Next Article in Journal
Impact of Bioplastic Design on Biodigestion Treatment
Next Article in Special Issue
Biochar-Supported Phytoremediation of Dredged Sediments Contaminated by HCH Isomers and Trace Elements Using Paulownia tomentosa
Previous Article in Journal
New Challenges to Managing Cultural Routes: The Visitor Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
Societal Involvement in Household Waste Sorting Behavior in the Context of the Circular Economy: A Case Study of Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 16
10.3390/su16167165
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Integrating Circular Economy Principles into Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review

by
Eko Ruddy Cahyadi
1,*,
Nurul Hidayati
1,
Nisa Zahra
1 and
Chusnul Arif
2
1
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, IPB University, Bogor Regency 16680, West Java, Indonesia
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, IPB University, Bogor Regency 16680, West Java, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 7165; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167165
Submission received: 15 June 2024 / Revised: 11 August 2024 / Accepted: 17 August 2024 / Published: 21 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Collection Circular Economy and Sustainable Strategies)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This systematic literature review (SLR) examines the integration of circular economy (CE) principles into the agri-food supply chain over the past 20 years. The review aims to consolidate existing knowledge, identify research gaps, and provide actionable insights for future research. A comprehensive search across major databases yielded 1200 articles, which were screened, filtered, and assessed, resulting in a final selection of 100 high-quality studies. This review highlights the significant potential of the CE to enhance sustainability, reduce waste, and improve resource efficiency in the agri-food sector. These studies were categorized based on thematic issues, geographical regions, and supply chain stages. The findings highlight the predominant focus on waste management, resource efficiency, sustainable practices, and economic impacts, reflecting regional priorities and regulatory frameworks. The review also underscores the multiplier effect of CE implementation, which enhances sustainability and efficiency within the agri-food sector and generates significant economic and environmental benefits on a regional and global scale. Key challenges and areas for further research are identified, providing a comprehensive foundation for advancing CE practices in the agri-food supply chain.

1. Introduction

The circular economy (CE) has emerged as a crucial paradigm in recent years, advocating for a shift from the traditional linear economic model—characterized by a take–make–dispose approach—toward a regenerative system where waste and resource use are minimized [1,2]. This transition is particularly relevant in the agri-food supply chain, which faces significant sustainability challenges, including food waste, environmental degradation, and inefficiencies in resource use.
The growing importance of the CE is driven by heightened environmental awareness, regulatory pressures, and the recognition of the limitations of natural resources [2]. The CE promotes sustainable development by extending product life cycles, enhancing resource efficiency, and reducing waste, contributing to economic, environmental, and social sustainability [3]. In the agri-food sector, CE principles are essential for addressing substantial issues like food waste, which represents a major portion of global waste and exacerbates greenhouse gas emissions and resource inefficiency [4].
The agri-food supply chain faces several critical challenges. Food waste is a significant problem, with approximately one-third of all food produced globally being lost or wasted, resulting in considerable economic losses and environmental impacts [4]. Additionally, the sector contributes to environmental degradation through activities like deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution [5]. Furthermore, inefficiencies pervade the supply chain, from production and processing to distribution and consumption, aggravating these issues [6]. Other studies have highlighted various challenges and opportunities associated with integrating CE principles into the agri-food supply chain. The authors of [7] identified significant barriers such as high initial investment costs, technological challenges, and the need for supportive regulatory frameworks. The authors of [8] discussed the potential economic benefits of the CE, including cost savings and new business opportunities, but also noted the challenges related to financial feasibility and market readiness. Additionally, ref. [9] emphasized the need for a systemic shift in production and consumption patterns, which requires coordinated efforts from all stakeholders. In developing countries, additional challenges include limited access to advanced technologies and inadequate infrastructure, which hinder the widespread adoption of CE practices [10].
Integrating CE principles into agri-food supply chain management offers a promising approach to enhancing sustainability and efficiency. This integration involves several key strategies. Waste valorization transforms agricultural by-products and food waste into valuable products such as bioenergy, fertilizers, and animal feed, reducing waste and creating economic opportunities [11]. Resource efficiency can be achieved through practices like precision agriculture and sustainable farming methods, which optimize the use of inputs such as water, energy, and raw materials, improving efficiency and reducing environmental impact [12]. For instance, precision agriculture uses advanced technologies to optimize field-level management regarding crop farming, significantly reducing resource use and environmental impact [13]. Sustainable production practices, including crop rotation and agroforestry, enhance soil health, increase biodiversity, and improve resilience to climate change. Studies such as [12,14] provide frameworks and case studies demonstrating the practical applications and benefits of these strategies in various contexts.
The adoption of the CE in the agri-food supply chain presents several benefits and challenges. The environmental benefits include significant reductions in waste and greenhouse gas emissions and improved soil health and biodiversity conservation [12]. Economically, CE can lead to cost savings, the creation of new business models, and market opportunities [7]. Socially, the CE can improve food security, create sustainable jobs, and enhance public health by reducing environmental pollutants [2]. However, economic barriers such as high initial investment costs and uncertain financial returns can hinder CE adoption [15]. Technological challenges, including the need for advanced infrastructure and expertise, and regulatory and policy issues, such as the lack of supportive policies, also pose significant obstacles [3,16].
Despite the growing interest in the CE, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding its practical application and impact on the agri-food supply chain. Many existing studies focus on theoretical frameworks or isolated case studies, lacking a comprehensive analysis of CE practices, challenges, and potential solutions across various contexts [17]. This paper aims to address this gap by systematically reviewing the literature to provide a holistic understanding of CE implementation in the agri-food supply chain.
A systematic literature review (SLR) is essential to consolidate existing knowledge, identify research gaps, and inform future research directions. An SLR provides a rigorous and transparent method for synthesizing evidence from multiple studies, ensuring a comprehensive and unbiased understanding of the topic [18]. This approach is vital for developing actionable insights and recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers dedicated to advancing a sustainable agri-food supply chain
The primary aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the integration of circular economy (CE) principles into the agri-food supply chain over the past 20 years. The review consolidates existing knowledge, identifies research gaps, and provides actionable insights for future research and policy development. Specifically, it analyzes the temporal distribution of research, categorizes reviewed papers based on thematic issues, geographical regions, and supply chain stages, and highlights the benefits and challenges of implementing CE principles in the agri-food sector. By identifying key gaps, such as the need for more empirical studies, regional differences in CE implementation, and the long-term impacts of CE practices, this paper aims to guide future research and policy efforts.
The paper is structured as follows: The Introduction section provides an overview of the CE concept, its relevance to the agri-food supply chain, and the current challenges and opportunities. The Theoretical Background section lays the foundational theories on circular economy and supply chain management with a focus on their integration into the agrifood supply chain. The Materials and Methods section describes the systematic literature review process, including the search strategy, screening, filtering, and quality assessment of the reviewed papers. The Results section presents the findings of the review, detailing the temporal distribution of research, thematic issues, geographical distribution, and supply chain stages. The Discussion section explores the implications of the findings and identifies gaps in the current knowledge. Finally, the Conclusion summarizes the key insights from the review and offers recommendations for future research and policy development.

2. Theoretical Background

The circular economy (CE) is an economic model that aims to minimize waste and make the most of resources. It contrasts with the traditional linear economy, which follows a ‘take, make, dispose’ model. CE principles include designing out waste, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems. This approach enhances sustainability by promoting resource efficiency, reducing environmental impact, and fostering economic growth through innovative business models [1,7]. The main goal of CE is to fully utilize and recycle materials to combat climate change and reduce natural resource consumption [19].
Supply chain management (SCM) involves coordinating and integrating all activities involved in producing and delivering a product, from raw material acquisition to final delivery to the consumer. Effective SCM aims to enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and improve customer satisfaction. Key components include sourcing, procurement, production, logistics, and distribution, which must be managed cohesively to ensure smooth operations [20,21].
Integrating the CE into SCM involves embedding circular principles into the supply chain processes. This integration requires redesigning supply chain activities to prioritize resource efficiency, waste reduction, and product life extension. Practices include closed-loop supply chains, where products are returned for reuse, remanufacturing, or recycling, and sustainable sourcing to ensure materials are environmentally friendly [22].
In the agri-food sector, integrating the CE into SCM can enhance sustainability by reducing food waste, optimizing resource use, and creating value from by-products. This integration involves collaborative efforts across all supply chain stages, from farmers to consumers, to ensure that circular principles are applied effectively. For instance, agricultural waste can be repurposed into bioenergy or animal feed, and food packaging can be designed for easy recycling or composting [23,24]. The adoption of the CE in the agri-food supply chain presents several benefits and challenges. The environmental benefits include significant reductions in waste and greenhouse gas emissions, improved soil health, and biodiversity conservation [25]. Economically, the CE can lead to cost savings, the creation of new business models, and market opportunities [8]. Socially, the CE can improve food security, create sustainable jobs, and enhance public health by reducing environmental pollutants [3]. However, economic barriers such as high initial investment costs and uncertain financial returns can hinder CE adoption [9]. Technological challenges, including the need for advanced infrastructure and expertise, and regulatory and policy issues, such as the lack of supportive policies, also pose significant obstacles [16].
Technological challenges represent a significant barrier to the integration of CE principles into the agri-food supply chain. The need for advanced infrastructure and expertise is paramount for the effective implementation of CE practices. For instance, precision agriculture, which uses advanced technologies to optimize field-level management regarding crop farming, can significantly reduce resource use and environmental impact [13]. However, the high costs associated with these technologies can be prohibitive for many stakeholders, particularly in developing regions [10]. Additionally, there is a need for innovative technologies that facilitate efficient CE implementation, such as advanced recycling techniques, waste-to-energy solutions, and precision agriculture tools [7].
Regulatory and policy issues also pose significant obstacles to the integration of CE principles into the agri-food supply chain. Inconsistent regulations and policies across regions can hinder the widespread adoption of CE practices [15]. For example, the lack of supportive policies in some regions may prevent the implementation of waste reduction and resource efficiency strategies [16]. There is a need for standardized policies that encourage the global adoption of CE principles and create a conducive environment for the transition toward a circular economy [3]. Comparative studies on how different regulatory frameworks and policies impact CE implementation across various regions can provide valuable insights and help tailor strategies to local needs and conditions [17].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Systematic Literature Review Process

This systematic literature review (SLR) follows a structured approach to identify, screen, filter, and assess relevant research papers on the integration of circular economy (CE) principles in the agri-food supply chain. The methodology adhered to the guidelines established by [18] and was carried out in several stages: planning, searching, screening, eligibility assessment, data extraction, and synthesis.

3.2. Literature Search

The literature search was conducted across several major databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar. These databases were selected to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant peer-reviewed articles, conference papers, and review papers. A combination of keywords and phrases related to CE and agri-food supply chain management was used. The search terms included “circular economy”, “agri-food supply chain”, “food waste”, “sustainability”, “resource efficiency”, and “closed-loop systems.” Boolean operators (AND, OR) were used to refine the search and ensure a broad yet focused collection of relevant literature. Studies published between 2003 and 2023 were included to capture developments over the last 20 years. Only peer-reviewed articles and conference papers written in English were considered. Studies had to explicitly address CE principles and their application within the agri-food supply chain.

3.3. Screening and Filtering

To manage the large volume of articles, ChatGPT-4 was employed to assist in the screening and filtering process. The use of AI in systematic reviews is becoming increasingly common due to its ability to handle large datasets efficiently and accurately [26]. The following steps were taken:
  • Title and Abstract Screening: ChatGPT-4 reviewed the titles and abstracts of the initial 1200 articles to exclude studies that were clearly irrelevant to the topic. This step reduced the pool to 900 articles.
  • Full-Text Review: The remaining 900 articles underwent a full-text review, assisted by ChatGPT-4, which highlighted key sections relevant to our thematic issues. This automated highlighting helped streamline the identification of pertinent studies, reducing the pool to 400 articles.
  • Quality Assessment: Using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) checklists, ChatGPT-4 assisted in evaluating the methodological quality of the 400 articles. This step ensured that only high and medium-quality studies were included, resulting in a final selection of 100 articles.

3.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data extraction involved systematically collecting relevant information from the selected studies, including publication details, research objectives, methodologies, findings, and conclusions. This process was facilitated by ChatGPT-4 to ensure consistency and accuracy across the extracted data. The synthesis phase involved categorizing the extracted data into thematic issues, geographical regions, and supply chain stages to identify patterns and insights.

3.5. Ethical Considerations in Using ChatGPT-4

The use of ChatGPT-4 in this study was conducted ethically and responsibly as it was applied in exploring role of higher education [27]. The AI was utilized solely for the purpose of assisting with data processing tasks, such as screening, highlighting, and data extraction. However, recognizing the limitations of AI, a manual review or check was conducted by the authors to verify the relevance and quality of the articles. This dual approach ensured a comprehensive and accurate selection of articles.

3.6. Systematic Review Process

The systematic review process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [18]. It has been applied widely including in ecology and evolutionary biology [28], health economic evaluations [29], the bioethanol sector [30], etc. A PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and selection process is presented in Figure 1. This ensures a rigorous and transparent method for synthesizing evidence from multiple studies, providing a comprehensive and unbiased understanding of the topic.
The final 100 articles were categorized based on temporal distribution, thematic issues, geographical regions, and supply chain stages. This structured approach ensured a thorough and systematic analysis of the literature, enabling the identification of key trends, gaps, and areas for future research.
By adhering to these detailed methodologies and ethical considerations, this SLR provides a robust foundation for understanding the integration of CE principles in the agri-food supply chain and offers valuable insights for advancing sustainability practices in this sector.

3.7. Selection for Core Literatures

Selecting a subset of core literature from the 100 initially reviewed studies is crucial to focus on the most influential and impactful contributions that have shaped the integration of circular economy principles into supply chain management. This targeted selection allows for a more in-depth and precise analysis, enhancing the clarity and relevance of the discussion. To identify the most influential papers or seminal works from the 100 reviewed in the systematic literature review (SLR), we applied the following criteria:
  • Citation Impact:
We prioritized papers with the highest citation counts, recognizing that highly cited works are generally considered foundational and have had a significant impact on the field. Only papers with more than 500 citations were selected, ensuring that the chosen studies are widely acknowledged and influential in academic circles.
2.
Publication in High-Tier Journals:
We selected papers published in high-impact journals, such as Journal of Cleaner Production and Resources, Conservation and Recycling. These journals are renowned for their rigorous peer-review processes and high standards, which underscores the quality and relevance of the selected works.
3.
Relevance to Circular Economy and Agri-Food Supply Chain Management:
The chosen papers had to directly address the integration of circular economy (CE) principles into supply chain management with particular emphasis on the agri-food sector. We focused on studies that offered significant insights, frameworks, or empirical evidence applicable to these areas.
4.
Contribution to Theoretical and Practical Understanding:
We selected papers that made substantial contributions to both the theoretical foundations and practical applications of CE. This includes works that provided clear conceptual models as well as those offering actionable strategies for implementing the CE in supply chains.
5.
Recency:
Preference was given to recent publications, particularly those from the last decade, to ensure that the selected literature reflected the latest developments and current state of the art in the field.
By applying these criteria, we identified five core papers that are highly cited, published in top-tier journals, and provide critical insights into the integration of circular economy principles into supply chain management, especially within the agri-food sector. This selection process ensures that the chosen literature is both influential and highly relevant to ongoing research and practice.

4. Results

The results of this systematic literature review (SLR) offer a comprehensive overview of the integration of CE principles into the agri-food supply chain over the past 20 years. This section discusses the findings, categorized by temporal distribution, thematic issues, geographical regions, and supply chain stages. Tables and figures are provided to enhance the clarity and understanding of the data presented.

4.1. Temporal Distribution of Reviewed Papers

The temporal distribution of reviewed papers indicates an evolving interest in CE principles within the agri-food supply chain. As shown in Figure 2, the analysis reveals four distinct periods: 2003–2007, 2008–2012, 2013–2017, and 2018–2022, with a total of 100 papers reviewed.
From 2003 to 2007, the number of publications was minimal with only nine papers, which was primarily due to the nascent stage of the CE as a concept and limited awareness of its potential applications in the agri-food sector. This period included foundational works such as [31], which although focused on the automobile industry, influenced early research in green supply chain management and set a precedent for the agri-food sector.
The period from 2008 to 2012 saw a significant increase, with 24 papers published. This surge can be attributed to growing environmental awareness, increased funding for sustainability research, and the recognition of the CE as a viable model for sustainable development. Notable contributions include [14], who outlined a framework for resource efficiency, directly influencing subsequent research in agri-food supply chains.
From 2013 to 2017, the number of publications peaked at 37 papers. This period experienced a heightened focus on sustainability in response to global environmental challenges, the implementation of supportive policies, and increased academic and industry interest. Key studies from this era include [1], which provided a comprehensive review of the CE and significantly influenced subsequent research across various sectors, including agri-food.
Although the number of publications slightly decreased to 30 in the period from 2018 to 2022, interest in the CE remained strong, which was supported by advancements in technology, growing consumer demand for sustainable products, and global policy initiatives such as the European Green Deal. Prominent works from this period include [7], who provided clarity on CE definitions, aiding in the consistent application of CE principles across sectors.
Among the most influential and highly cited works in the study of CE is the paper by [1], titled “The Circular Economy—A new sustainability paradigm?”. Published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, this paper has accrued 3298 citations as of June 2024. It provides a comprehensive review of CE concepts, frameworks, and applications across various sectors, significantly shaping the discourse on CE practices.
Another key contribution is the paper by [7], “Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions”, which was published in Resources, Conservation & Recycling. With 1848 citations to date, this study critically analyzes numerous definitions of the circular economy, offering clarity and consistency in applying CE principles. This work has been foundational in guiding subsequent research, including studies focused on the agri-food sector. These prominent articles underscore the importance of foundational theoretical work in advancing the understanding and implementation of the CE in various industries.

4.2. Classification by Paper Stance

The temporal distribution of research papers shows a marked increase in publications over the past 20 years, reflecting the growing emphasis on sustainability. This rise in scholarly attention is further elucidated by the positioning map of the literature, which categorizes papers into supportive, critical, and neutral perspectives. Supportive papers advocate for CE’s potential to enhance sustainability, reduce waste, and improve resource efficiency. Critical papers highlight the challenges and limitations of implementing the CE, such as economic feasibility, technological barriers, and the need for systemic changes. Neutral papers provide balanced viewpoints, acknowledging both the benefits and the challenges of the CE. This classification elucidates the diverse academic discourse, reflecting varied experiences and insights into the CE’s application in the agri-food sector.
The distribution of paper stance over the past 20 years is presented in Figure 3. It suggests an increasing trend in supportive papers on the CE in the agri-food supply chain. Between 2003 and 2007, supportive papers were minimal, with only five out of nine papers showing a positive stance. From 2008 to 2012, there was a significant increase in supportive research, with 18 out of 24 papers endorsing CE principles. The trend continued to rise between 2013 and 2017 with 28 supportive papers out of 37. From 2018 to 2022, although the number of supportive papers slightly decreased to 24, they still represented the majority.
Critical papers showed a consistent but smaller presence with the highest number (6) occurring between 2013 and 2017. Neutral papers remained relatively low throughout the periods, indicating that most research takes a definitive stance on the topic.
This distribution underscores the growing recognition and endorsement of CE principles in the agri-food supply chain while also acknowledging the critical perspectives that highlight existing challenges and barriers to implementation. The application of CE principles in the agri-food supply chain offers numerous advantages while also presenting several challenges. The benefits range from enhanced resource efficiency and sustainability to improved food security and economic resilience. However, the transition to CE practices is not without obstacles, including economic feasibility, technological barriers, regulatory hurdles, and the need for systemic change. Table 1 summarizes these benefits and challenges, supported by key literature, to provide a comprehensive overview of the CE implementation in the agri-food sector.

4.3. Thematic Issues in CE Research

The reviewed papers addressed several primary thematic issues: waste management, resource efficiency, sustainable practices, and economic impacts. The distribution of papers across thematic issues is presented in Figure 4.
The predominant focus on waste management, highlighted in 35 of the reviewed papers, underscores the significant challenges and opportunities in this area. This focus aligns with global concerns over food waste, which constitutes a major portion of total waste and contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions [4]. Studies such as those by [11] demonstrate the potential of CE practices like waste valorization, which transforms agricultural by-products and food waste into valuable products such as bioenergy and fertilizers. This not only reduces waste but also creates economic opportunities. The emphasis on waste management reflects an urgent need to develop efficient waste reduction strategies, which can significantly mitigate environmental impacts and enhance sustainability [12].
Resource efficiency, addressed in 25 papers, is critical for optimizing the use of inputs like water, energy, and raw materials. The findings indicate a strong interest in practices such as precision agriculture and sustainable farming methods. Precision agriculture, which uses advanced technologies to optimize field-level management regarding crop farming, can significantly reduce resource use and environmental impact [13]. This theme’s prominence suggests that enhancing resource efficiency is a viable pathway to achieving sustainable agricultural production. Research by [12] further supports this, showing that resource-efficient practices can lead to significant environmental and economic benefits.
The focus on sustainable practices, featured in 20 papers, highlights the importance of methods such as crop rotation, agroforestry, and the use of organic inputs. These practices enhance soil health, increase biodiversity, and improve resilience to climate change The adoption of such practices is crucial for maintaining long-term agricultural productivity and environmental health. Studies like those by [32] emphasize the role of sustainable practices in reducing the ecological footprint of agriculture and enhancing food security.
Economic impacts, examined in 20 papers, explore the financial viability and market opportunities of CE practices. The authors of [7] discuss the potential economic benefits, including cost savings and new business models. However, they also highlight significant barriers such as high initial investment costs and uncertain financial returns, which can hinder the adoption of CE practices. These findings indicate a need for policies and incentives that can mitigate financial risks and promote investment in CE technologies.

4.4. Geographical Distribution of Research

The reviewed papers were further categorized based on the specific countries where the research was conducted. This detailed classification allows for a clearer understanding of the geographical distribution of research on the CE in the agri-food supply chain.
As shown by Table 2, the reviewed literature addresses various thematic issues with their distribution influenced by regional priorities, regulations, and resource availability. Waste management is predominantly studied in Europe and North America due to stringent environmental regulations and advanced infrastructures. For instance, the authors of [1,8] highlight waste reduction efforts in these regions. Resource efficiency is a key theme in Europe, North America, and Asia, which is driven by high resource consumption and regulatory pressures. The authors of [10,25] focus on initiatives in these areas.
Sustainable practices are a global concern with notable studies in developing countries where environmental degradation and food security are pressing issues. The authors of [32,33] emphasize low-cost sustainable solutions in Africa and Latin America. Economic impacts are explored mainly in Europe and Asia, which are regions that emphasize the economic viability and market opportunities associated with CE practices. The authors of [7,9] evaluate the economic benefits in these markets.
The regional focus on specific thematic issues reflects diverse challenges and priorities in the global agri-food supply chain. Europe’s emphasis on waste management and resource efficiency, driven by regulatory frameworks, contrasts with the sustainable practices prioritized in developing countries to address food security. Understanding these regional differences is crucial for developing targeted strategies to implement CE principles effectively, enhancing sustainability and efficiency worldwide.

4.5. Classification by Supply Chain Stage

The reviewed papers were also categorized based on the specific stages of the supply chain they focus on: input suppliers, farmers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers. As shown in Table 3, this classification reveals the extent of attention each stage receives in CE research, highlighting areas that may require further exploration.
Table 3 shows that research in the integration of CE principles within the agri-food supply chain is unevenly distributed across different stages. This distribution reveals that while farmers, processors, and consumers receive considerable attention in CE research, input suppliers and distributors are comparatively underexplored. This suggests a need for further research into the roles and practices of these stages to achieve a more holistic integration of CE principles across the entire agri-food supply chain
The cross-tabulation of thematic issues and supply chain stages is presented in Table 4. It reveals that different actors within the agri-food supply chain prioritize specific circular economy (CE) practices. Waste management emerges as a primary concern for processors and consumers with the highest engagement from these groups. This focus highlights the importance of minimizing waste at both the production and consumption ends of the supply chain.
Farmers and processors exhibit the greatest interest in resource efficiency, reflecting their need to optimize resource utilization during production and processing. Sustainable practices are predominantly prioritized by farmers and input suppliers, underscoring their role in implementing sustainable agricultural methods and inputs.
Economic impacts are of particular interest to distributors, retailers, and farmers, indicating that these stages of the supply chain are closely monitoring the economic feasibility and benefits of CE practices. Overall, farmers and consumers are the most engaged with CE practices, which are followed by processors, distributors, and retailers. This distribution suggests that while CE practices are integrated throughout the supply chain, the emphasis varies according to each actor’s role and influence within the system.

4.6. Core Literatures of Circular Economy in Supply Chain Management

The concept of the circular economy (CE) has evolved significantly over the past two decades, transforming from a theoretical framework into a critical paradigm for sustainable development, particularly within the realm of supply chain management. This evolution is marked by several key contributions to the literature, each advancing the understanding and practical application of CE principles across various sectors, including the agri-food supply chain.

4.6.1. The Foundational Framework of Circular Economy

The seminal work by [1], titled “The Circular Economy—A New Sustainability Paradigm?”, laid the groundwork for the modern understanding of the CE. With over 3000 citations, it is one of the most influential works in the field, indicating that it has been extensively referenced by subsequent research. This paper synthesized the various definitions and frameworks of the CE, positioning it as a transformative approach that contrasts sharply with the traditional linear economy. The core principles of the CE, such as designing out waste and keeping products and materials in use, were established as foundational elements that drive resource efficiency and sustainability. The influence of this work is evident in how CE principles have been increasingly integrated into supply chain processes, particularly in sectors like agri-food, where waste reduction and resource optimization are critical.

4.6.2. Defining and Refining Circular Economy Concepts

As the CE concept gained traction, the need for a clear and consistent definition became apparent. The authors of [7] addressed this need in their influential paper, “Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions”. The citation count of over 1800 reflects the importance of this paper in providing clarity and consistency in the definitions of the circular economy. By analyzing a wide array of definitions, this work provided much-needed clarity and uniformity, enabling a more systematic application of CE principles across industries. This refinement has been crucial for the agri-food supply chain, where clear guidelines are necessary to implement CE strategies effectively. The study underscores the dynamic nature of the CE, as it continues to evolve and adapt to the specific needs of different sectors, ensuring its relevance and applicability.

4.6.3. Integrating Environmental and Economic Systems

The integration of the CE into supply chain management is further advanced by [12] in their comprehensive review, “A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems”. With over 1000 citations, this review paper is highly regarded for its comprehensive analysis of the circular economy’s potential to balance environmental and economic goals. This work explores how the CE can harmonize environmental sustainability with economic growth, which is a balance that is particularly challenging in supply chain contexts. The authors emphasize strategies such as waste valorization and sustainable production practices, which have since become integral to CE implementation in supply chains. Their insights have catalyzed a shift toward viewing supply chains not just as logistical networks but as ecosystems that must be managed sustainably and economically.

4.6.4. Addressing the Limitations and Challenges of Circular Economy

While the benefits of the CE are well documented, its limitations are equally important to understand. The authors of [3] critically examined these challenges in their paper, “Circular Economy: The Concept and Its Limitations”. The paper’s citation count of over 700 highlights its importance in providing a critical perspective on the limitations of the circular economy. The authors highlight the economic, technological, and regulatory barriers that often hinder CE implementation. This critical perspective is vital for supply chain management, as it provides a realistic assessment of the obstacles that must be overcome to achieve successful CE integration. The dynamics of the CE, as discussed in this work, reveal that its adoption is not linear; it requires ongoing adaptation to overcome various systemic challenges.

4.6.5. Evolving towards Resource-Efficient Supply Chains

Finally, the work of [14] on “Resource-Efficient Supply Chains: A Research Framework, Literature Review, and Research Agenda” represents a significant advancement in understanding how resource efficiency can be achieved within supply chains. Although it has a lower citation count compared to the others, with over 500 citations, this paper is still considered highly impactful. Its influence is particularly strong in the area of supply chain management, where it provides a framework for integrating resource efficiency into supply chain processes. This research introduces a framework that integrates CE principles into supply chain management by focusing on optimizing resource use across all supply chain stages. The emphasis on advanced technologies and sustainable practices reflects the evolving nature of the CE, where continuous innovation is necessary to maintain and enhance resource efficiency. This work has been particularly influential in shaping how agri-food supply chains adopt CE practices, ensuring that resource efficiency remains a central goal.
Those core literatures illustrate a dynamic and evolving field that has progressively deepened its integration into supply chain management. From foundational theories to practical frameworks, these key contributions have collectively advanced the understanding of how CE principles can be effectively implemented across various sectors including agri-food. The ongoing evolution of the CE reflects its growing importance in addressing global sustainability challenges, particularly within complex systems like supply chains, where its principles are increasingly seen as essential for long-term viability and resilience.

5. Discussion

Our main research results and academic discussions on the CE and its integration into supply chain management, particularly within the agri-food sector, have focused on several key areas. The literature has extensively explored the theoretical frameworks of the CE, emphasizing the transition from linear to circular models that prioritize waste reduction, resource efficiency, and sustainability. Foundational works like those by [1] have established the CE as a new sustainability paradigm, while [7] have clarified and standardized the definitions of the CE, enabling consistent application across various industries. Other significant contributions, such as [12], have highlighted the dual benefits of the CE for both environmental sustainability and economic viability, and [3] have provided critical insights into the practical challenges and limitations of CE implementation.
Our research builds on these discussions by specifically addressing the integration of CE principles into the agri-food supply chain, which is an area that has been less explored in the existing literature. While previous studies have laid the groundwork for understanding the CE in general terms, our research innovates by providing a systematic review that categorizes existing studies based on thematic issues, geographical regions, and supply chain stages. This approach not only consolidates current knowledge but also identifies research gaps, particularly in the practical application of CE within different regional contexts and supply chain stages.
Furthermore, our study expands on the existing literature by offering actionable insights for advancing CE practices in the agri-food sector. By identifying key challenges, such as economic feasibility and technological barriers, and proposing targeted strategies to address these issues, our research contributes to both the theoretical and practical advancement of CE integration. In doing so, we not only enrich the academic discourse but also provide valuable guidance for policymakers, practitioners, and future researchers aiming to enhance sustainability in the agri-food supply chain.
The integration of CE principles into the agri-food supply chain holds substantial promise for enhancing sustainability and resource efficiency. However, there remains a significant gap in empirical evidence, particularly regarding the long-term economic and environmental benefits of these practices across different geographical and socio-economic contexts. This gap is particularly pronounced in developing countries, where unique challenges and opportunities exist due to varying levels of infrastructure, regulatory environments, and socio-economic conditions.
The literature reviewed highlights several key areas where empirical research is lacking. First, there is a notable disparity in the geographical distribution of studies. While numerous investigations have been conducted in developed countries, research in developing regions is sparse. This is critical because developing countries face unique challenges, such as limited access to advanced technologies and different regulatory frameworks. These factors significantly influence the implementation and success of CE practices, underscoring the need for more region-specific studies.
For instance, in Europe, stringent environmental regulations and advanced infrastructures have driven the widespread adoption of CE practices. Countries like Germany and the Netherlands have implemented robust policies supporting waste management and resource efficiency, as evidenced by studies [1,7]. In contrast, developing countries often struggle with inadequate infrastructure and regulatory support. A case study from Kenya [13] highlights how limited access to technology and financial resources hampers the effective implementation of CE practices. However, initiatives like low-cost sustainable solutions in Africa, emphasized by [17], demonstrate significant potential for CE principles to improve food security and reduce environmental degradation.
Moreover, the socio-economic context plays a crucial role in the adoption and effectiveness of CE practices. Factors such as income levels, education, and cultural attitudes toward sustainability can significantly impact how CE principles are implemented and their resultant benefits. However, there is a dearth of empirical studies that examine these socio-economic influences in detail. Understanding these factors is essential for developing strategies that can effectively promote CE practices in diverse contexts. For example, in Latin America, socio-economic factors such as lower income levels and limited access to education have influenced the adoption of CE practices. The authors of [32] highlight efforts in Brazil to implement CE principles despite these challenges, emphasizing community-led initiatives and local innovations.
Additionally, existing studies tend to focus on the short-term impacts of CE practices, such as immediate cost savings and waste reduction. There is a pressing need for longitudinal studies that assess the long-term benefits of CE practices, including their contributions to resilience against climate change and economic shocks. These studies should track economic, environmental, and social impacts over several years to provide a comprehensive understanding of the sustainability of CE practices. For instance, longitudinal research in China [10] could provide valuable insights into how CE practices evolve over time in response to policy changes and economic development.
Another significant limitation is the lack of standardized metrics for measuring the success of CE practices. While some studies use economic indicators, others focus on environmental or social metrics, making it difficult to compare results across different studies and contexts. Developing standardized metrics that encompass economic, environmental, and social indicators will enable better comparisons and a more holistic understanding of CE practices’ effectiveness.
To address these limitations, we urge the academic community to conduct more in-depth empirical studies in several key areas. Firstly, more research is needed in developing countries to understand how CE practices can be adapted to local contexts. These studies should consider regional specificities, including available infrastructure, regulatory environments, and cultural attitudes. Secondly, future studies should incorporate socio-economic factors to provide a more holistic view of CE practices’ impacts. This approach will help identify social and economic barriers to CE adoption and develop strategies to overcome them.
Long-term studies are also essential to quantify the enduring benefits of CE practices. These studies should track economic, environmental, and social impacts over several years to provide a comprehensive understanding of CE’s sustainability. Finally, developing standardized metrics for assessing the success of CE practices will enable better comparisons across studies and contexts. These metrics should include economic, environmental, and social indicators to capture the full range of CE benefits and challenges.

6. Conclusions

The integration of CE principles into agri-food supply chain management has shown significant potential for enhancing sustainability, improving resource efficiency, and reducing waste. Over the past 20 years, the literature reflects an increasing recognition of CE’s benefits, especially in regions with stringent environmental regulations like Europe and North America, as well as in developing countries addressing environmental and food security challenges. Key thematic focuses include waste management, resource efficiency, sustainable practices, and economic impacts, each reflecting regional priorities and regulatory frameworks.
However, several research gaps persist. Firstly, there is a need for more empirical studies that provide quantifiable evidence of the long-term economic and environmental benefits of CE practices in diverse geographic and socio-economic contexts. Future research should focus on conducting longitudinal studies that measure these impacts over extended periods. Additionally, technological barriers remain a significant challenge, particularly in developing regions. Research should explore innovative technologies that facilitate efficient CE implementation, such as advanced recycling techniques, waste-to-energy solutions, and precision agriculture tools.
The role of policy and governance in promoting CE adoption is underexplored. Comparative studies on how different regulatory frameworks and policies impact CE implementation across various regions can provide valuable insights. Research should also explore the development of standardized policies that encourage global adoption of CE principles. The effective integration of the CE in the agri-food supply chain requires collaboration across various sectors, including agriculture, manufacturing, logistics, and retail. Future studies should investigate cross-sectoral collaboration models and strategies that enhance the adoption of CE practices.
Moreover, the involvement of various stakeholders, including farmers, processors, distributors, retailers, and consumers, is crucial for the successful implementation of the CE. Research should focus on identifying best practices for stakeholder engagement and participation in CE initiatives. While the potential economic benefits of the CE have been widely discussed, there is a lack of detailed analysis on the financial feasibility and cost–benefit analysis of CE practices in different contexts. Future research should provide comprehensive economic assessments to support decision-making processes for businesses and policymakers.
The effectiveness of CE practices can vary significantly based on regional and contextual differences. Studies that explore specific challenges and opportunities in different geographical and socio-economic contexts can help tailor CE strategies to local needs and conditions. Additionally, more research is needed to understand the impact of CE practices at different stages of the agri-food supply chain, from agricultural input suppliers to consumers, to identify stage-specific barriers and opportunities for CE implementation.
By addressing these gaps, future research can contribute to developing sustainable, efficient, and resilient agri-food supply chains, supporting global efforts to transition toward a circular economy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.R.C.; methodology, E.R.C.; software, E.R.C.; validation, N.H. and N.Z.; formal analysis, E.R.C.; investigation, E.R.C.; resources, E.R.C. and C.A.; data curation, N.H. and N.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, E.R.C.; writing—review and editing, E.R.C., N.H., N.Z. and C.A.; visualization, N.H. and C.A.; supervision, E.R.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding and the APC was funded by Department of Management IPB University through professorship program.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Completing the Picture: How the Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change. 2019. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/completing-the-picture (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  3. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. State of Food and Agriculture. 2019. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2024).
  5. Springmann, M.; Clark, M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Wiebe, K.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Lassaletta, L.; de Vries, W.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Herrero, M.; Carlson, K.M.; et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 2018, 562, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U.; van Otterdijck, R.; Meybeck, A. Extent of food losses and waste. In Global Food Losses and Food Waste; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; pp. 4–9. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Esposito, M.; Tse, T.; Soufani, K. Introducing a Circular Economy: New Thinking with New Managerial and Policy Implications. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2018, 60, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. de Jesus, A.; Mendonça, S. Lost in Transition? Drivers and Barriers in the Eco-innovation Road to the Circular Economy. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 145, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Jaca, C.; Ormazabal, M. Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 179, 605–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Venkata Mohan, S.; Nikhil, G.N.; Chiranjeevi, P.; Nagendranatha Reddy, C.; Rohit, M.V.; Kumar, A.N.; Sarkar, O. Waste biorefinery models towards sustainable circular bioeconomy: Critical review and future perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 215, 2–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Onyango, C.M.; Nyaga, J.M.; Wetterlind, J.; Söderström, M.; Piikki, K. Precision Agriculture for Resource Use Efficiency in Smallholder Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Matopoulos, A.; Barros, A.C.; van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. Resource-efficient supply chains: A research framework, literature review and research agenda. Supply Chain Manag. 2015, 20, 218–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kirchherr, J.; Piscicelli, L.; Bour, R.; Kostense-Smit, E.; Muller, J.; Huibrechtse-Truijens, A.; Hekkert, M. Barriers to the Circular Economy: Evidence From the European Union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 2018, 150, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Reike, D.; Vermeulen, W.J.V.; Witjes, S. The circular economy: New or Refurbished as CE 3.0?—Exploring Controversies in the Conceptualization of the Circular Economy through a Focus on History and Resource Value Retention Options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 135, 246–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hamam, M.; Chinnici, G.; Di Vita, G.; Pappalardo, G.; Pecorino, B.; Maesano, G.; D’Amico, M. Circular economy models in agro-food systems: A review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Antes, G.; Atkins, D.; Barbour, V.; Barrowman, N.; Berlin, J.A.; Clark, J.; et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gorokhova, T.; Shpatakova, O.; Toponar, O.; Zolotarova, O.; Pavliuk, S. Circular Economy As an Alternative to the Traditional Linear Economy: Case Study of the EU. Rev. Gest. Soc. Ambient. 2023, 17, e03385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lambert, D.M.; Cooper, M.C. Issues in Supply Chain Management. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2000, 29, 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Christopher, M. Innovating the Global Supply Chain. In Logistics & Supply Chain Management; Prentice Hall: London, UK, 2011; Available online: https://books.google.com/books/about/Logistics_Supply_Chain_Management.html?hl=es&id=2dsYQwAACAAJ (accessed on 15 June 2024).
  22. Nasir, M.H.A.; Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Koh, S.C.L.; Yamoah, F. Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study from the construction industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 183, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hobbs, J.E. Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Can. D’agroecon. 2020, 68, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Haryanti, N.; Zueni, A. Identifikasi mutu fisik, kimia dan organoleptik es krim daging kulit manggis (Garcinia mangostana L.) dengan variasi susu krim. AGRITEPA J. Ilmu Dan Teknol. Pertan. 2015, 2, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. de la Torre-López, J.; Ramírez, A.; Romero, J.R. Artificial intelligence to automate the systematic review of scientific literature. Computing 2023, 105, 2171–2194. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00607-023-01181-x (accessed on 15 June 2024). [CrossRef]
  27. Zeb, A.; Ullah, R.; Karim, R. Exploring the role of ChatGPT in higher education: Opportunities, challenges and ethical considerations. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2024, 41, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. O’Dea, R.E.; Lagisz, M.; Jennions, M.D.; Koricheva, J.; Noble, D.W.A.; Parker, T.H.; Gurevitch, J.; Page, M.J.; Stewart, G.; Moher, D.; et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: A PRISMA extension. Biol. Rev. 2021, 96, 1695–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Luhnen, M.; Prediger, B.; Neugebauer, E.A.M.; Mathes, T. Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A structured analysis of characteristics and methods applied. Res. Synth. Methods 2019, 10, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Oláh, J.; Krisán, E.; Kiss, A.; Lakner, Z.; Popp, J. PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews of the Bioethanol Sector. Energies 2020, 13, 2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J.; Lai, K.-h. Initiatives and outcomes of green supply chain management implementation by Chinese manufacturers. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 85, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Blomsma, F.; Brennan, G. The Emergence of Circular Economy: A New Framing around Prolonging Resource Productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bocken, N.M.P.; de Pauw, I.; Bakker, C.; van der Grinten, B. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2016, 33, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Phiri, R.; Mavinkere Rangappa, S.; Siengchin, S. Agro-waste for renewable and sustainable green production: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 139989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ahmad, S.; Wong, K.Y.; Tseng, M.L.; Wong, W.P. Sustainable product design and development: A review of tools, applications and research prospects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Garcia-Garcia, G.; Stone, J.; Rahimifard, S. Opportunities for waste valorisation in the food industry—A case study with four UK food manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1339–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Aibar-Guzmán, B.; García-Sánchez, I.M.; Aibar-Guzmán, C.; Hussain, N. Sustainable product innovation in agri-food industry: Do ownership structure and capital structure matter? J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Khan, F.; Ali, Y. Moving towards a sustainable circular bio-economy in the agriculture sector of a developing country. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 196, 107402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Abbasi, I.A.; Shamim, A.; Shad, M.K.; Ashari, H.; Yusuf, I. Circular economy-based integrated farming system for indigenous chicken: Fostering food security and sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 436, 140368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Qian, J.; Yu, Q.; Jiang, L.; Yang, H.; Wu, W. Food cold chain management improvement: A conjoint analysis on COVID-19 and food cold chain systems. Food Control 2022, 137, 108940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. OECD. Green Growth Studies Improving Energy Efficiency in the Agro-Food Chain; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ur Rahman, S.; Chwialkowska, A.; Hussain, N.; Akbar Bhatti, W.; Luomala, H. Cross-cultural perspective on sustainable consumption: Implications for consumer motivations and promotion. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 25, 997–1016. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-021-02059-8 (accessed on 23 July 2024). [CrossRef]
  43. Nunes, C.; Rocha, D.; Riesenegger, L.; Hübner, A. Reducing Food Waste at Retail Stores—An Explorative Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kresnanto, N.C.; Putri, W.H.; Lantarsih, R.; Harjiyatni, F.R. Efficient agri food supply chain in a sustainable transportation perspective. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 892, 012105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Babagolzadeh, M.; Shrestha, A.; Abbasi, B.; Zhang, Y.; Woodhead, A.; Zhang, A. Sustainable cold supply chain management under demand uncertainty and carbon tax regulation. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 80, 102245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Durkin, A.; Guo, M.; Wuertz, S.; Stuckey, D.C. Resource recovery from food-processing wastewaters in a circular economy: A methodology for the future. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2022, 76, 102735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ojha, S.; Bußler, S.; Schlüter, O.K. Food waste valorisation and circular economy concepts in insect production and processing. Waste Manag. 2020, 118, 600–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Sharma, P.; Gaur, V.K.; Sirohi, R.; Varjani, S.; Kim, S.H.; Wong, J.W.C. Sustainable processing of food waste for production of bio-based products for circular bioeconomy. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 325, 124684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Jinil Persis, D.; Venkatesh, V.G.; Raja Sreedharan, V.; Shi, Y.; Sankaranarayanan, B. Modelling and analysing the impact of Circular Economy; Internet of Things and ethical business practices in the VUCA world: Evidence from the food processing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 301, 126871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yang, Y.; Barnes, H.; Yang, B.; Onofrei, G.; Nguyen, H. Food waste management for the UK grocery retail sector—A supply chain collaboration perspective. Prod. Plan. Control 2023, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gallardo, A.; Bovea, M.D.; Colomer, F.J.; Prades, M. Analysis of collection systems for sorted household waste in Spain. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 1623–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jimenez-Fernandez, A.; Aramendia-Muneta, M.E.; Alzate, M. Consumers’ awareness and attitudes in circular fashion. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2023, 11, 100144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ormazabal, M.; Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Puga-Leal, R.; Jaca, C. Circular Economy in Spanish SMEs: Challenges and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Correani, L.; Morganti, P.; Silvestri, C.; Ruggieri, A. Food waste, circular economy, and policy with oligopolistic retailers. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 407, 137092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Beulque, R.; Micheaux, H.; Ntsondé, J.; Aggeri, F.; Steux, C. Sufficiency-based circular business models: An established retailers’ perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 429, 139431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liu, W.; Oosterveer, P.; Spaargaren, G. Promoting sustainable consumption in China: A conceptual framework and research review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tiboldo, G.; Arata, L.; Coderoni, S. Back to the future: Are consumers ready to eat insect-fed poultry food products from a circular farming system? An assessment for Italy. Future Foods 2024, 9, 100290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cela, N.; Giorgione, V.; Fassio, F.; Torri, L. Impact of circular economy information on sensory acceptability, purchase intention and perceived value of upcycled foods by young consumers. Food Res. Int. 2024, 175, 113765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Paparella, A.; Vecchio, R.; Cembalo, L.; Lombardi, A. Measuring consumer effort in circular economy initiatives in the food domain: An exploratory analysis. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 16 07165 g001
Figure 1. Screening and filtering process.
Figure 1. Screening and filtering process.
Sustainability 16 07165 g001
Sustainability 16 07165 g002
Figure 2. Temporal distribution of reviewed papers (2003–2022).
Figure 2. Temporal distribution of reviewed papers (2003–2022).
Sustainability 16 07165 g002
Sustainability 16 07165 g003
Figure 3. Positioning papers toward CE in agri-food supply chain in the past 20 years.
Figure 3. Positioning papers toward CE in agri-food supply chain in the past 20 years.
Sustainability 16 07165 g003
Sustainability 16 07165 g004
Figure 4. Classification by thematic issues.
Figure 4. Classification by thematic issues.
Sustainability 16 07165 g004
Table 1. Benefits and challenges of integrating CE in agri-food supply chain.
Table 1. Benefits and challenges of integrating CE in agri-food supply chain.
CategoryDetailsSupporting Literature
Benefits
Resource EfficiencyReduces resource consumption and waste generation through recycling and reuse.[1,7]
SustainabilityEnhances environmental sustainability by minimizing negative impacts and promoting sustainable farming practices.[25]
Economic ResilienceCreates economic opportunities through new business models, cost savings, and job creation.[8]
Food SecurityImproves food security by reducing food loss and waste across the supply chain.[32]
Challenges
Economic FeasibilityHigh initial costs and financial risks associated with transitioning to CE practices.[9]
Technological BarriersNeed for advanced technologies and innovations to efficiently implement CE principles.[10]
Regulatory HurdlesInconsistent regulations and policies across regions that can hinder the widespread adoption of CE practices.[15]
Systemic ChangeRequires a systemic shift in production and consumption patterns, which can be difficult to achieve without coordinated efforts from all stakeholders.[33]
Table 2. Cross-tabulation of thematic issues and geographic regions.
Table 2. Cross-tabulation of thematic issues and geographic regions.
Thematic IssueDeveloped CountriesDeveloping CountriesTotal
Waste ManagementUSA (10), UK (5), Germany (4), Netherlands (3), Japan (3)China (4), India (3), Brazil (2), South Africa (1)35
Resource EfficiencyUSA (6), UK (3), Germany (3), Australia (2), France (1)China (4), India (3), Brazil (2), Mexico (1)25
Sustainable PracticesUSA (4), UK (2), Germany (2), Canada (1), Sweden (1)India (3), Brazil (3), Kenya (2), Peru (1), Indonesia (1)20
Economic ImpactsUSA (4), UK (2), Germany (2), Italy (1), Spain (1)China (3), India (2), Brazil (2), Nigeria (1), Vietnam (1)20
Table 3. Classification by supply chain stage with paper mentions.
Table 3. Classification by supply chain stage with paper mentions.
Supply Chain StageNumber of PapersFocused IssuesPapers
Input Suppliers10Sustainable sourcing and development of eco-friendly products.[1,2,3,7,8,10,12,15,25,33].
Farmers20Sustainable farming techniques, resource efficiency, and waste management at the farm level.[5,6,7,8,11,12,13,14,16,17,20,21,22,31,34,35,36,37,38,39].
Processors20Waste reduction, by-product valorization, and energy efficiency in food processing plants.[5,11,12,15,16,17,22,25,34,35,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49].
Distributors15Logistics and distribution aspects including transportation efficiency, cold chain management, and packaging innovations.[2,8,10,14,15,21,22,23,25,35,40,42,44,45,50].
Retailers15Retail strategies to reduce food waste, promote sustainable products, and engage consumers in CE practices.[7,8,15,16,17,22,35,37,44,50,51,52,53,54,55].
Consumers20Consumer behavior, waste management practices at the household level, and initiatives to promote sustainable consumption patterns.[2,7,8,12,15,17,22,26,32,35,37,44,45,50,52,53,56,57,58,59].
Total100
Table 4. Cross-tabulation of thematic issues and supply chain stages.
Table 4. Cross-tabulation of thematic issues and supply chain stages.
Thematic IssueInput SuppliersFarmersProcessorsDistributorsRetailersConsumersTotal
Waste
Management		251055835
Resource
Efficiency		36533525
Sustainable Practices25333420
Economic
Impacts		34244320
Total102020151520100
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cahyadi, E.R.; Hidayati, N.; Zahra, N.; Arif, C. Integrating Circular Economy Principles into Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7165. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167165

AMA Style

Cahyadi ER, Hidayati N, Zahra N, Arif C. Integrating Circular Economy Principles into Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16):7165. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167165

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cahyadi, Eko Ruddy, Nurul Hidayati, Nisa Zahra, and Chusnul Arif. 2024. "Integrating Circular Economy Principles into Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 7165. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167165

APA Style

Cahyadi, E. R., Hidayati, N., Zahra, N., & Arif, C. (2024). Integrating Circular Economy Principles into Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 16(16), 7165. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167165

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop