Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM68016
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-15
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Bachelor of Business Administration
Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation
Bachelor of Business Administration
Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation
The article examines the existing literature concerning sustainable agribusiness management and food supply chain performance, and it uses a simulated dataset to show how the Sustainability-Performance Transmission (SPT) framework can be tested. The review indicates that the concept of sustainability in agri-food chains has evolved from one of compliance to one of capability, that perishable supply chains require performance to be measured across at least four dimensions, and that the connection between sustainable practices and performance is mainly mediated by capabilities such as information sharing, collaboration and adaptive capacity. In order to carry out the empirical analysis, a synthetic dataset consisting of 120 respondents (these having been generated by simulation and not being real respondents) was analysed using descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, chi-square tests, one-way ANOVA, correlation and OLS regression together with a bootstrapped mediation test. The scores for sustainable practice (M = 3.15), capabilities (M = 3.24) and performance (M = 3.18) were all near the midpoint of the scale. In the simulated data, practice had a significant effect on capabilities (standardized beta = 0.55, p < .001, so H1 is supported) and on performance (beta = 0.56, p < .001, so H2 is supported); capabilities also predicted performance when practice was taken into account (beta = 0.49, p < .001, so H3 is supported); and the indirect effect was 0.267 (95% bootstrap CI [0.167, 0.382], so H4 is supported), which shows that there is partial mediation. There was no significant relationship between training and performance (so H5 is not supported) nor between chain role and performance (so H6 is not supported). Since these relationships were included in the simulation, they prove that the method is able to recover them and therefore do not provide any evidence about actual supply chains. Section 10 outlines what a genuine field study would need in addition. The use of artificial data is limited to showing off a complete and transparent research process, and the review and framework sections are entirely on their own.
KEYWORDS
This article looked at the research on agribusiness management and food supply chain performance introduced the SPT framework and showed with a simulated dataset how practice, capabilities and performance can be tested together. In the simulated data practice predicted capabilities and performance capabilities predicted performance and capabilities had some effect on the relationship between practice and performance while training and role were not linked to performance. These results were part of the simulation. Show the method, not the real world. The main message from the review is that sustainability investments should go with building capabilities and not be seen as following rules. The next step is to use the tools and analysis plan on real data from agri-food supply chains in countries that are developing such as India.
1. Ahumada, O. & Villalobos J. R. (2009). Application of planning models in the agri-food supply chain: A review. European Journal of Operational Research 196(1) 1–20. 2. Aramyan, L. H., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., van der Vorst J. G. A. J., & van Kooten O. (2007). Performance measurement in agri-food supply chains: A case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(4) 304–315. 3. Beamon, B. M. (1999). Measuring supply chain performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(3) 275–292. 4. Beske, P., Land, A., & Seuring, S. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management. Dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 152 131–143. 5. Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2) 1–14. 6. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2) 147–160. 7. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1) 78–104. 8. Hart, S. L. (1995). A resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4) 986–1014. 9. Reardon, T., Barrett, C. B., Berdegué, J. A., & Swinnen J. F. M. (2009). Agrifood industry. Small farmers in developing countries. World Development, 37(11) 1717–1727. 10. Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15) 1699–1710.
Publication Date
10/15/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
6
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...