-based insurance (PBI): smartphone pictures for affordable crop insurance. Dev. Eng. 4:100042. doi: 10.1016/j.deveng.2019.100042
Charatsari, C., Lioutas, E. D., De Rosa, M., and Vecchio, Y. (2022). Technological innovation and agrifood systems resilience: the potential and perils of three different strategies. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:872706. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.872706
Charlebois, S., Sarker, B., Ilahi, I., Music, J., Vezeau, J., and Latif, N. (2024). Digital traceability in Agri-food supply chains: a comparative analysis of OECD member countries. Foods 13:1075. doi: 10.3390/foods13071075
Chavez-Miguel, G., Hämmerle, J., González, A., Canetti, C., Gleich, P., Halfast, R. L., et al. (2024). Local food system resilience in the context of shocks and crises: vulnerabilities and responses of agroecology-based farmers in Peru, Germany, and the United States. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 48, 876–897. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2024.2341987
Chen, H., Chen, Z., Lin, F., and Zhuang, P. (2021). Effective management for blockchain-based Agri-food supply chains using deep reinforcement learning. IEEE Access 9, 36008–36018. doi: 10.1109/access.2021.3062410
Chiang, C. T., Kou, T. C., and Koo, T. L. (2021). A systematic literature review of the IT-based supply chain management system: towards a sustainable supply chain management model. Sustainability 13:2547. doi: 10.3390/su13052547
Chiaraluce, G., Bentivoglio, D., Finco, A., Fiore, M., Contò, F., and Galati, A. (2024). Exploring the role of blockchain technology in modern high-value food supply chains: global trends and future research directions. Agric. Food Econ. 12:6. doi: 10.1186/s40100-024-00301-1
Cirone, F., Masotti, M., Prosperi, P., Bosi, S., Dinelli, G., and Vittuari, M. (2023). Business strategy pathways for short food supply chains: sharing value between consumers and producers. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 40, 458–470. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2023.07.017
Cook, L. S., Heiser, D. R., and Sengupta, K. (2011). The moderating effect of supply chain role on the relationship between supply chain practices and performance: an empirical analysis. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 41, 104–134. doi: 10.1108/09600031111118521
Cricelli, L., Mauriello, R., and Strazzullo, S. (2024). Technological innovation in Agri-food supply chains. Br. Food J. 126, 1852–1869. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-06-2022-0490
Dadi, V., Nikhil, S. R., Agarwal, T., Mor, R. S., and Arora, S. (2021). Agri-food 4.0 and innovations: revamping the supply chain operations. Prod. Eng. Arch. 27, 75–89. doi: 10.30657/pea.2021.27.10
Deconinck, K., Jackson, L. A., and Avery, E. (2020). Food supply chains and covid-19: impacts and policy lessons. EuroChoices 19, 34–39. doi: 10.1111/1746-692x.12297
Del Prete, D., Marvasi, E., and Giovannetti, G. (2017). Global value chains participation and productivity gains for north African firms. Rev. World Econ. 153, 675–701. doi: 10.1007/s10290-017-0292-2
Dovbischuk, I. (2023). Sustainability in logistics service quality: evidence from Agri-food supply chain in Ukraine. Sustainability 15:3534. doi: 10.3390/su15043534
El Bilali, H., Strassner, C., and Ben Hassen, T. (2021). Sustainable Agri-food systems: environment, economy, society, and policy. Sustainability 13:6260. doi: 10.3390/su13116260
Esfandabadi, Z. S., Ranjbari, M., and Scagnelli, S. D. (2022). The imbalance of food and biofuel markets amid Ukraine-Russia crisis: a systems thinking perspective. Biofuel Res. J. 9, 1640–1647. doi: 10.18331/brj2022.9.2.5
Francaviglia, R., Almagro, M., and Vicente-Vicente, J. L. (2023). Conservation agriculture and soil organic carbon: principles, processes, practices, and policy options. Soil Syst. 7:17. doi: 10.3390/soilsystems7010017
Gabler, C. B., Richey, R. G., and Stewart, G. T. (2017). Disaster resilience through public–private short-term collaboration. J. Bus. Logist. 38, 130–144. doi: 10.1111/jbl.12152
Gao, S. Y., Yan, Z., Teo, C. P., and Simchi-Levi, D. (2019). Disruption risk mitigation in supply chains: the risk exposure index revisited. Oper. Res. 67, 831–852. doi: 10.1287/opre.2018.1776
Gaudenzi, B., Pellegrino, R., and Zsidisin, G. A. (2020). Measuring the financial effects of mitigating commodity price volatility in supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 26, 17–31. doi: 10.1108/scm-02-2020-0047
Gold, D. F., Reed, P. M., Gorelick, D. E., and Characklis, G. W. (2022). Power and pathways: exploring robustness, cooperative stability, and power relationships in regional infrastructure investment and water supply management portfolio pathways. Earths Future 10:e2021EF002472. doi: 10.1029/2021ef002472
Gorton, M., Dumitrashko, M., and White, J. (2006). Overcoming supply chain failure in the Agri-food sector: a case study from Moldova. Food Policy 31, 90–103. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.08.003
Grabs, J., and Carodenuto, S. L. (2021). Traders as sustainability governance actors in global food supply chains: a research agenda. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30, 1314–1332. doi: 10.1002/bse.2686
Gumbi, N., Twinomurinzi, H., and Gumbi, L. (2023). Towards sustainable digital agriculture for smallholder farmers: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 15:12530. doi: 10.3390/su151612530
Haddad, L. (2000). A conceptual framework for assessing agriculture–nutrition linkages. Food Nutr. Bull. 21, 367–373. doi: 10.1177/156482650002100405
Haile, M. G., Tesfaye, K., Wossen, T., and Von Braun, J. (2017). Impact of climate change, weather extremes, and price risk on global food supply. Econ. Disasters Clim. Change 1, 55–75. doi: 10.1007/s41885-017-0005-2
Hasan, I., Habib, M. M., Mohamed, Z., and Tewari, V. (2023). Integrated Agri-food supply chain model: an application of IoT and blockchain. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 13, 29–45. doi: 10.4236/ajibm.2023.132003
Hatab, A. A. (2022). Africa’s food security under the shadow of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Strateg. Rev. Southern Af. 44, 37–46. doi: 10.35293/srsa.v44i1.4083
Hobbs, J. E. (2021). Food supply chain resilience and the COVID-19 pandemic: what have we learned? Can. J. Agric. Econ. 69, 189–196. doi: 10.1111/cjag.12279
Hong, L. J., Li, J., Wu, X., and Yi, S. (2023). Future research of supply chain resilience: network perspectives and incorporation of more stakeholders. Fundam. Res. 5, 486–495. doi: 10.1016/j.fmre.2023.07.012
Horton, P., Cameron, D., Lenny Koh, S. C., Holdsworth, M., Ton, J., Banwart, S. A., et al. (2017). An agenda for integrated system-wide interdisciplinary Agri-food research. Food Secur. 9, 195–210. doi: 10.1007/s12571-017-0648-4
Hou, H., Hu, M., Chaudhry, S., and Chen, Y. (2015). Physical distribution, logistics, supply chain management, and the material flow theory: a historical perspective. Inf. Technol. Manag. 18, 107–117. doi: 10.1007/s10799-015-0229-1
Hussein, H., and Knol, M. (2023). The Ukraine war, food trade and the network of global crises. Int. Spect. 58, 74–95. doi: 10.1080/03932729.2023.2211894
Irani, Z., and Sharif, A. M. (2016). Sustainable food security futures: perspectives on food waste and information across the food supply chain. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 29, 171–178. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-12-2015-0117
Jia, F., Shahzadi, G., Bourlakis, M., and John, A. (2024). Promoting resilient and sustainable food systems: a systematic literature review on short food supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 435:140364. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140364
Joshi, S., Sharma, M., Ekren, B. Y., Kazancoglu, Y., Luthra, S., and Prasad, M. (2023). Assessing supply chain innovations for building resilient food supply chains: an emerging economy perspective. Sustainability 15:4924. doi: 10.3390/su15064924
Karunarathna, N., Jayarathne, A., and Siriwardhane, D. (2023). Exploring the measurements of COVID-19-induced supply chain disruptions and their implications on the economic vulnerability of small-scale farmers. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Oper. Manag. 6, 143–164. doi: 10.1108/ijieom-03-2023-0028
Katsaliaki, K., Galetsi, P., and Kumar, S. (2022). Supply chain disruptions and resilience: a major review and future research agenda. Ann. Oper. Res. 319, 965–1002. doi: 10.1007/s10479-020-03912-1
Khan, M. A., Tahir, A., Boughanmi, H., Ahmed, M., Khurshid, N., and Husnain, M. I. U. (2020). Economic effects of climate change-induced loss of agricultural production by 2050: a case study of Pakistan. Sustainability 12:1216. doi: 10.3390/su12031216
Koppenberg, M., Hirsch, S., Bozzola, M., and Dalhaus, T. (2020). Mapping potential implications of temporary COVID-19 export bans for the food supply in importing countries using precrisis trade flows. Agribusiness 37, 25–43. doi: 10.1002/agr.21684
Kozielec, A., Piecuch, J., Daniek, K., and Luty, L. (2024). Challenges to food security in the Middle East and North Africa in the context of the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Agriculture 14:155. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14010155
Krstic, M., Elia, V., Agnusdei, G. P., De Leo, F., Tadić, S., and Miglietta, P. P. (2023). Evaluation of the Agri-food supply chain risks: the circular economy context. Br. Food J. 126, 113–133. doi: 10.1108/bfj-12-2022-1116
Kuizinaitė, J., Morkūnas, M., and Volkov, A. (2023). Assessment of the most appropriate measures for mitigation of risks in the Agri-food supply chain. Sustainability 15:9378. doi: 10.3390/su15129378
Kumar, A., and Agrawal, S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities for Agri-fresh food supply chain management in India. Comput. Electron. Agric. 212:108161. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2023.108161
Kundzewicz, Z. W., Bronstert, A., Budhakooncharoen, S., Hoff, H., Schulze, R., Menzel, L., et al. (2002). Coping with variability and change: floods and droughts. Nat. Res. Forum 26, 263–274. doi: 10.1111/1477-8947.00029
Lee, L. F., Shu, S., and Hutton, A. P. (2015). The role of social media in the capital market: evidence from consumer product recalls. J. Account. Res. 53, 367–404. doi: 10.1111/1475-679x.12074
Liu, S., Joye, I. J., and El Khoury, D. (2023). Gluten-free product recalls and their impact on consumer trust. Nutrients 15:4170. doi: 10.3390/nu15194170
Liu, L., Wang, W., Yan, X., Shen, M., and Chen, H. (2023). The cascade influence of grain trade shocks on countries in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 10. doi: 10.1057/s41599-023-01944-z
Malik, A., Boylan, S., Raubenheimer, D., Li, M., Lenzen, M., Geschke, A., et al. (2022). Impacts of climate change and extreme weather on food supply chains cascade across sectors and regions in Australia. Nat. Food 3, 631–643. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00570-3
Manikas, I., Sundarakani, B., Ali, B., and Anastasiadis, F. (2022). A framework for food security via resilient Agri-food supply chains: the case of UAE. Sustainability 14:6375. doi: 10.3390/su14106375
Mao, Z. (2021). Global value chains (GVCS) and economic growth: a nonlinear analysis. Singap. Econ. Rev. 6, 985–1004. doi: 10.1142/s0217590821450028
Menon, S., and Jain, K. (2024). Blockchain technology for transparency in Agri-food supply chain: use cases, limitations, and future directions. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 71, 106–120. doi: 10.1109/tem.2021.3110903
Mishra, A. K., and El-Osta, H. S. (2002). Managing risk in agriculture through hedging and crop insurance: what does a national survey reveal? Agric. Financ. Rev. 62, 135–148. doi: 10.1108/00214930280001134
Mkumbukiy, A., Loghmani-Khouzani, T., Madani, K., and Guenther, E. (2025). Agrifood systems' resilience for sustainable food security amid geopolitical tensions: a systematic literature review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 9:1546851. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1546851
Moberg, C. R., Whipple, T. W., Speh, T. W., and Cutler, B. D. (2004). Do the management components of supply chain management affect logistics performance? Int. J. Logist. Manag. 15, 15–30. doi: 10.1108/09574090410700284
Mohsin, M., Mehak, A., Shafqat, M. M., and Luyao, Z. (2024). Risk identification and mitigation among rice farmers in Pakistan: a fuzzy-AHP multi-criteria decision-making approach. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8:1404524. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1404524
Nakandala, D., Chen, J., and Chikweche, T. (2025). SME supply chain resilience in disruptive times: the effects of supply chain robustness, access to government assistance and disruption intensity. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 31, 467–496. doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2024-0073
Nhamo, L., Mpandeli, S., Matchaya, G., Nhlengethwa, S., Nhemachena, C., and Mabhaudhi, T. (2019). Cereal production trends under climate change: impacts and adaptation strategies in southern Africa. Agriculture 9:30. doi: 10.3390/agriculture9020030
Nicola, M., Alsafi, Z., Sohrabi, C., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C., et al. (2020). The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): a review. Int. J. Surg. 78, 185–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018
Odimarha, A., Ayodeji, S., and Abaku, E. (2024). The role of technology in supply chain risk management: innovations and challenges in logistics. Magna Sci. Adv. Res. Rev. 10, 138–145. doi: 10.30574/msarr.2024.10.2.0052
Oriekhoe, O., Ilugbusi, B., and Adisa, O. (2024). Ensuring global food safety: integrating blockchain technology into food supply chains. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 5, 811–820. doi: 10.51594/estj.v5i3.905
Ortmann, G. F., and King, R. P. (2010). Research on Agri-food supply chains in southern Africa involving small-scale farmers: current status and future possibilities. Agrekon 49, 397–417. doi: 10.1080/03031853.2010.526428
Preibisch, K. (2010). Pick-your-own labor: migrant workers and flexibility in Canadian agriculture. Int. Migr. Rev. 44, 404–441. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2010.00811.x
Quayson, M., Bai, C., and Osei, V. (2020). Digital inclusion for resilient post-COVID-19 supply chains: smallholder farmer perspectives. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 48, 104–110. doi: 10.1109/EMR.2020.3006259
Ramanathan, U., Aluko, O., and Ramanathan, R. (2021). Supply chain resilience and business responses to disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Benchmarking 29, 2275–2290. doi: 10.1108/bij-01-2021-0023
Rao, N. C., Sutradhar, R., and Reardon, T. (2017). Disruptive innovations in food value chains and small farmers in India. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 72, 24–48.
Rathor, K., Mandawat, A., Pandya, K. A., Teja, B., Khan, F., and Khan, Z. T. Management of shipment content using novel practices of supply chain management and big data analytics. In: 2022 International Conference on Augmented Intelligence and Sustainable Systems (ICAISS). Trichy, India, IEEE (2022). p. 884–887.
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Appolloni, A., Iranmanesh, M., Treiblmaier, H., and Jagtap, S. (2022). Exploring food supply chain trends in the COVID-19 era: a bibliometric review. Sustainability 14:12437. doi: 10.3390/su141912437
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., and Keogh, J. G. (2021). Enablers of augmented reality in the food supply chain: a systematic literature review. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 24, 415–444. doi: 10.1080/15378020.2020.1859973
Renard, D., Noack, F., and Mahaut, L. (2023). Crop diversity buffers the impact of droughts and high temperatures on food production. Environ. Res. Lett. 18:045002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/acc2d6
Requier-Desjardins, D., Boucher, F., and Cerdan, C. (2003). Globalization, competitive advantages and the evolution of production systems: rural food processing and localized Agri-food systems in Latin-American countries. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 15, 49–67. doi: 10.1080/08985620210144983
Rui, F., and Sundram, V. P. K. (2024). Technological innovation for sustainable supply chain management in the food industry. Inf. Manag. Bus. Rev. 16, 892–903. doi: 10.22610/imbr.v16i3s(i)a.4173
Saghafian, S., and Van Oyen, M. P. (2016). Compensating for dynamic supply disruptions: backup flexibility design. Oper. Res. 64, 390–405. doi: 10.1287/opre.2016.1478
Saha, A., Kumar, M., and Raut, R. D. (2024). Leveraging blockchain technology to combat food fraud in the Agri-food supply chain. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 59, 3469–3477. doi: 10.1111/ijfs.16889
Sannou, R. O., Kirschke, S., and Günther, E. (2023). Integrating the social perspective into the sustainability assessment of Agri-food systems: a review of indicators. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 39, 175–190. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2023.05.014
Sengupta, T., Narayanamurthy, G., Moser, R., Pereira, V., and Bhattacharjee, D. (2022). Disruptive technologies for achieving supply chain resilience in COVID-19 era: an implementation case study of satellite imagery and blockchain technologies in fish supply chain. Inform. Syst. Front. 24, 1107–1123. doi: 10.1007/s10796-021-10228-3
Sharma, R., Wahbeh, S., Sundarakani, B., Manikas, I., and Pachayappan, M. (2023). Enhancing domestic food supply in the UAE: a framework for technology-driven urban farming systems. J. Clean. Prod. 434:139823. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139823
Sid, S., Gahlawat, V. K., Mor, R. S., Panghal, A., and Kumar, D. (2021). Agri-food supply chain and disruptions due to COVID-19: effects and strategies. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 18, 1–14. doi: 10.14488/bjopm.2021.031
Singh, A., Pandey, A. K., Santhosh, D. T., Ganavi, N. R., Sarma, A., Deori, C., et al. (2024). A comprehensive review on greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture and evolving agricultural practices for climate resilience. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change 14, 455–464. doi: 10.9734/ijecc/2024/v14i54206
Skees, J. R., and Barnett, B. J. (2006). Enhancing microfinance using index-based risk-transfer products. Agric. Financ. Rev. 66, 235–250. doi: 10.1108/00214660680001189
Srivastava, A., and Dashora, K. (2021). A fuzzy ISM approach for modeling electronic traceability in Agri-food supply chain in India. Ann. Oper. Res. 315, 2115–2133. doi: 10.1007/s10479-021-04072-6
Suali, A. S., Srai, J. S., and Tsolakis, N. (2024). The role of digital platforms in e-commerce food supply chain resilience under exogenous disruptions. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 29, 573–601. doi: 10.1108/scm-02-2023-0064
Subervie, J. (2008). The variable response of agricultural supply to world price instability in developing countries. J. Agric. Econ. 59, 72–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00136.x
Sun, Y. Y. (2018). Global value chains and national tourism carbon competitiveness. J. Travel Res. 58, 808–823. doi: 10.1177/0047287518781072
Swinnen, J., and Vos, R. (2021). COVID-19 and impacts on global food systems and household welfare: introduction to a special issue. Agric. Econ. 52, 365–374. doi: 10.1111/agec.12623
Tan, C., Guan, D., Wang, D., Yin, H., Lu, H., Duan, J., et al. (2024). Global supply chains amplify economic costs of future extreme heat risk. Nature 627, 797–804. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07147-z
Tan, S. P., Ng, L. C., Che Ibrahim, M. S., Hashim, K., Aman, Z., Lyndon, N., et al. (2023). A review on post-COVID-19 impacts and opportunities of Agri-food supply chain in Malaysia. PeerJ 11:e15228. doi: 10.7717/peerj.15228
Taşkıner, T., and Bilgen, B. (2021). Optimization models for harvest and production planning in Agri-food supply chain: a systematic review. Logistics 5:52. doi: 10.3390/logistics5030052
Taylor, D. H. (2006). Strategic considerations in the development of lean Agri-food supply chains: a case study of the UK pork sector. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 11, 271–280. doi: 10.1108/13598540610662185
Teye, E. S., and Quarshie, P. T. (2021). Impact of agricultural finance on technology adoption, agricultural productivity and rural household economic wellbeing in Ghana: a case study of rice farmers in Shai-Osudoku District. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 104, 231–250. doi: 10.1080/03736245.2021.1962395
Tirivangasi, H. M. (2018). Regional disaster risk management strategies for food security: probing southern African development community channels for influencing national policy. Jamba: J. Disaster Risk Stud. 10, 1–7. doi: 10.4102/jamba.v10i1.468
Toader, D. C., Toader, C., and Radulescu, C. M. (2024). Investigating the adoption of blockchain technology in Agri-food supply chains: analysis of an extended UTAUT model. Agriculture 14:614. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14040614
Tomlin, B. (2006). On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing supply chain disruption risks. Manag. Sci. 52, 639–657. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0515
Trivellas, P., Malindretos, G., and Reklitis, P. (2020). Implications of green logistics management on sustainable business and supply chain performance: evidence from a survey in the Greek Agri-food sector. Sustainability 12:10515. doi: 10.3390/su122410515
Umar, M., and Wilson, M. M. J. (2023). Inherent and adaptive resilience of logistics operations in food supply chains. J. Bus. Logist. 45:e12362. doi: 10.1111/jbl.12362
Vallejo-Rojas, V., Rivera-Ferre, M. G., and Ravera, F. (2015). Developing an integrated framework to assess Agri-food systems and its application in the Ecuadorian Andes. Reg. Environ. Chang. 16, 2171–2185. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0887-x
van Ginkel, M., and Biradar, C. (2021). Drought early warning in Agri-food systems. Climate 9:134. doi: 10.3390/cli9090134
Vellakkal, S., Fledderjohann, J., Basu, S., Agrawal, S., Ebrahim, S., Campbell, O., et al. (2015). Food price spikes are associated with increased malnutrition among children in Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Nutr. 145, 1942–1949. doi: 10.3945/jn.115.211250
Verschuur, J., Wolski, P., Otto, F. E. L., and Li, S. (2021). Climate change as a driver of food insecurity in the 2007 Lesotho-South Africa drought. Sci. Rep. 11:3852. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83375-x
Wang, G., Li, S., Yi, Y., Wang, Y., and Shin, C. (2024). Digital technology increases the sustainability of cross-border agro-food supply chains: a review. Agriculture 14:900. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14060900
Wang, Z., Salin, V., Hooker, N. H., and Leatham, D. (2002). Stock market reaction to food recalls: a GARCH application. Appl. Econ. Lett. 9, 979–987. doi: 10.1080/13504850210148125
Welch, R. M., and Graham, R. D. (2000). A new paradigm for world agriculture: productive, sustainable, nutritious, healthful food systems. Food Nutr. Bull. 21, 361–366. doi: 10.1177/156482650002100404
Williams, T. G., Bui, S., Conti, C., Debonne, N., Levers, C., Swart, R., et al. (2023). Synthesising the diversity of European Agri-food networks: a meta-study of actors and power-laden interactions. Glob. Environ. Change 83:102746. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102746
Xiao, H., Meng, B., Cheng, L., and Sun, T. (2017). Complex network analysis for characterizing global value chains in equipment manufacturing. PLoS One 12:e0169549. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169549
Young, L. M., and Hobbs, J. E. (2002). Vertical linkages in Agri-food supply chains: changing roles for producers, commodity groups, and government policy. Rev. Agric. Econ. 24, 428–441. doi: 10.1111/1467-9353.00107
Zhang, X., and Aramyan, L. H. (2009). A conceptual framework for supply chain governance. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 1, 136–154. doi: 10.1108/17561370910927408
Zhao, G., Liu, S., Chen, X., Lopez, C., Olan, F., Hormazabal, J. H., et al. (2024). Links between risk source identification and resilience capability building in Agri-food supply chains: a comprehensive analysis. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 71, 13362–13379. doi: 10.1109/tem.2022.3221361
Zhao, G., Liu, S., and Lopez, C. (2017). A literature review on risk sources and resilience factors in Agri-food supply chains. In: L. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, and R. Fornasiero (eds). Collaboration in a data-rich world. PRO-VE 2017. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. Vol 506. Springer, Cham.
Keywords: agri-food supply chain, food system resilience, SDGs, risk mitigation, food security
Citation: Xue Y, Yan J, Mohsin M and Mehak A (2025) Supply chain risks in agri-food systems: a comprehensive review of economic vulnerabilities and mitigation approaches. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 9:1649834. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1649834
Edited by:
Józef Ober, Silesian University of Technology, PolandReviewed by:
Omotola Ajayi, Chrisland University, NigeriaCeline Basset, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM), France
Copyright © 2025 Xue, Yan, Mohsin and Mehak. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jinling Yan, eWFuamlubGluZ2NoaW5hQHNpbmEuY29t