Transformation of the Three Pillars of Agri-Food Sustainability around the...

[Full title: Transformation of the Three Pillars of Agri-Food Sustainability around the COVID-19 Crisis—A Literature Review]

Citation: Gyarmati, G Transformation of the Three Pillars of Agri-Food Sustainability around the COVID-19 Crisis—A Literature Review Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 https://doi.org/10.3390/su 16135616 Academic Editor: Jan Hopmans Received: 2 May 2024 Revised: 20 June 2024 Accepted: 24 June 2024 Published: 30 June 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the author Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/) sustainability Review Transformation of the Three Pillars of Agri-Food Sustainability around the COVID-19 Crisis—A Literature Review G á bor Gyarmati Keleti K á roly Faculty of Business and Management, Ó buda University, B é csi Street 96/B, H-1034 Budapest, Hungary; gyarmati.gabor@uni-obuda.hu Abstract: The COVID-19 crisis has disrupted economies and societies and the sustainability characteristics of agri-food due to a significant decline in turnover, difficulties in transportation, and changes in market and contact habits. An analysis was carried out using the PRISMA protocol and the Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct electronic databases. The aim of this research is to present the main research issues in agri-food sustainability (economic, environmental, and social issues) in the pre-COVID-19 period, to compare it with the research trends in the COVID-19 period, and to explore the influence of the epidemic. This research looks for research gaps and possible future research directions. Research before COVID-19 was primarily concerned with environmental and economic sustainability. The main focus areas were business development and environmental issues. During COVID-19, the focus shifted to economic sustainability. Survival was the primary issue. The main research areas were financial, inventory, waste management, and innovation issues. Food safety and digitalisation were highlighted. Precision agriculture, short food supply chains, and collaboration increased efficiency. The role of trust has increased. The COVID-19 experience is valuable for almost all disciplines. Policy, health, and economic decision-makers can apply better solutions to future crises Keywords: agri-food; sustainability; COVID-19; literature review 1. Introduction In 1972, the Club of Rome report marked the beginning of the sustainable development approach [ 1 ]. The approach to sustainable development involves meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future residents to meet their own needs [ 2 ]. The topic has a broad social scope. Governments, NGOs, and academia are exploring solutions [ 3 ]. The approach to sustainability has focused primarily on environmental issues, but following the oil crisis, the issue of economic sustainability has also emerged [ 4 ]. The sustainability problem begins with basic human needs, including financial needs, environmental needs, and well-being [ 5 ]. Sustainability issues now touch every aspect of human life, with the main ones being economic, political, social and ecological aspects [ 6 ]. It seeks to address issues such as poverty, inequality, education, justice, or even wars and peace in the social category, along with environmental degradation, global warming, energy use, and climate change in the ecological category [ 7 ]. One possible definition of agriculture is the production of products that provide people with food, i.e., food security and quality of life [ 8 ]. Because agriculture involves both crop and livestock production, it also has characteristics such as soil type, the type and frequency of cultivation, and the main crops or animals involved in production. The process ranges from the procurement, production, cultivation, and domestication syndrome to the cultivation of domesticated crops and agricultural dispersal and intensification [ 9 ]. The impact of farming activity is a reduction in habitat area, soil erosion, pollution (air, soil, etc.), and increased carbon emissions [ 10 ]. These make it necessary to take steps towards sustainability [ 11 ], which will threaten the land and humanity [ 12 ] in the long term if no change is made [ 13 ]. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su 16135616 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 2 of 31 Agriculture and agri-food contribute about 4% of the world’s GDP globally. World Bank data show that the decline in percentage until 2018 has been reversed from 2019 and now stands at 4.6%. According to the latest available data, China, the US, Germany, France, Brazil, and Canada had higher agricultural output in terms of GDP in 2021 [ 14 ]. “Agri-food systems encompass primary agricultural production of food and non-food products (from crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry and aquaculture), the production of food of non-agricultural origin (e.g., synthetic meat), the food supply chain from producer to consumer and the final consumer of food.” Globally, these systems produce about 11 billion tons of food annually, forming the backbone of many economies [ 15 ]. Due to the strong linkages between different systems, food production and supply disruptions also affect household food security, which has repercussions on production and producers. The measures of COVID-19 have disrupted international and local supply chains, causing economic disruption in many countries in 2020. Purchasing power has fallen, threatening access to food for many people, especially among people experiencing poverty and in poor countries [ 15 ]. The WTO definition of agri-food is based on the WTO Agreement on Agriculture In Annex 1, agri-food is defined as HS Chapters 1 to 24, less fish and fish products, plus products of animal and vegetable origin that are used but not necessarily consumed, e.g., hides and skins, wool and animal hairs, etc. [ 16 , 17 ]. 2. Theoretical Background and Research Questions Development Sustainable agriculture is defined as practices that provide food for the population while minimising environmental degradation and preserving natural resources [ 18 – 23 ]. In defining sustainable agriculture, people-centred elements come to the fore: human well-being, safe and long-term food supply, etc. Secondarily, non-human factors such as the environment’s state and products’ value and sustainability come to the fore [ 20 ]. Despite the development of agriculture, at least 820 million people are food insecure and hungry. More people than this consume poor-quality food, resulting in deficiency diseases, obesity, a higher prevalence of infectious diseases due to poorer immune systems, and an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. The development of agriculture should include reducing meat consumption, increasing plant nutrients, reducing crop losses, reducing wastage, and increasing production efficiency [ 24 ]. The main areas of sustainable agriculture are environmental issues, resource efficiency [ 25 ], and the technological developments that support it [ 26 ]. Most countries’ food systems are heavily dependent on imported inputs, such as fossil fuels, fertilisers, and animal feed, which confirms that agriculture and food systems must be fundamentally transformed towards sustainability [ 27 ]. Significant milestones have appeared in the development of sustainable agriculture [ 28 , 29 ] One of these is organic agriculture [ 30 ]. The others are integrated agriculture [ 31 ], ecological and sustainable intensification [ 32 ], measures to protect nature [ 33 ], precision agriculture [ 34 ], permaculture [ 35 ], and vertical agriculture [ 36 ]. Other problems include worker and nature exploitation and unfair distribution systems [ 37 ]. Within management and environmental sustainability, the focus is on energy efficiency and energy saving. This has made exploring and deploying renewable energy sources a priority [ 38 , 39 ]. The main objectives of sustainable agriculture include ensuring equality between different generations, stability of food production and farming, and environmental efficiency [ 40 , 41 ]. Initially, definitions of sustainability focused mainly on economic and ecological viability. Farming was thought to be sustainable if it conserved resources and was profitable. This was later supplemented because these approaches assumed that these two pillars automatically implied that it would be socially sustainable. Agriculture is sustainable in accordance with the needs if it includes social equity, that is, profitability, environmental protection, poverty, and hunger issues [ 42 ].

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 3 of 31 The purpose of this paper is not to present and analyse the effects of COVID-19 comprehensively, as this would not be sufficient, but to briefly describe the impact of COVID-19 on different areas of life and society because these forces and impacts have also affected agri-food systems directly or indirectly. The effect of COVID-19 was a reduction in economic output in the EU-27 by 11.1% in the second quarter of 2020 compared to the previous quarter. Private consumption expenditure in the EU-27 decreased by 12.2%. Exports declined at different rates in different countries. Population size and death rates also varied by country [ 43 ]. Globally, there was a 10% reduction in NOx emissions in the 30 days following the introduction of the measures. This has a significant environmental impact but is equivalent to a 10% drop in industrial production [ 44 ]. One of the social impacts of COVID-19 is the increase in social inequalities [ 45 ]. The epidemic affected urban and rural societies at different time intervals and in slightly different ways [ 46 ]. The epidemic situation has also affected the labour market [ 47 ], caused changes in family relationships [ 48 ], and shaped the solidarity between people [ 49 ]. Because of the effects of COVID-19 mentioned above, it is possible to make assumptions before research. The economic viability of several actors may have been compromised, resulting in a shift in the company’s objectives towards economic viability, efficiency, and effectiveness. For operators, the focus on environmental sustainability in the pre-COVID-19 period has shifted towards a financial focus. It was expected that the role of food safety would be significantly enhanced since public uncertainty and centralised regulation required the introduction and strengthening of procedures that would provide greater security. Given the problematic period for social actors, it was expected that the agri-food system would also have to cope with the adverse effects of the epidemic, and efforts were made to address these difficulties During the few years of the COVID-19 outbreak, several studies have been carried out in different areas of life, such as business [ 50 ], healthcare [ 51 , 52 ], education [ 53 ], supply chain [ 54 – 57 ], knowledge management [ 58 ], social media [ 59 ], environmental pollution [ 60 , 61 ], waste management [ 62 ], etc Most previous research on COVID-19 has typically focused on a single topic. It has also tended to focus on one dimension of sustainability [ 63 ], or it did not address the agri-food issue [ 64 ]. The primary body of research focused on the health impacts during the outbreak, as this was the most vital issue. No one has yet addressed the implications of COVID-19 for agri-food, which encompasses the economic, environmental, and social aspects of sustainability This review seeks to identify and synthesise the most relevant literature on the subject, comparing and contrasting results where appropriate. Therefore, the objective of this article is to provide the reader with a better understanding of agri-food sustainability during the COVID-19 period and provide directions for future research on agri-food sustainability This paper will provide a comprehensive overview of the issues and practices following the COVID-19 crisis. To this end, it analyses the potential impacts of the pandemic on the economic, social, and environmental pillars of sustainability through a review of the literature. This study aims to answer the following research questions: RQ 1. What were the main research questions regarding agri-food sustainability (economic, environmental, and social issues) before COVID-19? RQ 2. What are the main issues and research directions for agri-food sustainability (economic, environmental, social issues) during and after COVID-19? RQ 3. How does COVID-19 affect the sustainability of agri-foods? RQ 4. What were the areas that were influenced by COVID-19 but under-researched? What are the research gaps? What are the possible future research directions? The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 3 describes the methodology used in the research. Section 4 presents a descriptive and thematic analysis of agri-food

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 4 of 31 sustainability and COVID-19 implications. Section 5 discusses the main findings. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions drawn from this study’s research 3. Materials and Methods To provide a comprehensive review of the sustainability of COVID-19 agri-food products, an internet literature search has been conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol of Moher and colleagues, 2009 [ 65 ], using the Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct electronic database search engines. The first review examined the literature on agri-food sustainability before COVID-19 to identify sustainability issues in the pre-COVID-19 period. The aim is to research the state of agri-food sustainability issues before the pandemic to better understand the impact of COVID-19 measures on the issue under investigation and answer how COVID-19 has changed lives and what challenges it created. This will help to better define future research directions for agri-food research Since the COVID-19 pandemic has also attracted the attention of scientific thinkers, the action against the restrictions imposed by the crisis has had a significant impact, and some of the research on COVID-19 was already underway before the WHO announced the pandemic in March 2020. To ensure adequate coverage of the published articles and the collected publications’ reliability, using the Web of Science (WoS), Science Direct, and Scopus research databases to collect the published articles, sustainability research before COVID-19 was examined in the following way. The first filtering round was performed for the search terms sustainability and agri-food in the databases listed above in articles published between 2016 and 2019. It was assumed that the researchers would give their work a title and an abstract, suggesting that their analysis would reflect actual research. Thus, if the issue of sustainability or one of its factors appears, they indicate it in the title, abstract, or keywords. For simplicity, there is a selection of materials written in English and a focus on the analysis of scientific journal articles only (book chapters or entire books were excluded from the database). After 355 hits, duplicates were filtered out, leaving 109 hits based on titles. In the second filtering stage, the content of the papers filtered in the previous stage was checked by reading the title, abstract, and conclusion and then reading the whole document to check the relevance of the papers. After reading these 109 documents, 47 relevant works in the literature remained that made a substantive contribution to the research of agri-food sustainability The leading search used a combination of the keywords COVID-19, sustainability, and agri-food, which had to appear in the title, abstract, conclusions, or keywords of the literature searched. The search engine also returns results that do not include one or all search terms in the title or abstract. To ensure accuracy, irrelevant documents were filtered out by carefully reviewing each article’s title, abstract, and keywords. This means that only relevant literature was included in the review The literature searches, a crucial part of this review, took place in March 2024 and were limited to a database (journal publications only) with publications between 2020 and 2023 due to the topic. The first literature search yielded 230 papers, which included 69 duplicates, indicating that the number of articles on the subject is generally low after searching for irrelevant studies by title and removing duplicates, obtaining 66 studies. Of the 66 English-language journal articles, 9 did not address the impacts of COVID-19, and 4 did not include any sustainability topic. Finally, 53 relevant publications were identified for the topic (the relationship between agri-food, COVID-19, and sustainability). The source selection and exclusion process used in the literature review is illustrated in Figure 1 .

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 5 of 31 Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 35 Figure 1. Milestones of the literature selection 4. Results 4.1. Pre COVID-19 Sustainability For economic sustainability, data-driven and adaptive management in agri-food production and distribution companies strongly impacts non-financial sustainability and supports financial sustainability [66]. Using cooperation and the sharing economy increases the financial sustainability of organic farming in developing countries [67,68]. Vertical coordination can help improve economic and environmental sustainability [69]. Better-managed organisational changes and strategies have supported the economic and social sustainability of the wine sector. [70]. Innovation has a positive impact on financial sustainability [71]. Economic sustainability can be improved by choosing the correct transport mode [72]. Resource use efficiency drives production’s economic and environmental sustainability [73] Reducing waste has a positive impact on environmental [74–76], economic [77,78], and social sustainability [79]. Using new technology and reducing production waste in- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Records identified from: Databases (n = 230) Records removed before screening : Duplicate records removed (n = 69) Records screened (n = 161) Records excluded (n = 95) Reports assessed for eligibility (n = 66) Reports excluded: Lack of COVID-19 effect (n = 9) Lack of sustainability (n =4) . Studies included in review (n = 53) Identification of studies via databases and registers Id en ti fi ca ti o n S cre en in g In cl u d ed Figure 1. Milestones of the literature selection 4. Results 4.1. Pre COVID-19 Sustainability For economic sustainability, data-driven and adaptive management in agri-food production and distribution companies strongly impacts non-financial sustainability and supports financial sustainability [ 66 ]. Using cooperation and the sharing economy increases the financial sustainability of organic farming in developing countries [ 67 , 68 ]. Vertical coordination can help improve economic and environmental sustainability [ 69 ]. Better-managed organisational changes and strategies have supported the economic and social sustainability of the wine sector. [ 70 ]. Innovation has a positive impact on financial sustainability [ 71 ] Economic sustainability can be improved by choosing the correct transport mode [ 72 ]. Resource use efficiency drives production’s economic and environmental sustainability [ 73 ] Reducing waste has a positive impact on environmental [ 74 – 76 ], economic [ 77 , 78 ], and social sustainability [ 79 ]. Using new technology and reducing production waste increases economic and environmental sustainability [ 80 ]. Certification increases environmental [ 81 ] and economic sustainability [ 82 – 86 ] but reduces social sustainability [ 87 ]. Building an adequate distribution network reduces the environmental burden but can also reduce economic results [ 88 ]. Precision agriculture can increase environmental and economic sustainability [ 89 ]. Poorer-quality land under production pressure means higher water demand and, thus, poorer economic sustainability [ 90 ].

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 6 of 31 Organic production improves environmental and health sustainability [ 91 , 92 ]. This advantage has not been seen in lettuce production, and further development is needed for better results [ 93 ]. Lack of confidence is the main obstacle to the broader uptake of organic food, which could reduce environmental pressures [ 94 ]. To mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture, combining crops that sequester these gases is possible, thereby reducing emissions [ 95 ]. Environmental pressures can be improved by reducing the amount produced, enhancing energy and fertiliser use efficiency, and increasing transport efficiency [ 96 ]. Cooperation between partners and suppliers and product innovation positively impact environmental sustainability [ 97 , 98 ]. Recycling tomato waste as compost can improve environmental sustainability [ 99 ]. A short food supply chain develops environmental sustainability [ 100 ]. A study on sheep found no significant difference in environmental impact between artisanal and industrial production [ 101 ]. Food production and consumption patterns influence environmental pressures [ 102 ]. A product affects the environmental footprint, so making the right choices increases environmental sustainability [ 103 ]. Proper water use can improve environmental protection [ 104 ]. There is a strong connection between sustainability and irrigation and water management [ 105 – 107 ]. Consumers are willing to pay even higher prices for products produced in a water-efficient way, so there is an economic benefit linked to environmental sustainability [ 108 ]. The product’s qualitative (taste, packaging), financial (price, convenience, and so on) and safety (health, safety, environmental friendliness, and so on) characteristics have a positive impact on economic, environmental and social sustainability [ 109 ]. The growing demand for healthy food supports environmental protection [ 110 ]. A plant-heavy or plant-based diet reduces the global warming potential (GWP), while food waste increases it [ 111 ]. Environmental protection can be adequate with cleaner technology, effective enforcement and control over supply chains, protected brands, standards, and certifications [ 112 ]. The summary of the main topics is in Table 1 . Table 1. Main topics of pre-COVID-19 research. Source: The Scopus ( https://www.scopus.com , accessed on 1 May 2024), Web of Science ( https://www.webofscience.com , accessed on 1 May 2024), and Science Direct ( https://www.sciencedirect.com , accessed on 1 May 2024) databases Resource Management Innovation and Technology Management, Cooperation, Certification, Production Education, Psychology transport method (P é rez-Mesa et al., 2019) [ 72 ] resource efficiency (Steyn et al., 2016; Tassielli et al., 2018) [ 73 , 96 ] waste reduction (Diaz-Ruiz et al., 2019; Garofalo et al., 2017; Kazancoglu et al., 2018; Sgarbossa et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2019; Gokarn and Kuthambalayan 2017; Woodhouse et al., 2018; Bonisoli et al., 2019; Boccia et al., 2019) [ 74 – 80 , 87 , 99 ] distribution network (Bortolini et al., 2016) [ 88 ] soil quality (Sartori et al., 2019) [ 90 ] use of plants that sequester carbon (Sulaiman et al., 2017) [ 95 ] water use (Ibidhi and Ben Salem 2018; Libutti et al., 2018; Miglietta et al., 2018; Yan et al., 2019; Pomarici et al., 2018) [ 104 – 108 ] process innovation (P é rez Neira et al., 2018) [ 71 ] precision agriculture (Kendall et al., 2017) [ 89 ] organic farming (Annunziata and Vecchio 2016; Westphal et al., 2018; Tasca et al., 2017) [ 91 – 93 ] product innovation (Annunziata et al., 2018; Camanzi et al., 2017) [ 97 , 98 ] short food supply chain use (Canfora 2016) [ 100 ] large production (Vagnoni et al., 2017) [ 101 ] data-based management (Akhtar et al., 2016) [ 66 ] well-managed change and strategy (Borsellino et al., 2019) [ 70 ] cooperation and sharing economy (Asian et al., 2019; Thorlakson et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2018; Rueda et al., 2017) [ 67 – 69 , 112 ] certification use (Partzsch et al., 2019; Del Giudice et al., 2018; Rees et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2017; Tait el al. 2019; Tait et al., 2016; Bonisoli et al., 2019) [ 81 – 87 ] production characteristics (Rahnama 2017; Rijsberman 2017) [ 109 , 110 ] plant-based food (Veeramani et al., 2017) [ 111 ] lack of trust (Vega-Zamora et al., 2019) [ 94 ] consumption choice (Ely et al., 2016; Mujkic et al., 2019) [ 102 , 103 ]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 7 of 31 4.2. Sustainability after COVID-19: Descriptive Analysis The generalised worldwide effect (13) was the subject of most articles. It is followed by Italy, with eight studies. The next one is Bangladesh (3). Romania, Spain, and Canada are covered by 2-2 articles, and the remaining articles (23) deal with a single country or region Figure 2 illustrates that most of the papers (24 articles) focused on the agri-food system, a complex network involving multiple actors from production to consumption. Within this, farmers and entrepreneurs were the subject of 6-6 articles, while consumption and producer issues were covered in 5-5 articles. Two articles specifically addressed food traders, with others focusing on restaurants, meat producers, oil and wine producers, local food, fishermen, traders, or beekeepers The journals of the remaining 53 articles show a diversity. The Swiss journal Sustainability published 16 articles. The agriculture system has three articles, while Socio-Economic Planning Sciences and Sustainable Production and Consumption have 2-2 articles. The remaining articles were published in different journals The COVID-19 pandemic, a global crisis that significantly impacted various sectors, including the agri-food system, was a major catalyst for research in this area. Released at a larger scale in spring 2020, this was the year researchers began to investigate the issue. Seven selected articles were the result. The most common year for the research topic was 2021, with 21 articles written by the authors. This decreased in 2022, when 14 articles were selected. Eleven articles were selected in 2023, further underscoring the ongoing relevance of the topic Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 35 Figure 2. Research topics for agri-food sustainability. Source: The Scopus (https://www.scopus.com, accessed on 1 May 2024), Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com, accessed on 1 May 2024), and Science Direct (https://www.sciencedirect.com, accessed on 1 May 2024) databases The journals of the remaining 53 articles show a diversity. The Swiss journal Sustainability published 16 articles. The agriculture system has three articles, while Socio-Economic Planning Sciences and Sustainable Production and Consumption have 2-2 articles. The remaining articles were published in different journals The COVID-19 pandemic, a global crisis that significantly impacted various sectors, including the agri-food system, was a major catalyst for research in this area. Released at a larger scale in spring 2020, this was the year researchers began to investigate the issue. Seven selected articles were the result. The most common year for the research topic was 2021, with 21 articles written by the authors. This decreased in 2022, when 14 articles were selected. Eleven articles were selected in 2023, further underscoring the ongoing relevance of the topic 4.3. Sustainability after COVID-19: Thematic Analysis A total of 15 papers deal with changes in consumer behaviour, 16 deal with trade, 29 deal with analysing production, and 9 deal with other topics such as supply chains. Economic sustainability appears in almost all articles, with 50 sources dealing with this topic. Environmental sustainability appears in 15, and the topic of social issues appears in 19 Some articles discuss more than sustainability issues or one actor in the supply chain. Therefore, despite the efforts to classify all articles under a sub-theme, it is only possible for some of them (Figure 3). The structure of the Results section of this article is as follows: This paper first analyses the sources that deal with economic sustainability. The order is producers, traders, consumers, and systems. This is followed by articles dealing with environmental sustainability and then those dealing with social sustainability Figure 2. Research topics for agri-food sustainability. Source: The Scopus ( https://www.scopus.com , accessed on 1 May 2024), Web of Science ( https://www.webofscience.com , accessed on 1 May 2024), and Science Direct ( https://www.sciencedirect.com , accessed on 1 May 2024) databases 4.3. Sustainability after COVID-19: Thematic Analysis A total of 15 papers deal with changes in consumer behaviour, 16 deal with trade, 29 deal with analysing production, and 9 deal with other topics such as supply chains. Economic sustainability appears in almost all articles, with 50 sources dealing with this topic. Environmental sustainability appears in 15, and the topic of social issues appears in 19.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 8 of 31 Some articles discuss more than sustainability issues or one actor in the supply chain Therefore, despite the efforts to classify all articles under a sub-theme, it is only possible for some of them (Figure 3 ). The structure of the Results section of this article is as follows: This paper first analyses the sources that deal with economic sustainability. The order is producers, traders, consumers, and systems. This is followed by articles dealing with environmental sustainability and then those dealing with social sustainability Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 35 Figure 3. Primary sustainability analysis of COVID-19 research. Source: The Scopus (https://www.scopus.com, accessed on 1 May 2024), Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com, accessed on 1 May 2024), and Science Direct (https://www.sciencedirect.com, accessed on 1 May 2024) databases Figure 3. Primary sustainability analysis of COVID-19 research. Source: The Scopus ( https://www. scopus.com , accessed on 1 May 2024), Web of Science ( https://www.webofscience.com , accessed on 1 May 2024), and Science Direct ( https://www.sciencedirect.com , accessed on 1 May 2024) databases 4.3.1. Economic Sustainability Spanish wineand olive oil-producing companies have shown high resilience during COVID-19, which aligns with agri-food activities. Their sustainability can be increased by introducing digitalisation. According to the study, wine consumption has fallen. Demand for olive oil increased in the low and medium segments. Local market and online sales have become more critical. High-quality products were sold with new packaging. Grassroots initiatives were successful. Among the central measures, supporting the harvesting of grapevine and reducing stock production in the olive oil sector were typical [ 113 ]. According to Serbia’s results, the most effective marketing channel for agricultural products is through processing plants (cold-drying plants, silos, and combine harvesters). Sales through advertising increased, and sales at farmers’ markets were also significant but lagged behind processing plant turnover [ 114 ]. Based on the experience of the Konya province in Turkey, Ugur and Buruklar (2022) highlight that production costs increased, prices became unstable, labour recruitment became more complex, and the volume of markets decreased. This was very typical among producers of fruit and vegetables under irrigation. Difficulties in marketing and the supply of raw materials increased [ 115 ]. Wang et al. (2022) found that horticulture is a key export sector for Xinjiang’s agricultural products. However, under COVID-19, development lagged behind other regions of the country. Highly processed products are a competitive advantage even in times of crisis [ 116 ]. Zieli ´nska-Chmielewska et al (2021) analysed proposals by country for the meat market. The solution for China is to promote rail transport and to subsidise rail transport. For Russia, the solution is to subsidise cold storage. In Russia, export restrictions have been imposed. The Russian government

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 9 of 31 provided significant support to producers and consumers. In the US, processors have introduced several innovative solutions and central measures to help the supply side. The sustainability of the food supply chain requires well-thought-out support for agri-food production [ 117 ]. In the countries of the Central American region, research has shown that firms and estates that are part of vertical integration have significant control in the supply chain or are self-sufficient, and self-consuming units were less affected by austerity. These units were more adaptable than mediumand small-scale farmers, whose primary income is agriculture [ 118 ]. Mastronaldi et al. (2022) studied 15 farms in central Italy using semi-structured interviews with text analysis. The results show that those diverse economies have a better chance of survival and are more economically sustainable. It helps economies become competitive if they have sustainable logistics and use e-commerce. There is a need to develop and exchange knowledge and innovation and to strengthen diversification. Farms with outsourced activities suffered more [ 119 ]. Calculations of material, energy, and economic costs associated with beef, pork, and poultry meat in Italy have been presented in a paper. The study’s results highlight the importance of waste management, the cost-increasing impact of generation, and the cost of disposal. It has been estimated that more than 0.45–0.50 million tonnes of fresh meat was lost during COVID-19 throughout the Italian agri-food chain. This corresponds to approximately € 242–268 million, to which additional energy and water losses should be added ( € 435–481 million). There are two main barriers to sustainable food supplies. First, entrepreneurs are distrustful of both government and sustainability measures. The other fact is that not everyone can access safe food [ 120 ]. In Macedonia, 91 farmers were asked how the outbreak affected their farms. Characteristics included the disconnection between farmers and traders/processors, the need for more technical support on the ground, and uncertainty. The volume of production decreased, and the quality of agricultural products became uncertain. Seasonal workers were not available, and costs increased. The typical structure of small farmland and lack of cohesion made survival and effective responses to the crisis difficult. A breakdown in communication between buyers and producers became a feature. Low awareness was accompanied by a decline in sales in the HoReCa channel [ 121 ]. Ignat and Constantin (2020) examined the resilience of entrepreneurs in all regions of Romania during COVID-19. The results show that entrepreneurial resilience is generally stronger in poorer, less developed regions, both qualitatively and quantitatively. This is due to entrepreneurial initiatives. Entrepreneurs with higher quality and capital strength proved more stable during the crisis in the wealthiest Romanian countries. Business development activities increase the flexibility of enterprises [ 122 ]. The study analysed data collected in May 2020 from 367 agri-food SMEs in 17 countries to explore how COVID-19 measures have impacted this segment. Most respondents (94.3%) experienced a decline in turnover, had insufficient reserves, and had difficulty finding suitable employees. Additionally, 13% had stopped production, 82% had reduced production, and 54% had changed their sales prices. If a firm’s turnover was less than USD 50,000 per year, it was more likely to have been negatively affected by the crisis. Young firms that have been around for a short time and have few employees have been the least affected by the crisis. A total of 80% of firms have taken action in response to the COVID-19 measures. For example, 44% looked for new business opportunities [ 123 ]. The Egyptian example shows that SMEs in developing countries need more financial resources to manage risk and develop a strategy. Due to resource constraints, they have yet to be able to take advantage of the favourable opportunities under COVID-19. A mindset change is needed to prepare these enterprises for crises [ 124 ].

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 10 of 31 J á mbor et al. (2020) found that the main impacts of the pandemic most likely affect the following aspects: supply, demand, labour, food security, food safety, trade, and other effects. The impacts show variations. Some were positively affected, others negatively [ 125 ]. Liu et al., 2022, argue that significant waste exists in the agri-food supply chain (AFSC), with export earnings falling short under COVID-19, because of a lack of cold storage capacity, inadequate handling, and poor product packaging on sales. If the supply chain strategy is well planned, the presence of network planning and a well-functioning information system will reduce the risk of turnover losses. This requires minimising transport damage. Recycled packaging and protective packaging are seen as good practices [ 126 ]. According to the researchers’ study, the COVID-19 crisis has hardened long food supply chains. The system’s sustainability requires solidarity, cooperation and collective action to maintain a resilient food system. The crisis has affected all activities of the food system (from production to consumption) and all pillars of food security (availability, access, utilisation, stability). The crisis has most affected the extended supply chain as it has the most vulnerable, complex systems [ 127 ]. Sama-Berrocal and Mart í nez-Az ú a (2022) studied agri-food companies in Extremadura (Spain). Their question was which activities were most hampered by the COVID-19 austerity measures. The companies’ finances (decrease in turnover and decrease in product demand) and operations (difficulties in marketing activities and stop/decrease in the financial year) were the most important characteristics of economic sustainability. Most companies have introduced new marketing strategies, stricter hygiene standards, and reorganisation. They changed either their product or their service. They have improved relations with customers and suppliers and tried to offer discounts. Their responses included digitalisation, a new marketing strategy, and stricter health protocols [ 128 ]. The outbreak has shown that Malaysian care is not stable. Typically, food was hard to come by, and people panicked, and in many cases, prices rose. Output in the economy and emissions fell back. There were labour shortages and high exposure to imported fertilisers, feed, and migrant workers. Movement restrictions have had a significant negative impact on the entire supply chain, including logistics. The government supported the development of digitalisation and stimulated the economy. Precision technology would increase efficiency in production, while blockchain distribution in the supply chain would help manage disruptions [ 129 ]. According to Xue et al. (2021), food insecurity, information flow stagnation, and transport stagnation were all problems during the epidemic. The symptoms caused by the crisis include distorted food demand due to panic buying. On the supply side, food transport and production could be improved, which could be a solution, thus increasing local food consumption and local supply [ 130 ]. The advantage of intelligent packaging with the correct information is that it informs consumers about the freshness of the product. This promoted sustainability during the epidemic, with the main aim of preventing food waste. Optimal inventory capacity, freshness indicator, duration of freshness period, and product quantity were the main factors influencing the grocery supply chain performance during the epidemic [ 131 ]. Millard et al. (2022) examined local (subnational) differences in the behaviour of household food consumption before and during the first wave of COVID-19 in 2020 They found that low-income households were highly affected by the epidemic, but small towns made them more resilient. Households in large cities were hit harder by the crisis. Health characteristics were most affected by how household income changed under the restrictions. Where it decreased, health characteristics worsened. The use of convenience foods, in particular, has fallen as a result of income losses in households. Households not characterised by income loss used more raw materials during COVID-19 and reduced their use of processed food. Households with income loss have been forced to make more changes (essential provision, austerity, saving, new recipes, more food choices, and so on) [ 132 ].

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 11 of 31 The outbreak meant a collapse of the logistics network, uncertainty of demand, and sustainability problems. The authors’ study concludes that various IoT technologies, namely blockchain, robotics, big data analytics, and cloud computing, are increasing global competitiveness. Blockchain technology in agri-food supply chains increases sustainability by improving safety, quality, traceability, and transparency [ 133 ]. Research in six African countries shows that smaller, mainly women-owned agribusiness SMEs have been more affected by the epidemic. Marketing, labour supply, and job security were disadvantageous, and as a result, these enterprises experienced a financial loss at the time. The larger agri-SMEs were better able to adapt, redeploy resources, manage crises, and increase job security. Credit-constrained agri-SMEs operating further away from urban centres and those producing agricultural inputs were also more likely to suffer losses [ 134 ]. In urban and metropolitan areas around the Mediterranean, closer cooperation between agriculture, the cultural dimension of food, logistics, research and innovation, and tourism marketing has become a necessity and an opportunity during and after COVID-19 [ 135 ]. A survey in Tunisia asked how consumers waste food [ 136 ]. Two hundred eighty-four respondents took part in the survey. A total of 89% of the respondents knew that they had wasted food. A total of 93% of respondents said the COVID-19 closure would encourage them to reduce waste. A total of 85% of respondents had significantly reduced their wastage after introducing the restrictions. The behaviour change was driven more by economic and social reasons (i.e., food availability, mobility constraints, loss of income) than by a desire to protect the environment. Food waste prevention would be supported by education Walnnoefer and Riefler (2022) aim to determine whether perceptions of local food consumption changed during the COVID-19 outbreak [ 137 ]. A sample of 351 items from Austria was analysed. Perceptions of local food consumption remained stable. Thus, one of the reasons for Austrian flexibility is the local food supply and its relationship with consumers In North America, the almost complete temporary failure of the food distribution channel in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant vulnerability With the growth of online shopping, the increase in demand for local products was typical It can be concluded that the crisis affected low-priced, mass-produced firms more. More significant consolidation and diversification of supply chains could solve these issues and make them more resilient to crises [ 138 ]. Table 2 summarises economically sustainable publications in terms of subject areas (themes), research focuses and objectives, the scale of the studies, geographical scopes, and key results and findings.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 12 of 31 Table 2. Summary of the research conducted separately on the economic pillar of sustainability and COVID-19 Reference Sustainability Dimension Subject Area/Theme Research Focus and Objective(s) Geographical Scope Findings Rodriguez-Cohard et al., (2021) [ 113 ] economic Wine and olive production Studying the implications of COVID-19 for producers Spain High-quality products were sold with new packaging Grassroots initiatives were successful. Producers’ sustainability can be increased by introducing digitalisation Tosovic-Stevanovic et al., (2020) [ 114 ] economic Agriculture production and sales Examining the implications of COVID-19 for producers and sales Serbia The most effective marketing channel for agricultural products is through processing plants (cold-drying plants, silos, and combine harvesters) Ugur et al., (2022) [ 115 ] economic Agriculture production and sales Analysing the implications of COVID-19 for producers and sales Turkey Production costs increased, prices became unstable, labour recruitment became more complex, and the volume of markets decreased Wang et al., (2022) [ 116 ] economic Horticulture production and sales Studying the implications of COVID-19 for horticulture producers and sales China, Xinjiang Highly processed products are a competitive advantage even in times of crisis Zieli ´nska-Chmielewska et al., (2021) [ 117 ] economic Meat market Examining the implications of COVID-19 for meat market Russia, China, the US Government agri-food support is useful for food supply chains Lopez-Ridaura et al., (2021) [ 118 ] economic Agriculture production and sales Studying the implications of COVID-19 for producers and sales Central American region Firms and estates that are part of vertical integration have significant control in the supply chain or are self-sufficient; self-consuming units were less affected by austerity Mastronardi et al., (2022) [ 119 ] economic Agri-food farms Analysing the implications of COVID-19 for farms Central Italy It helps economies become competitive if they have sustainable logistics and use e-commerce. There is a need to develop and exchange knowledge and innovation and to strengthen diversification. Farms with outsourced activities suffered more Stojcheska et al., (2021) [ 121 ] economic Agri-food farmers Examining the implications of COVID-19 for farmers North Macedonia The disconnection between farmers and traders/processors, the need for more technical support on the ground, and uncertainty were typical. Seasonal workers were not available, and costs increased Bux and Amicarelli (2022) [ 120 ] economic Beef, pork, and poultry meat producers Studying the implications of COVID-19 for meat producers Italy The study’s results highlight the importance of waste management, the cost-increasing impact of generation, and the cost of disposal. Distrust and lack of access to safe foods are the main barriers to sustainable food supply Ignat et al., (2020) [ 122 ] economic Resilience of entrepreneurs Studying the resilience of entrepreneurs Romania The entrepreneurial resilience is generally stronger in poorer, less developed regions, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 13 of 31 Table 2. Cont Reference Sustainability Dimension Subject Area/Theme Research Focus and Objective(s) Geographical Scope Findings Nordhagen et al., (2021) [ 123 ] economic Agri-food SMEs Examining the implications of COVID-19 for SMEs Global Most respondents (94.3%) experienced a decline in turnover, had insufficient reserves, and had difficulty finding suitable employees; 13% had stopped production, 82% had reduced production, and 54% had changed their sales prices Hatab et al., (2023) [ 124 ] economic SMEs Studying the implications of COVID-19 for SMEs Egypt SMEs in developing countries need more financial resources to manage risk and develop a strategy. A mindset change is needed to prepare these enterprises for crises J á mbor et al., (2020) [ 125 ] economic Agri-food firms Studying the implications of COVID-19 NA The main impacts of the pandemic most likely affect the following aspects: supply, demand, labour, food security, food safety, trade, and other effects Liu et al., (2022) [ 126 ] economic Agri-food supply chain (AFSC) Examining the implications of COVID-19 for AFSC Global If the supply chain strategy is well planned, the presence of network planning and a well-functioning information system will reduce the risk of turnover losses. This requires minimising transport damage Rivera-Ferre et al., (2021) [ 127 ] economic Food supply chains Studying the implications of COVID-19 for food supply chains Global The system’s sustainability requires solidarity, cooperation and collective action to maintain a resilient food system. The crisis has most affected the extended supply chain as it has the most vulnerable, complex systems Sama-Berrocal and Mart í nez-Az ú a (2022) [ 128 ] economic Agri-food companies Examining the implications of COVID-19 for food firms Spain, Extremadura The companies’ finances (decrease in turnover and decrease/decrease in product demand) and operations (difficulties in marketing activities and stop/decrease in the financial year) were the most important characteristics of economic sustainability Tan et al., (2023) [ 129 ] economic Agri-food supply Studying the implications of COVID-19 Malaysia There were labour shortages and high exposure to imported fertilisers, feed, and migrant workers Xu et al., (2021) [ 130 ] economic Agri-food supply Examining the implications of COVID-19 for food supply NA On the supply side, food transport and production could be improved, which could be a solution, thus increasing local food consumption and local supply Kabadurmus et al., (2023) [ 131 ] economic Agri-food supply Analysing the positive strategies during COVID-19 NA Optimal inventory capacity, freshness indicator, duration of freshness period, and product quantity were the main factors influencing the grocery supply chain performance during the epidemic.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 14 of 31 Table 2. Cont Reference Sustainability Dimension Subject Area/Theme Research Focus and Objective(s) Geographical Scope Findings Millard et al., (2022) [ 132 ] economic Food consumption Examining local (subnational) differences in the behaviour of household food consumption Global Low-income households were highly affected by the epidemic, but small towns made them more resilient Households with income loss have been forced to make more changes (essential provision, austerity, saving, new recipes, more food choices, and so on) Cruz et al., (2023) [ 133 ] economic Logistics network Studying the implications of COVID-19 Global Blockchain technology in agri-food supply chains increases sustainability by improving safety, quality, traceability, and transparency Kadzamira et al., (2023) [ 134 ] economic Agri-business SMEs Studying the implications of COVID-19 for SMEs African countries The larger agri-SMEs were better able to adapt, redeploy resources, manage crises, and increase job security Cavallo and Oliveri (2022) [ 135 ] economic Food logistics Studying the implications of COVID-19 Studying the implications of COVID-19 Closer cooperation between agriculture, the cultural dimension of food, logistics, research and innovation, and tourism marketing has become a necessity and an opportunity Jribi et al., (2020) [ 136 ] economic Food waste Analysing food waste during COVID-19 Tunisia The behaviour change was driven more by economic and social reasons (i.e., food availability, mobility constraints, loss of income) than by a desire to protect the environment Wallnoefer et al., (2022) [ 137 ] economic Local food consumption Analysing local food consumption during COVID-19 Austria Perceptions of local food consumption remained stable because of the flexibility of local food supply and its relationship with consumers Weersink et al., (2022) [ 138 ] economic Agri-food supply chain Studying the implications of COVID-19 for SMEs North America The crisis affected low-priced, mass-produced firms more. More significant consolidation and diversification of supply chains could solve these issues and make them more resilient to crises.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 15 of 31 4.3.2. Environmental Sustainability According to a study on environmental sustainability, during the first part of the pandemic, CO 2 emissions in the agri-food system in 23 European countries fell by 0.3 million tonnes. Implementing a circular economy supports the achievement of sustainability goals [ 63 ]. Consumers sensitive to sustainability tend to turn to local producers because they associate quality with the producer. They are more inclined to separate their waste and are more environmentally sensitive. They rediscovered the importance of local food, the healthy existence of food, environmental sustainability, and packaging. Individual sensitivity to sustainability, change in purchasing behaviour, expectations related to the agri-food system, knowledge of agri-food policy, and the system of businesses operating in farmers’ markets have increased [ 139 ]. 4.3.3. Social Sustainability Priyadarshini and Abhilash’s (2021) experiences in India show that digitally connecting rural actors (producers, traders) during COVID-19 improved the sustainability of the food supply. Providing adequate nutrition improves the health of society, especially among people experiencing poverty. There is a need to improve food and nutritional security, which helps sustainability on both the demand and supply sides. During the crisis, possible remedial actions help to handle social problems—linking cities and the countryside for trade or supply, the digitalisation of retail processes, efficient distribution of food aid, nutritional supplements for the deprived, the promotion and practice of healthy eating, and environmental education [ 140 ]. 4.3.4. Eco-Economic Sustainability In the months since COVID-19 was launched, many governments restricted agrifood exports. They did not allow the export of these staple foods, which increased food insecurity. Food security has been negatively affected by freshwater shortages, poor farmland conditions, armed attacks, political disagreements, and rising temperatures [ 141 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought digital technology to the fore. Based on data from a sample of 574 green food entrepreneur firms, the authors argue that local, ecofriendly products sold online make them more sustainable [ 142 ]. The Greek experience under COVID-19 shows that 134 green agri-food supply chain company managers say that information sharing, logistics networking, and transport are the most influential factors affecting sustainable business and supply chain performance. Green and environmentally sustainable warehousing and logistics emissions have not improved business results or increased economic sustainability [ 143 ]. Castellini et al. (2021) studied data from 1004 Italian respondents. Italian GDP fell by 11.3% in the first wave of COVID-19, which caused uncertainty in the economy and changed consumer habits. The COVID-19 emergency has changed consumer attitudes A total of 30% of respondents frequently consumed certified sustainable foods, and 20% intended to increase their consumption in the next six months. Consumer interest in animal and environmental issues and human health has improved [ 144 ]. Feeding the population requires greater efficiency in production. This results in increased yields, fertiliser, and chemical use, which leads to higher environmental pressures and health risks. IoT systems can help address the issue but at a higher cost. Still, we can expect their greater uptake in the future, increased efficiency in their use, better-quality food produced through their use, and more significant economic benefits in the longer term [ 145 ]. Food production and processing in the EU-27 are moderately sustainable. As they increase their GDP sustainability, they decrease their environmental impact. Using production techniques based on a circular economy can increase productivity while increasing ecological sustainability, which is needed for the future [ 146 ].

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 16 of 31 4.3.5. Socio-Economic Sustainability This analysis explores the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agri-food systems in Bangladesh, including increased hunger, reduced access to food, and reduced access to basic food. During the crisis, possible remedial actions help to handle social problems—linking cities and the countryside for trade or supply, the digitalisation of shops, distribution of food aid, nutritional supplements to the impoverished, promotion of healthy eating, and environmental education [ 147 ]. Alam et al. (2023) found that as many growers have been impoverished during the crisis, the government’s role is to provide financial assistance to fish farmers in the short term and to help them produce and market their products. Two hundred and fifty intensive fish farmers and traders from Bangladesh responded to the researchers. As a result of COVID-19, farm gate prices of different fish decreased by 22–40%, and fish feed prices increased significantly. Income from fish farming declined in the cases studied. Consequently, capital is also reduced. Food insecurity was general. The COVID-19 outbreak hampered market access for fish farmers and reduced production, resulting in lower incomes and increased vulnerability to food insecurity. The purchase of basic foodstuffs has decreased, with an increase in the proportion of cheaper foodstuffs purchased, purchases on credit and the sale of assets. COVID-19 has led to the use of Facebook, the Internet, or the selling of fish directly to the buyer (16%) [ 148 ]. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted food systems, and food prices increased due to restrictive measures in Kenya. The traders interviewed spoke of a rise in commodity prices and a drop in sales. Except for a few products (cabbage, potatoes), prices rose by 13% over the period. The trader (97%) experienced a decrease in delivery volumes. Consumption at home fell (52%), there was a reduced choice of food (44%), and missing meals also occurred (32%) [ 149 ]. Based on a research study in Latvia, the authors state that arable crop farmers were less affected by the COVID-19 crisis than other agricultural workers [ 150 ]. The situation in Latvia affected crop processors more than other actors. This was due to decreased demand and dependence on imported raw materials. Producers who also exported were also more vulnerable. According to the research results, field plant growers were less exposed to the adverse effects. However, the negative effect was more robust in the plant processing industry than in other sectors. What caused the most significant impact was the change in demand, the industry’s dependence on imported raw materials, and the uncertainty of export markets. Long-term effects of a crisis can be higher unemployment, a decrease in purchasing power, an increase in the proportion of food spent within the household, an increase in food prices, a deterioration in the quality of food for individuals, unhealthy eating, and the spread of automated production processes The restrictions caused by the epidemic have changed the supply side of the labour market, which has also brought changes in the social sphere. Bixby et al. (2021) found that the lack of temporary foreign workers and the use of local workers decreased work effectiveness [ 151 ]. Based on a survey of 200 Canadian beekeepers, there are two main issues they will have to address under COVID-19: uncertain livestock replacement and the availability of temporary foreign labour. Productivity was reduced as they had to employ local workers. Beekeepers have found that the productivity gap exists because local workers are less skilled and that local workers tend to quit before the end of the contract Hiring local labour, lacking foreign workers, and lacking bee colonies could reduce profits by 55–75% A Canadian study claims [ 152 ] that the use of off-site food services (takeaway/ transportation) increased in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consumers significantly reduced their use of restaurant food services. Meal service use varied by sociodemographic groups: age, education and educational attainment, household income, distance from home, number of children, and marital status. Older people ate more often away from home. Participants with lower levels of education perceived food eaten locally to be more expensive than those with higher levels of education, so the latter is the leading

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 17 of 31 market segment for restaurants. On the other hand, those with lower educational attainment perceived food eaten locally to be less convenient than those with higher educational attainment. Participants with high household income perceived food eaten locally to be less expensive and of good quality, while those with lower income perceived food eaten locally to be costly and of poor quality. Consumers in small towns or rural areas perceived food eaten locally as less convenient than those in suburban areas Experience in Romania shows consumers turned to healthier food during COVID-19 [ 153 ] Preference was given to local food sourced through short supply chains. The use of digital technology has come to the fore. Producers who had this had a competitive advantage. Consumers favoured local products. Production needed to be improved by logistical constraints and the unavailability of seasonal labour. Poverty increased, and diversification was an advantage. The producer and the consumer were separated Based on studies of alternative and local food systems in 13 countries, researchers have found that social and technological innovation, greater citizen participation, and greater interest from policymakers and retailers increase the sustainability of food systems [ 154 ]. In alternative local food systems, food is considered safer, less polluting, better quality, and healthier. Producers have responded to the restrictions, selling online and adapting to the situation. Labour shortages were also a big problem. Regional initiatives and municipal and government support were supportive In the COVID-19 survey, the researchers collected the experiences of organic and agroecological farmers and alternative grassroots food networks (AFNs) in Rome [ 155 ]. The results highlight the importance of local grassroots action in food access, supply, and distribution. COVID-19 has increased the share and role of online sales. The volume of trade through the HoReCa channel has decreased. The role of local direct sales is significant, and it performed 40% better in closures than before. Further, food prices have increased to varying degrees, and the role of social cohesion and solidarity cohesion has increased. Food poverty has increased, i.e., a part of the population does not have access to sufficient quality and quantity of food, which is accompanied by health risks A study in Qatar found that consumers adopted healthier eating practices during COVID-19 [ 156 ]. Local and domestic food consumption increased due to safer food. They increased online purchasing. Panic buying and food hoarding were rare in Qatar. Healthy eating and lifestyles came to the fore during the pandemic, as demonstrated by an increased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables. In parallel, respondents consumed more water. Consumption of fast food and other unhealthy foods decreased In a study in Kuwait, a total of 841 responses were processed [ 157 ]. The results showed changes in consumer behaviour. Online food purchasing has become more common (42.8%). Long-shelf-life foods are the leading food purchased (76%). Eating at home has become more common, with a decrease in eating away from home (76%) and typically following government regulations (98%). The possibility and frequency of men meeting regularly decreased during this period. This had an impact on men’s lives, habits, social relationships, and loneliness. Table 3 summarises these publications in terms of subject areas (themes), research focuses and objectives, the scale of the studies, geographical scopes, and key results and findings.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 18 of 31 Table 3. Summary of the research conducted separately on the main pillars of sustainability and COVID-19 Reference Sustainability Dimension Subject Area/Theme Research Focus and Objective(s) Geographical Scope Findings Adelodun et al., (2021) [ 63 ] environment Circular economy Studying the implications of COVID-19 for environment European countries CO 2 emissions in the agri-food system in 23 European countries fell by 0.3 million tonnes. Implementing a circular economy supports the achievement of sustainability goals Foti and Timpanaro (2021) [ 139 ] environment Agri-food consumers Examining the implications of COVID-19 for consumers Global Individual sensitivity to sustainability, change in purchasing behaviour, expectations related to the agri-food system, knowledge of agri-food policy, and the system of businesses operating in farmers’ markets have increased Priyadarshini and Abhilash, (2021) [ 140 ] social Agri-food consumers Analysing the implications of COVID-19 for society India There is a need to improve food and nutritional security, which helps sustainability on both the demand and supply sides Manikas et al., (2022) [ 141 ] eco-economic Agri-food security Studying the implications of COVID-19 for food security Global Food security has been negatively affected by freshwater shortages, poor farmland conditions, armed attacks, political disagreements, and rising temperatures Wang and Fan (2021) [ 142 ] eco-economic Agri-food sales Examining the implications of COVID-19 for markets Global Based on data from a sample of 574 green food entrepreneur firms, the authors argue that local, eco-friendly products sold online make them more sustainable Trivellas et al., (2020) [ 143 ] eco-economic Agri-food supply chain Studying the implications of COVID-19 for supply chain Greece Information sharing, logistics networking, and transport are the most influential factors that affect sustainable business and supply chain performance Castellini et al., (2021) [ 144 ] eco-economic Agri-food consumption Studying the implications of COVID-19 for consumption Italy The COVID-19 emergency has changed consumer attitudes. Consumer interest in animal and environmental issues and human health has improved Senturk et al., (2023) [ 145 ] eco-economic Industry technology Examining the implications of COVID-19 for technology Global IoT systems can help address the issue but at a higher cost. Still, we can expect their greater uptake in the future and increased efficiency in their use Castillo-D í az et al., (2023) [ 146 ] eco-economic Food production and processing Studying the implications of COVID-19 for food production EU-27 Using production techniques based on a circular economy can increase productivity while increasing ecological sustainability, which is needed for the future Talukder et al., (2021) [ 147 ] socio-economic Agri-food system Studying impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agri-food systems Bangladesh During the crisis, possible remedial actions help to handle social problems, such as linking cities and the countryside for trade or supply, digitalisation, and distribution of food aid.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 19 of 31 Table 3. Cont Reference Sustainability Dimension Subject Area/Theme Research Focus and Objective(s) Geographical Scope Findings Alam et al., (2023) [ 148 ] socio-economic Smallholder aquaculture farmers Examining the implications of COVID-19 for SMEs Bangladesh The COVID-19 outbreak hampered market access for fish farmers and reduced production, resulting in lower incomes and increased vulnerability to food insecurity Kunyanga et al., (2023) [ 149 ] socio-economic Agri-food traders Studying the implications of COVID-19 for traders Kenya The trader (97%) experienced a decrease in delivery volumes. Consumption at home fell (52%), there was a reduced choice of food (44%), and missing meals also occurred (32%) Upite et al., (2022) [ 150 ] socio-economic Agri-food workers Studying the implications of COVID-19 for workers Latvia According to the research results, field plant growers were less exposed to the adverse effects. However, the negative effect was more robust in the plant processing industry than in other sectors Bixby et al., (2021) [ 151 ] socio-economic Labour market—beekeepers Examining the implications of COVID-19 for beekeepers Canada Hiring local labour, lacking foreign workers, and lacking bee colonies could reduce profits by 55–75% Abebe et al., (2022) [ 152 ] socio-economic Off-site food services Studying the implications of COVID-19 for food services Canada Consumers significantly reduced their use of restaurant food services. Meal service use varied by sociodemographic groups: age, education, attainment, household income, distance from home, number of children, and marital status Tanasa et al., (2022) [ 153 ] socio-economic Agri-food consumers Examining the implications of COVID-19 for food consumers Romania Consumers turned to healthier food during COVID-19 Preference was given to local food sourced through short supply chains and important characteristics of economic sustainability Nemes et al., (2021) [ 154 ] socio-economic Local food systems Studying the implications of COVID-19 13 countries Social and technological innovation, greater citizen participation, and greater interest from policymakers and retailers increase the sustainability of food systems Zollet et al., (2021) [ 155 ] socio-economic Agri-food networks Examining the implications of COVID-19 for food supply Rome, Italy The results highlight the importance of local grassroots action in food access, supply, and distribution. COVID-19 has increased the share and role of online sales Ben Hassen et al., (2020) [ 156 ] socio-economic Agri-food consumption Analysing the impact of COVID-19 on consumption Qatar Local and domestic food consumption increased due to safer food. They increased online purchasing Healthy eating and lifestyles came to the fore.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 20 of 31 Table 3. Cont Reference Sustainability Dimension Subject Area/Theme Research Focus and Objective(s) Geographical Scope Findings Altarrah et al., (2021) [ 157 ] socio-economic Food consumption Examining local (subnational) differences in the behaviour of household food consumption Kuwait Low-income households were highly affected by the epidemic, but small towns made them more resilient Households with income loss have been forced to make more changes (essential provision, austerity, saving, new recipes, more food choices, and so on) Dewick et al., (2020) [ 158 ] integrated Circular economy Studying the implications of COVID-19 for circular economy Global The pandemic has placed farmers in a precarious position, hindering their growth and participation in larger markets Barrett et al., (2021) [ 159 ] integrated Agri-food system innovation Studying the implications of COVID-19 for innovation Global The social challenge is strengthening the supply chain’s resilience and building social trust. Increasing the strength of the supply chain is necessary. Diversity, flexibility, modularity, and redundancy can help optimise global, regional, and local sourcing opportunities Di Giacomo and De Felice, (2022) [ 160 ] integrated Agri-food system Studying the implications of COVID-19 Europe The positive impact of COVID-19 is that people are turning away from traditional values and becoming more aware of themselves and their environment to prioritise local producers’ production of quality food and reduce the supply chain length Galanakis et al., (2021) [ 161 ] integrated Innovation and technology Analysing food waste during COVID-19 Global Intense, sustainable food production systems (e.g., digitalisation, artificial intelligence and automation in smart agriculture) and safety risk management could be promoted Ardekani et al., (2023) [ 162 ] integrated Food supply chain Analysing local food consumption during COVID-19 Brazil Supply management, transport, and logistics management positively and significantly changed food supply chains’ sustainable performance; relationship management and supply chain impact management negatively affected sustainable performance, and the effects of demand and production management were not significant Alam et al., (2023) [ 163 ] integrated Agri-food supply chain Studying the implications of COVID-19 for food security Global Food supply chain disruptions can be solved by using sustainable food supply chains and precision farming practices Righi and Vigan ò , (2023) [ 164 ] integrated Organic farm Examining COVID-19’s effect on organic farming Italy Consumers are more attracted to local and organic foods to ensure food safety. The professionalism of farmers can be achieved through organisational innovation, knowledge dissemination, and integration.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 21 of 31 4.3.6. Integrated Sustainability The research by Dewick et al. (2020) underscores a crucial lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic: adopting circular principles can significantly mitigate smallholder farmers’ social and economic vulnerability while enhancing environmental sustainability [ 158 ]. The pandemic has placed farmers in a precarious position, hindering their growth and participation in larger markets. The lower profits will make it challenging for them to invest in and enhance their operations. The widespread use of MBOs, increased government involvement, improved access to infrastructure and technology, and the availability of support services are imperative to address this Barrett et al. (2021) highlighted the areas where progress is needed under COVID-19 to ensure the crisis is well managed [ 159 ]. The social challenge is strengthening the supply chain’s resilience and building social trust. Increasing the strength of the supply chain is necessary. Diversity, flexibility, modularity, and redundancy can help optimise global, regional, and local sourcing opportunities. Local supply provides security. The right technology and innovation level would help overcome difficulties and address problems. Pandemics could be a consequence of excessive human disturbance of natural ecosystems. Uniform food safety regulations, environmental safety, and health management are needed. High-frequency monitoring, remote sensing, appropriate use of data science, proper management of digital records, and monitoring disease biomarkers can all help adaptation. One lesson of the epidemic highlights the need for a social safety net. The impact of the epidemic has increased inequalities The experience of COVID-19 has made us realise the importance of bringing producers and consumers closer together to ensure food safety, food security, and sustainability. Two important lessons are to expand trade flows and help migrant labour farm the land. The other is to prioritise the production of quality food by local producers and reduce the supply chain length. The positive impact of COVID-19 is that people are turning away from traditional values and becoming more aware of themselves and their environment [ 160 ]. Under COVID-19, changes in the food industry (e.g., lab-grown meat, plant-based alternatives to meat, and the appreciation of natural sources), as well as the development of nutrition and immune-boosting products, may become widespread. The workforce is being educated and trained to use these technologies. Food safety has become a priority at the global level as one of the elements of managing epidemics. Intense, sustainable food production systems (e.g., digitalisation, artificial intelligence and automation in smart agriculture) and safety risk management could be promoted [ 161 ]. Ardekani et al. (2023) assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sustainable (environmental, social and economic) performance of agri-food supply chains [ 162 ]. They surveyed 349 different Brazilian agri-food companies, which were medium and large It was found that (1) supply management, transport, and logistics management positively and significantly changed food supply chains’ sustainable performance; (2) relationship management and supply chain impact management negatively affected sustainable performance; and (3) the effects of demand and production management on sustainable performance were not significant. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the vulnerability of supply chains COVID-19 has caused food supply disruptions, mostly in developing countries. Thus, the food supply needs to be improved. This can be solved by using sustainable food supply chains and precision farming practices, which are addressed by Agriculture 4.0 [ 163 ]. Due to the disruption caused by COVID-19, economic survival has become the main problem for farmers, specifically production costs, changes in product prices, and volatility Consumers are more attracted to local and organic foods to ensure food safety. The professionalism of farmers needs to be increased. This can be achieved through organisational innovation, knowledge dissemination, and integration. The use of advisory services, the development of knowledge chains, and the enhancement of education and skills can help achieve these goals and increase sustainability [ 164 ]. Tables 4 and 5 . summarise the main topics of COVID-19 research.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 22 of 31 Table 4. Main topics of COVID-19 research I. Source: The Scopus ( https://www.scopus.com , accessed on 1 May 2024), Web of Science ( https://www.webofscience.com , accessed on 1 May 2024), and Science Direct ( https://www.sciencedirect.com , accessed on 1 May 2024) databases Sales Handling Social Problems Change in Consumption Crisis Effects sales through processing plants (Tosovic-Stevanovic et al., 2020) [ 114 ] online sales (Alam et al., 2023; Mujkic et al., 2019; Zollet et al., 2021) [ 103 , 148 , 155 ] local supply (Xue et al., 2021; Zollet et al., 2021) [ 130 , 155 ] supply management (Ardekani et al., 2023 [ 162 ] support rural population (Priyadarshini, and Abhilash 2021; Talukder et al., 2021) [ 140 , 147 ] inequalities (Barrett et al., 2021) [ 159 ] loneliness (Altarrah et al., 2021) [ 157 ] income and health (Millard et al., 2022) [ 132 ] sustainable products (Castellini et al., 2021) [ 144 ] mindful consumption (Foti and Timpanaro 2021; Tanasa, et al., 2022; Ben Hassen et al., 2020) [ 139 , 153 , 156 ] food customs (Abebe et al., 2022) [ 152 ] reducing waste (Jrib et al., 2020) [ 136 ] fish farmers and traders (Alam et al., 2023) [ 148 ] agriculture workers (Upite et al., 2022; Bixby et al., 2021) [ 150 , 151 ] trust in producers and the food system (Walnnoefer and Riefler 2022) [ 137 ] resilience (Ignat and Constantin 2020; Nordhagen et al., 2021) [ 122 , 123 ] export restrictions (Manikas et al., 2022) [ 141 ] supply, demand, labour, food security, food safety, and trade (J á mbor et al., 2020; Kunyanga et al., 2023; Barrett et al., 2020) [ 125 , 149 , 159 ] finance and operations (Sama-Berrocal and Mart í nez-Az ú a 2022) [ 128 ] Table 5. Main topics of COVID-19 research II. Source: The Scopus ( https://www.scopus.com , accessed on 1 May 2024), Web of Science ( https://www.webofscience.com , accessed on 1 May 2024), and Science Direct ( https://www.sciencedirect.com , accessed on 1 May 2024) databases Resource Management Innovation and Technology Management, Cooperation Certification, Production state subsidy (Zieli ´nska-Chmielewska et al., 2021) [ 117 ] stock (Hatab et al., 2023) [ 124 ] waste management (Bux, and Amicarelli 2022; Liu et al., 2022) [ 120 , 126 ] financial characteristics (Kadzamira et al., 2023) [ 134 ] circular economy and carbon (Adelodun et al., 2021; Castillo-D í az et al., 2023; Dewick et al., 2020) [ 63 , 146 , 158 ] centralised protection (Ugur and Buruklar 2022) [ 115 ] consolidation and diversification (Weersink et al., 2021) [ 138 ] highly processed products (Wang et al., 2022) [ 116 ] social and technological innovation (Nemes et al., 2021) [ 154 ] use of IoT technologies (Adelodun et al., 2021; Cruz and de Arruda Ignacio 2023; Senturk et al., 2023; Galanakis et al., 2021) [ 63 , 133 , 145 ] short food supply chain (Walnnoefer and Riefler 2022; Di Giacomo and De Felice 2022) [ 137 , 160 ] precision agriculture (Alam et al., 2023) [ 163 ] innovation and knowledge (Righi and Vigan ò 2023) [ 164 ] digitalisation (Rodriguez-Cohard et al., 2021; Wang and Fan 2021) [ 113 , 142 ] vertical integration (Lopez-Ridaura et al., 2021) [ 118 ] cooperation (Rivera-Ferre et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2023; Cavallo and Olivieri 2022) [ 127 , 129 , 135 ] disconnection of members (Stojcheska et al., 2021) [ 121 ] intelligence package (Kabadurmus et al., 2023) [ 131 ] sustainable production (Castellini et al., 2021) [ 144 ] 5. Discussion In this section, several studies have addressed the issue of agri-food sustainability at economic, environmental, and even social levels in the four years before and during the COVID-19 epidemic. The research questions are presented in detail below RQ 1. What were the main research questions on agri-food sustainability (economic, environmental, and social issues) before COVID-19? Before COVID-19, two major research areas on agri-food sustainability were economic and environmental sustainability. In economic sustainability, micro-economic issues came to the fore. Increasing efficiency became a priority. Data-driven management [ 66 ], a form of management that relies on data analysis for decision-making, managed change management (a process of planning and implementing change in an organisation) [ 70 ], and innovation [ 71 ] were possible ways of doing this. Efficiency was a key issue [ 73 ].

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 23 of 31 Cooperation and vertical coordination were economically beneficial at the macroeconomic level [ 69 ]. The weight and role of environmental sustainability were substantial at this time. Recovering and reducing waste was important, as it was an environmental and economic issue [ 74 – 76 ]. By increasing production efficiency [ 89 ] or even by choosing an environmentally friendly way of production, steps towards environmental sustainability could be taken [ 91 , 92 ]. Selecting the right way of transport [ 97 , 98 ], the ecological negative effect could be reduced. Positive actions towards consumers, such as packaging and safe transport, also increase sustainability [ 108 ]. RQ 2. What are the main issues and research directions for agri-food sustainability (economic, environmental, social issues), considering the implications of COVID-19? The period of COVID-19 created a significant burden for economies and economic operators. Many countries reported a significant economic downturn Tables 2 and 3 show that research topics expanded during COVID-19. Research has highlighted the epidemic’s impact on the economy, making it significantly more challenging to achieve agri-food sustainability. There has been a macroeconomic downturn on both the supply and demand side [ 125 ]. The performance of individual actors, especially SMEs, has declined significantly [ 123 ]. Confidence in each other and in supply has declined significantly [ 94 ]. Resilience has developed in many operators [ 122 ] who have not gone bankrupt. Countries have imposed export restrictions in an effort to ensure food security [ 117 ]. As financial difficulties increased, solvency problems emerged for many operators [ 128 ]. The crisis has had an impact on both the sales side and the consumption side. The role of local sales has improved [ 15 ]. Online sales have increased [ 113 ]. Cost reduction became a central issue [ 164 ]. Mindful buying has emerged and increased [ 139 ], and purchasing has also changed due to changes in income. Public responsibilities have been strengthened to support the socially disadvantaged and to shore up economies. At the same time, areas that were already research areas before the epidemic have been retained. Resource management, innovation [ 71 ], management and cooperation, and certification are all areas already present before COVID-19. These articles have increased compared to the previous period because the topic has become very topical The focus has shifted from environmental sustainability to economic sustainability Researchers were looking at how businesses and economies could survive, and these measures also had a positive environmental impact. Efficiency in resource management has remained. Issues of finance, inventory, and waste management emerge as the basis for efficiency The role of innovation has increased significantly in research during the pandemic Processed products are easier to sell, suggesting greater safety. IoT systems are an advantage and a survival advantage. Precision agriculture means efficiency and lower costs. A short food supply chain is also an advantage. Collaboration can also mean survival and increased efficiency as digitalisation becomes more widespread in sales and production. The use of certification increases security when shopping RQ 3. How does COVID-19 affect the sustainability of agri-foods? COVID-19 had a mixed impact on the sustainability pillars. On the one hand, the constraints have changed the way of life and economic functioning. There was a significant economic downturn. The sustainability of the agri-food systems was not achieved; it was reduced. Production [ 9 ], sales [ 148 ], exports [ 117 ], and turnover in restaurants have declined [ 152 ]. Many businesses faced financial difficulty, and many went bankrupt and became financially vulnerable [ 152 ]. Some of the states intervened and gave subsidies [ 117 ]. Creative human solutions have come forward to help businesses stay afloat. The result, in turn, was precisely the efficiency-enhancing management solutions that became so successful after the first waves of COVID-19. Safe food and food supply security became priority themes, and direct sales were strengthened along these lines [ 125 ]. Cooperation between producers became a priority [ 127 ]. Logistical solutions have improved, reducing

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 24 of 31 costs and emissions [ 153 ]. Alliances between people, rural and urban areas, producers, and consumers have emerged because rising prices and falling sales have made this necessary. Digitalisation has made sales and transport safer. Vulnerability to imports has been a challenge, with a decline in international trade and a shortage or even lack of supply of raw materials [ 129 ]. The goal was to achieve smaller inputs for producing and using the same output during production and use. In the process, they envisioned these with better transportation results [ 152 ], waste reduction [ 62 ], reduction of water use [ 120 ], and other resource efficiency In addition, better financial processes resulting in primary economic results played a role The apparent reason for this was that during this period, due to the restrictions introduced for health reasons, safety and the safety of the food supply came to the fore. As a result of the crisis, there was a drop in sales and consumption, as a result of which the way of sales became one of the research topics for sustainability. In connection with this, the change in consumption habits has also become a related topic. The crisis and its impact received a separate research direction. At the same time, the research areas of resource use, management, innovation, and cooperation, as well as the research of its changes during the crisis, remained. However, building trust between the players and general confidence in the people could have been more successful RQ 4. What were the areas that were influenced by COVID-19 but under-researched? What are the research gaps? What are the possible future research directions? It is striking that, with one or two exceptions, social sustainability issues are not featured in agri-food research. This is undoubtedly a research gap that could be filled in the future. Most of the SDG targets do not appear here. There was no poverty, zero hunger, and good health and well-being. Researchers should explore what steps are needed to make agri-food systems contribute to this goal. The themes of quality education and gender equality are not necessarily the most closely linked to agri-food, but it is also possible to examine whether and what role agri-food systems can play. The themes of clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, reducing inequalities, and sustainable cities and communities may have a more significant link to the system and its sustainability. Peace, justice, and strong institutions for agri-food system actors could be options Partnership for the SDGs is an area worth researching from an agri-food perspective Research on this could be an opportunity for the future An important research topic could be trust and lack of confidence among actors in agri-food systems. It would also be worth exploring what is needed to develop greater cooperation between actors and what could be done to support this process It has not yet been possible to cover all the areas relevant to this topic. For example, it was impossible to cover an important topic such as the presentation, analysis, and comparison of agricultural characteristics in different countries. Strengthening the crisis resilience of SMEs could also be a new area of research. Research on this could be a possible direction for the future For more profound research, it is recommended to include interdisciplinary character because, for example, social research and results are hardly represented in the literature reviewed. More in-depth research is needed on the three pillars, including the social, economic, and environmental pillars. This would better prepare us for the future impacts of different crises, such as COVID-19 This study has limitations: The search was limited to the literature published in the WoS, Scopus, and Science Direct databases. The research could include journals that do not appear in these databases. It could be complemented with research published by national research, governmental materials, and policy research 6. Conclusions This study aimed to analyse changes in agri-food sustainability before (2016–2019), during, and after (2020–2023) the COVID-19 outbreak with a literature review.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 25 of 31 Before COVID-19, business development, efficiency, and innovation were the main focus areas. The researchers focused on increasing environmental sustainability without compromising or improving economic sustainability, which was feasible for the actors involved The research prominently analysed the effects of the crisis on various actors and areas of life, including the employee and consumer sides. One significant change was the introduction of restrictive measures, which also appeared in the research because it impacted both social and economic sustainability The focus on environmental sustainability has shifted towards economic sustainability under COVID-19. The main characteristics of economic sustainability during the COVID- 19 pandemic were related to food security, so food safety and security became a priority Several countries have imposed export restrictions as a result. Survival became the keyword in the producer and service sector. The crisis hit firms short on capital harder, with many going bankrupt. State support became a priority for companies. IT developments, including IoT, blockchain, etc., and cooperation between actors increased the chances of survival High unemployment hindered social sustainability. People separated, which brought mental difficulties. The crisis increased social inequalities. In several countries, the unskilled rural population lost their jobs. Social cohesion and social networks were a necessity. For this reason, training and central support can be necessary. Due to the restrictions, the crisis positively affected environmental sustainability It should be stressed that in the case of actors having difficulty due to the crisis, e.g., SMEs, the underlying causes of the crisis must be addressed. Therefore, a business is unlikely to be economically sustainable if the entrepreneur does not have the minimum economic and commercial skills. Competitiveness is only possible if there is enough capital and money to run the business, and the economic and technical conditions for digitalisation, online sales, and secure support still need to be implemented. Positive examples are in vain if consumers are so poor that they cannot afford basic foodstuffs or are starving. These examples cannot be implemented in all places and societies. Public intervention and support would only be worthwhile if resources and distribution were based on the principle of need. Vertical coordination will only be valuable if the level of trust is so low that the actors are unwilling to work together and do not even trust their government The circular economy is only effective if the technical and economic conditions are fully in place The impact of COVID-19 and the lessons learned from the response to this period provided valuable findings for almost all disciplines. This research can also help decisionmakers (governments, authorities, practitioners) to guide their efforts and actions to mitigate the adverse effects of the epidemic on agri-food sustainability in the event of a similar outbreak in the future and can help researchers to identify areas of research. At the same time, this study’s practical significance is that it is an opportunity for agri-food businesses and their stakeholders to prepare themselves for the efficiency and economic decisions they must make and stick to in the next crisis, without which they cannot survive. The economic, environmental, and social sustainability of the company may be compromised. For business operators, it identifies areas where it is essential to carry out due diligence and, where necessary, improve efficiency. Costs need to be reduced, and current practices need to be changed Funding: The APC was funded by Ó buda University Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable Data Availability Statement: Not applicable Acknowledgments: I thank Ó buda University Hungary for their support in publishing this article and my colleagues and friends (Tam á s Mizik, Andrea Tick, Á d á m Horv á th, L á szl ó Berek, L á szl ó Gul á csi, and Ingrid Szalay) for good advice, and our Language Tutor and Maya Nejedly for better English Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 26 of 31 References 1 Turner, G.M. A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality Glob. Environ. Chang 2008 , 18 , 397–411. [ CrossRef ] 2 Brundtland, G.H.; Khalid, M Our Common Future ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987 3 Gupta, G.S. The paradox of sustainable development: A critical overview of the term and the institutionalization process Period Polytech. Soc. Manag. Sci 2017 , 25 , 1–7. [ CrossRef ] 4 Barnett, J The Meaning of Environmental Security: Ecological Politics and Policy in the New Security Era ; Zed Books: London, UK, 2001 5 Arfanuzzaman, M.; Dahiya, B. Sustainable urbanization in Southeast Asia and beyond: Challenges of population growth, land use change, and environmental health Growth Chang 2019 , 50 , 725–744. [ CrossRef ] 6 Garetti, M.; Taisch, M. Sustainable manufacturing: Trends and research challenges Prod. Plan. Control 2012 , 23 , 83–104. [ CrossRef ] 7 Rai, A.; Fulekar, M. Climate Change—Global Environmental Concern. In Climate Change and Sustainable Development ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2023; pp. 1–10 8 Borsari, B.; Kunnas, J. Agriculture production and consumption. In Responsible Consumption and Production ; Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., özuyar, P.G., Wall, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–11. [ CrossRef ] 9 Harris, D.R.; Fuller, D.Q. Agriculture: Definition and overview. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology ; Smith, C., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 104–113. [ CrossRef ] 10 Arora, N.K.; Fatima, T.; Mishra, I.; Verma, M.; Mishra, J.; Mishra, V. Environmental sustainability: Challenges and viable solutions Environ. Sustain 2018 , 1 , 309–340. [ CrossRef ] 11 Maximillian, J.; Brusseau, M.; Glenn, E.; Matthias, A.D. Pollution and environmental perturbations in the global system. In Environmental and Pollution Science ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 457–476 12 Singh, R.L.; Singh, P.K. Global environmental problems. In Principles and Applications of Environmental Biotechnology for a Sustainable Future. Applied Environmental Science and Engineering for a Sustainable Future ; Singh, R., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 13–41 [ CrossRef ] 13 Raven, P.H.; Wagner, D.L. Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2021 , 118 , e 2002548117. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 14 WorldBank. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing, Value Added (% of GDP)—World. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/ indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS?end=2021&locations=1 W&start=1969&view=chart (accessed on 15 June 2023) 15 FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2021. Making Agri-Food Systems More Resilient to Shocks and Stresses. 2021. Available online: https://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources-details/en/c/1457191/ (accessed on 1 May 2024) 16 Agreement on Agriculture. Available online: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2024) 17 Stevens, C The WTO Agreement on Agriculture and Food Security ; Commonwealth Secretariat: London, UK, 2000 18 Rangel V á zquez, L.I. Bioeconomy and New Materials: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture Microsc Microanal 2023 , 29 , 12. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 19 Firbank, L. What is sustainable agriculture? Biochem 2018 , 40 , 4–8. [ CrossRef ] 20 Velten, S.; Leventon, J.; Jager, N.; Newig, J. What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review Sustainability 2015 , 7 , 7833–7865 [ CrossRef ] 21 Harwood, R.R. A history of sustainable agriculture. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 3–19 22 Brodt, S.; Six, J.; Feenstra, G.; Ingels, C.; Campbell, D. Sustainable agriculture Nat. Educ. Knowl 2011 , 3 , 75–88. [ CrossRef ] 23 Wolf, C. Sustainable agriculture, environmental philosophy, and the ethics of food. In The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics ; Oxford Academic: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 29–52. [ CrossRef ] 24 Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems Lancet 2019 , 393 , 447–492 [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 25 Abdallah, M.B.; Farkas, M.F.; Vasa, L.; Lakner, Z. Food Security of Tunisia: Comprehensive Analysis of a Composite Index Acta Polytech. Hung 2023 , 20 , 199–216. [ CrossRef ] 26 Farooq, M.; Rehman, A.; Pisante, M. Sustainable agriculture and food security. In Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 3–24 27 De á k, Z. Az ukrajnai konfliktus hossz ú t á v ú hat á sai az é lelmiszerell á t á s biztons á g á ra= Long-term Effects of the Conflict in Ukraine on Food Security GRADUS 2022 , 9 , 1–7. [ CrossRef ] 28 Balas, M.M. Seven passive greenhouse synergies Acta Polytech. Hung 2014 , 11 , 199–210 29 Horv á th, J.; K á tai, L.; Szab ó , I. Analysis of the Soil Selective Potassium Content, using Multifrequency EC Sensors Acta Polytech Hung 2023 , 20 , 231–248. [ CrossRef ] 30 Gyarmati, G. The consumption of organic products according to a survey. In Proceedings of FIKUSZ Symposium for Young Researchers ; Ó buda University Keleti K á roly Faculty of Economics: Budapest, Hungary, 2017; pp. 125–139 31 Gyarmati, G. About Organic Farming and Production in the World and in Hungary Zesz. Nauk. Politech. Cz˛estochowskiej Zarz ˛ adzanie 2017 , 27 , 118–131 32 Xie, H.; Huang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Q. Prospects for agricultural sustainable intensification: A review of research Land 2019 , 8 , 157. [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 27 of 31 33 Mar ó , Z.M.; Török, Á . China’s New Silk Road and Central and Eastern Europe—A Systematic Literature Review Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 1801. [ CrossRef ] 34 Gyarmati, G.; Mizik, T. The present and future of the precision agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 15 th International Conference of System of Systems Engineering (SoSE), Budapest, Hungary, 2–4 June 2020; pp. 593–596 35 Szil á gyi, A.; Plachi, E.; Waltner, I.; Gr ó sz, J.; Seb˝ok, A.; Simon, B. Relations among soil moisture, soil compaction and earthworm abundance in conventional, organic and permaculture horticulture farms—An ecosystem service approach. In Water Dynamics Changes in the Soil–Plant–Atmosphere System ; Institute of Hydrology, Slovak Academy of Sciences: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2020; p. 173 36 Durham, T.C.; Mizik, T. Comparative economics of conventional, organic, and alternative agricultural production systems Economies 2021 , 9 , 64. [ CrossRef ] 37 Nestle, M Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health ; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2019 38 Paris, B.; Vandorou, F.; Balafoutis, A.T.; Vaiopoulos, K.; Kyriakarakos, G.; Manolakos, D.; Papadakis, G. Energy use in open-field agriculture in the EU: A critical review recommending energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources adoption Renew Sustain. Energy Rev 2022 , 158 , 112098. [ CrossRef ] 39 Meggyes, A.; Nagy, V. Biogas and energy production by utilization of different agricultural wastes Acta Polytech. Hung 2012 , 9 , 65–80. [ CrossRef ] 40 Kociszewski, K. Sustainable development of agriculture-theoretical aspects and their implications Econ. Environ. Stud 2018 , 18 , 1119–1134. [ CrossRef ] 41 Struik, P.C.; Kuyper, T.W. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: The richer shade of green. A review Agron. Sustain. Dev 2017 , 37 , 39. [ CrossRef ] 42 Allen, P.; Van Dusen, D.; Lundy, J.; Gliessman, S. Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture Am. J. Altern. Agric 1991 , 6 , 34–39. [ CrossRef ] 43 EU-Monitor COVID-19. German Statistics Office. 2023. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/Europa/EN/Topic/COVID- 19/COVID-19-article.html (accessed on 26 May 2024) 44 Deb, P.; Furceri, D.; Ostry, J.D.; Tawk, N. The economic effects of COVID-19 containment measures Open Econ. Rev 2022 , 33 , 1–32 [ CrossRef ] 45 Csurg ó , B.; Kov á ch, I. Covid-kereszthat á sok. 2023. Available online: https://real.mtak.hu/183878/1/posztkovid_kvanti-1-12.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2024) 46 McGuirk, P.; Dowling, R.; Maalsen, S.; Baker, T. Urban governance innovation and COVID-19 Geogr. Res 2021 , 59 , 188–195 [ CrossRef ] 47 Schmid, L.; Wörn, J.; Hank, K.; Sawatzki, B.; Walper, S. Changes in employment and relationship satisfaction in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the German family Panel Eur. Soc 2021 , 23 , S 743–S 758. [ CrossRef ] 48 Canzi, E.; Danioni, F.V.; Parise, M.; Lopez, G.; Ferrari, L.; Ranieri, S.; Iafrate, R.; Lanz, M.; Regalia, C.; Rosnati, R. Perceived changes in family life during COVID-19: The role of family size Fam. Relat 2021 , 70 , 1303–1311. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 49 Sik, D.; Zakari á s, I. The field of solidarity in times of a pandemic: Results of an online survey in Hungary Intersections. East Eur. J Soc. Politics 2021 , 7 , 36–59. [ CrossRef ] 50 Donthu, N.; Gustafsson, A. Effects of COVID-19 on business and research J. Bus. Res 2020 , 117 , 284–289. [ CrossRef ] 51 Ehrlich, H.; McKenney, M.; Elkbuli, A. Protecting our healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic Am. J. Emerg. Med 2020 , 38 , 1527. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 52 Shreffler, J.; Petrey, J.; Huecker, M. The impact of COVID-19 on healthcare worker wellness: A scoping review West. J. Emerg Med 2020 , 21 , 1059. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 53 Akat, M.; Karata¸s, K. Psychological Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Society and Its Reflections on Education. 2020. Available online: https://earsiv.kmu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11492/5318 (accessed on 1 May 2024) 54 Guan, D.; Wang, D.; Hallegatte, S.; Davis, S.J.; Huo, J.; Li, S.; Bai, Y.; Lei, T.; Xue, Q.; Coffman, D.M. Global supply-chain effects of COVID-19 control measures Nat. Hum. Behav 2020 , 4 , 577–587. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 55 Chowdhury, P.; Paul, S.K.; Kaisar, S.; Moktadir, M.A. COVID-19 pandemic related supply chain studies: A systematic review Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev 2021 , 148 , 102271. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 56 Paul, S.K.; Chowdhury, P.; Moktadir, M.A.; Lau, K.H. Supply chain recovery challenges in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic J. Bus. Res 2021 , 136 , 316–329. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 57 Pat ó , B.S.G.; Herczeg, M.; Csisz á rik-Kocsir, Á . The COVID-19 impact on supply chains, focusing on the automotive segment during the second and third wave of the pandemic Risks 2022 , 10 , 189. [ CrossRef ] 58 Bencsik, A. Knowledge Management Challenges during COVID-19 Acta Polytech. Hung 2022 , 19 , 107–126. [ CrossRef ] 59 Tsao, S.-F.; Chen, H.; Tisseverasinghe, T.; Yang, Y.; Li, L.; Butt, Z.A. What social media told us in the time of COVID-19: A scoping review Lancet Digit. Health 2021 , 3 , e 175–e 194. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 60 Muhammad, S.; Long, X.; Salman, M. COVID-19 pandemic and environmental pollution: A blessing in disguise? Sci. Total Environ 2020 , 728 , 138820. [ CrossRef ] 61 Bashir, M.F.; Jiang, B.; Komal, B.; Bashir, M.A.; Farooq, T.H.; Iqbal, N.; Bashir, M. Correlation between environmental pollution indicators and COVID-19 pandemic: A brief study in Californian context Environ. Res 2020 , 187 , 109652. [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 28 of 31 62 Sarkodie, S.A.; Owusu, P.A. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on waste management Environ. Dev. Sustain 2021 , 23 , 7951–7960 [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 63 Adelodun, B.; Kareem, K.Y.; Kumar, P.; Kumar, V.; Choi, K.S.; Yadav, K.K.; Yadav, A.; El-Denglawey, A.; Cabral-Pinto, M.; Son, C.T. Understanding the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on sustainable agri-food system and agroecosystem decarbonization nexus: A review J. Clean. Prod 2021 , 318 , 128451. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 64 Ranjbari, M.; Esfandabadi, Z.S.; Zanetti, M.C.; Scagnelli, S.D.; Siebers, P.-O.; Aghbashlo, M.; Peng, W.; Quatraro, F.; Tabatabaei, M. Three pillars of sustainability in the wake of COVID-19: A systematic review and future research agenda for sustainable development J. Clean. Prod 2021 , 297 , 126660. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 65 Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement Ann. Intern. Med 2009 , 151 , 264–269. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 66 Akhtar, P.; Tse, Y.K.; Khan, Z.; Rao-Nicholson, R. Data-driven and adaptive leadership contributing to sustainability: Global agri-food supply chains connected with emerging markets Int. J. Prod. Econ 2016 , 181 , 392–401. [ CrossRef ] 67 Asian, S.; Hafezalkotob, A.; John, J.J. Sharing economy in organic food supply chains: A pathway to sustainable development Int J. Prod. Econ 2019 , 218 , 322–338. [ CrossRef ] 68 Thorlakson, T.; Hainmueller, J.; Lambin, E.F. Improving environmental practices in agricultural supply chains: The role of company-led standards Glob. Environ. Chang 2018 , 48 , 32–42. [ CrossRef ] 69 Singh, A.; Kumari, S.; Malekpoor, H.; Mishra, N. Big data cloud computing framework for low carbon supplier selection in the beef supply chain J. Clean. Prod 2018 , 202 , 139–149. [ CrossRef ] 70 Borsellino, V.; Migliore, G.; D’Acquisto, M.; Franco, C.P.D.; Asciuto, A.; Schimmenti, E. ‘Green’ Wine through a Responsible and Efficient Production: A Case Study of a Sustainable Sicilian Wine Producer Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016 , 8 , 186–192. [ CrossRef ] 71 P é rez Neira, D.; Soler Montiel, M.; Delgado Cabeza, M.; Reigada, A. Energy use and carbon footprint of the tomato production in heated multi-tunnel greenhouses in Almeria within an exporting agri-food system context Sci. Total Environ 2018 , 628–629 , 1627–1636. [ CrossRef ] 72 P é rez-Mesa, J.C.; Garc í a-Barranco, M.C.; Piedra-Muñoz, L.; Galdeano-G ó mez, E. Transport as a limiting factor for the growth of Spanish agri-food exports Res. Transp. Econ 2019 , 78 , 100756. [ CrossRef ] 73 Steyn, J.M.; Franke, A.C.; van der Waals, J.E.; Haverkort, A.J. Resource use efficiencies as indicators of ecological sustainability in potato production: A South African case study Field Crops Res 2016 , 199 , 136–149. [ CrossRef ] 74 Diaz-Ruiz, R.; Costa-Font, M.; L ó pez-i-Gelats, F.; Gil, J.M. Food waste prevention along the food supply chain: A multi-actor approach to identify effective solutions Resour. Conserv. Recycl 2019 , 149 , 249–260. [ CrossRef ] 75 Garofalo, P.; D'Andrea, L.; Tomaiuolo, M.; Venezia, A.; Castrignan ò , A. Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains in Italy: The case of the whole-peeled tomato production under life cycle assessment methodology J. Food Eng 2017 , 200 , 1–12 [ CrossRef ] 76 Kazancoglu, Y.; Ozkan-Ozen, Y.D.; Ozbiltekin, M. Minimizing losses in milk supply chain with sustainability: An example from an emerging economy Resour. Conserv. Recycl 2018 , 139 , 270–279. [ CrossRef ] 77 Sgarbossa, F.; Russo, I. A proactive model in sustainable food supply chain: Insight from a case study Int. J. Prod. Econ 2017 , 183 , 596–606. [ CrossRef ] 78 Singh, R.K.; Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Uniyal, S. Applications of information and communication technology for sustainable growth of SMEs in India food industry Resour. Conserv. Recycl 2019 , 147 , 10–18. [ CrossRef ] 79 Gokarn, S.; Kuthambalayan, T.S. Analysis of challenges inhibiting the reduction of waste in food supply chain J. Clean. Prod 2017 , 168 , 595–604. [ CrossRef ] 80 Woodhouse, A.; Davis, J.; P é nicaud, C.; Östergren, K. Sustainability checklist in support of the design of food processing Sustain Prod. Consum 2018 , 16 , 110–120. [ CrossRef ] 81 Partzsch, L.; Zander, M.; Robinson, H. Cotton certification in Sub-Saharan Africa: Promotion of environmental sustainability or greenwashing? Glob. Environ. Chang 2019 , 57 , 101924. [ CrossRef ] 82 Del Giudice, T.; Stranieri, S.; Caracciolo, F.; Ricci, E.C.; Cembalo, L.; Banterle, A.; Cicia, G. Corporate Social Responsibility certifications influence consumer preferences and seafood market price J. Clean. Prod 2018 , 178 , 526–533. [ CrossRef ] 83 Rees, W.; Tremma, O.; Manning, L. Sustainability cues on packaging: The influence of recognition on purchasing behavior J. Clean. Prod 2019 , 235 , 841–853. [ CrossRef ] 84 Silva, A.R.d.A.; Bioto, A.S.; Efraim, P.; Queiroz, G.d.C. Impact of sustainability labeling in the perception of sensory quality and purchase intention of chocolate consumers J. Clean. Prod 2017 , 141 , 11–21. [ CrossRef ] 85 Tait, P.; Saunders, C.; Dalziel, P.; Rutherford, P.; Driver, T.; Guenther, M. Estimating wine consumer preferences for sustainability attributes: A discrete choice experiment of Californian Sauvignon blanc purchasers J. Clean. Prod 2019 , 233 , 412–420. [ CrossRef ] 86 Tait, P.; Saunders, C.; Guenther, M.; Rutherford, P. Emerging versus developed economy consumer willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable food production: A choice experiment approach comparing Indian, Chinese and United Kingdom lamb consumers J. Clean. Prod 2016 , 124 , 65–72. [ CrossRef ] 87 Bonisoli, L.; Galdeano-G ó mez, E.; Piedra-Muñoz, L.; P é rez-Mesa, J.C. Benchmarking agri-food sustainability certifications: Evidences from applying SAFA in the Ecuadorian banana agri-system J. Clean. Prod 2019 , 236 , 117579. [ CrossRef ] 88 Bortolini, M.; Faccio, M.; Ferrari, E.; Gamberi, M.; Pilati, F. Fresh food sustainable distribution: Cost, delivery time and carbon footprint three-objective optimization J. Food Eng 2016 , 174 , 56–67. [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 29 of 31 89 Kendall, H.; Naughton, P.; Clark, B.; Taylor, J.; Li, Z.; Zhao, C.; Yang, G.; Chen, J.; Frewer, L.J. Precision Agriculture in China: Exploring Awareness, Understanding, Attitudes and Perceptions of Agricultural Experts and End-Users in China Adv. Anim Biosci 2017 , 8 , 703–707. [ CrossRef ] 90 Sartori, M.; Philippidis, G.; Ferrari, E.; Borrelli, P.; Lugato, E.; Montanarella, L.; Panagos, P. A linkage between the biophysical and the economic: Assessing the global market impacts of soil erosion Land Use Policy 2019 , 86 , 299–312. [ CrossRef ] 91 Annunziata, A.; Vecchio, R. Organic Farming and Sustainability in Food Choices: An Analysis of Consumer Preference in Southern Italy Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016 , 8 , 193–200. [ CrossRef ] 92 Westphal, M.; Tenuta, M.; Entz, M.H. Nitrous oxide emissions with organic crop production depends on fall soil moisture Agric Ecosyst. Environ 2018 , 254 , 41–49. [ CrossRef ] 93 Tasca, A.L.; Nessi, S.; Rigamonti, L. Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains: An LCA comparison between two alternative forms of production and distribution of endive in northern Italy J. Clean. Prod 2017 , 140 , 725–741. [ CrossRef ] 94 Vega-Zamora, M.; Torres-Ruiz, F.J.; Parras-Rosa, M. Towards sustainable consumption: Keys to communication for improving trust in organic foods J. Clean. Prod 2019 , 216 , 511–519. [ CrossRef ] 95 Sulaiman, M.F.; Wagner-Riddle, C.; Brown, S.E.; Warland, J.; Voroney, P.; Rochette, P. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of annual and perennial dairy feed crop systems Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 2017 , 245 , 52–62. [ CrossRef ] 96 Tassielli, G.; Notarnicola, B.; Renzulli, P.A.; Arcese, G. Environmental life cycle assessment of fresh and processed sweet cherries in southern Italy J. Clean. Prod 2018 , 171 , 184–197. [ CrossRef ] 97 Annunziata, E.; Pucci, T.; Frey, M.; Zanni, L. The role of organizational capabilities in attaining corporate sustainability practices and economic performance: Evidence from Italian wine industry J. Clean. Prod 2018 , 171 , 1300–1311. [ CrossRef ] 98 Camanzi, L.; Alikadic, A.; Compagnoni, L.; Merloni, E. The impact of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU food chain: A quantitative and economic assessment using an environmentally extended input-output approach J. Clean. Prod 2017 , 157 , 168–176. [ CrossRef ] 99 Boccia, F.; Di Donato, P.; Covino, D.; Poli, A. Food waste and bio-economy: A scenario for the Italian tomato market J. Clean Prod 2019 , 227 , 424–433. [ CrossRef ] 100. Canfora, I. Is the Short Food Supply Chain an Efficient Solution for Sustainability in Food Market? Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016 , 8 , 402–407. [ CrossRef ] 101. Vagnoni, E.; Franca, A.; Porqueddu, C.; Duce, P. Environmental profile of Sardinian sheep milk cheese supply chain: A comparison between two contrasting dairy systems J. Clean. Prod 2017 , 165 , 1078–1089. [ CrossRef ] 102. Ely, A.; Geall, S.; Song, Y. Sustainable maize production and consumption in China: Practices and politics in transition J. Clean Prod 2016 , 134 , 259–268. [ CrossRef ] 103. Mujki´c, Z.; Gashi, S.; Hamidovi´c, Š. Consumer Impact on Supply Chain Sustainability Procedia Manuf 2019 , 38 , 1167–1173 [ CrossRef ] 104. Ibidhi, R.; Ben Salem, H. Water footprint and economic water productivity of sheep meat at farm scale in humid and semi-arid agro-ecological zones Small Rumin. Res 2018 , 166 , 101–108. [ CrossRef ] 105. Libutti, A.; Gatta, G.; Gagliardi, A.; Vergine, P.; Pollice, A.; Beneduce, L.; Disciglio, G.; Tarantino, E. Agro-industrial wastewater reuse for irrigation of a vegetable crop succession under Mediterranean conditions Agric. Water Manag 2018 , 196 , 1–14 [ CrossRef ] 106. Miglietta, P.P.; Morrone, D.; Lamastra, L. Water footprint and economic water productivity of Italian wines with appellation of origin: Managing sustainability through an integrated approach Sci. Total Environ 2018 , 633 , 1280–1286. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 107. Yan, M.J.; Holden, N.M. Water use efficiency of Irish dairy processing J. Dairy Sci 2019 , 102 , 9525–9535. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 108. Pomarici, E.; Asioli, D.; Vecchio, R.; Næs, T. Young consumers' preferences for water-saving wines: An experimental study Wine Econ. Policy 2018 , 7 , 65–76. [ CrossRef ] 109. Rahnama, H. Consumer motivations toward buying local rice: The case of northern Iranian consumers Appetite 2017 , 114 , 350–359. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 110. Rijsberman, F. The key role of the meat industry in transformation to a low-carbon, climate resilient, sustainable economy Meat Sci 2017 , 132 , 2–5. [ CrossRef ] 111. Veeramani, A.; Dias, G.M.; Kirkpatrick, S.I. Carbon footprint of dietary patterns in Ontario, Canada: A case study based on actual food consumption J. Clean. Prod 2017 , 162 , 1398–1406. [ CrossRef ] 112. Rueda, X.; Garrett, R.D.; Lambin, E.F. Corporate investments in supply chain sustainability: Selecting instruments in the agri-food industry J. Clean. Prod 2017 , 142 , 2480–2492. [ CrossRef ] 113. Rodriguez-Cohard, J.C.; Juste-Carrion, J.J.; Vazquez-Barquero, A. Challenges and Responses of Agri-Food Activities under COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of the Spanish Territories Producing Wine and Olive Oil Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 13610. [ CrossRef ] 114. Tosovic-Stevanovic, A.; Ristanovic, V.; Calovic, D.; Lalic, G.; Zuza, M.; Cvijanovic, G. Small Farm Business Analysis Using the AHP Model for Efficient Assessment of Distribution Channels Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 10479. [ CrossRef ] 115. Ugur, A.; Buruklar, T. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on agri-food production and farmers Food Sci. Technol 2022 , 42 , e 19821 [ CrossRef ] 116. Wang, J.J.; Zhang, Y.; Mustafa, Z.; Canavari, M. Changes in Agri-Food Export Competitiveness Based on the Sophistication Analysis: The Case of Xinjiang, China Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 15729. [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 30 of 31 117. Zieli ´nska-Chmielewska, A.; Mruk-Tomczak, D.; Wielicka-Regulska, A. Qualitative research on solving difficulties in maintaining continuity of food supply chain on the meat market during the COVID-19 pandemic Energies 2021 , 14 , 5634. [ CrossRef ] 118. Lopez-Ridaura, S.; Sanders, A.; Barba-Escoto, L.; Wiegel, J.; Mayorga-Cortes, M.; Gonzalez-Esquivel, C.; Lopez-Ramirez, M.A.; Escoto-Masis, R.M.; Morales-Galindo, E.; Garc í a-Barcena, T.S. Immediate impact of COVID-19 pandemic on farming systems in Central America and Mexico Agric. Syst 2021 , 192 , 103178. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 119. Mastronardi, L.; Cavallo, A.; Romagnoli, L. How did Italian diversified farms tackle COVID-19 pandemic first wave challenges? Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci 2022 , 82 , 101096. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 120. Bux, C.; Amicarelli, V. Material flow cost accounting (MFCA) to enhance environmental entrepreneurship in the meat sector: Challenges and opportunities J. Environ. Manag 2022 , 313 , 115001. [ CrossRef ] 121. Stojcheska, A.M.; Nacka, M.; Tuna, E. Disrupted Market Relations in Agriculture in North Macedonia: The COVID-19 Crisis East Eur. Countrys 2021 , 27 , 179–201. [ CrossRef ] 122. Ignat, R.; Constantin, M. Multidimensional Facets of Entrepreneurial Resilience during the COVID-19 Crisis through the Lens of the Wealthiest Romanian Counties Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 10220. [ CrossRef ] 123. Nordhagen, S.; Igbeka, U.; Rowlands, H.; Shine, R.S.; Heneghan, E.; Tench, J. COVID-19 and small enterprises in the food supply chain: Early impacts and implications for longer-term food system resilience in lowand middle-income countries World Dev 2021 , 141 , 105405. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 124. Hatab, A.A.; Owusu-Sekyere, E.; Esmat, A.-R.; Lagerkvist, C.-J. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: Perceived risks, management strategies and emerging opportunities for small and medium agri-food enterprises in a developing country Int. J Disaster Risk Reduct 2023 , 97 , 104045. [ CrossRef ] 125. Jambor, A.; Czine, P.; Balogh, P. The Impact of the Coronavirus on Agriculture: First Evidence Based on Global Newspapers Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 4535. [ CrossRef ] 126. Liu, C.Y.; Jiang, H.; Badulescu, D.; Bac, D.P. Achieving Zero Hunger Goal through Minimizing Waste in Food Supply Chain: Evidence from Asian Emerging Region Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 5930. [ CrossRef ] 127. Rivera-Ferre, M.G.; L ó pez-i-Gelats, F.; Ravera, F.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; di Masso, M.; Binimelis, R.; El Bilali, H. The two-way relationship between food systems and the COVID 19 pandemic: Causes and consequences Agric. Syst 2021 , 191 , 103134 [ CrossRef ] 128. Sama-Berrocal, C.; Mart í nez-Az ú a, B.C. How Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected the Different Branches of the Agri-Food Industry in Extremadura (Spain)? Land 2022 , 11 , 938. [ CrossRef ] 129. Tan, S.P.; Ng, L.C.; Lyndon, N.; Aman, Z.; Kannan, P.; Hashim, K.; Teo, H.M.; Ibrahim, M.S.C. A review on post-COVID-19 impacts and opportunities of agri-food supply chain in Malaysia PeerJ 2023 , 11 , e 15228. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 130. Xu, Z.T.; Elomri, A.; El Omri, A.; Kerbache, L.; Liu, H. The Compounded Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic and Desert Locust Outbreak on Food Security and Food Supply Chain Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 1063. [ CrossRef ] 131. Kabadurmus, O.; Kayikci, Y.; Demir, S.; Koc, B. A data-driven decision support system with smart packaging in grocery store supply chains during outbreaks Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci 2023 , 85 , 101417. [ CrossRef ] 132. Millard, J.; Sturla, A.; Smutna, Z.; Duzi, B.; Janssen, M.; Vavra, J. European Food Systems in a Regional Perspective: A Comparative Study of the Effect of COVID-19 on Households and City-Region Food Systems Front. Sustain. Food Syst 2022 , 6 , 844170 [ CrossRef ] 133. Cruz, L.; De Arruda Ignacio, P.S. Application of Blockchain Disruptive Technology in Agri-Food Chains for Sustainable Development, a Systematic Review Int. J. Supply Oper. Manag 2023 , 10 , 523–544. [ CrossRef ] 134. Kadzamira, M.A.; Ogunmodede, A.; Duah, S.; Romney, D.; Clottey, V.A.; Williams, F. African agri-entrepreneurship in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic CABI Agric. Biosci 2023 , 4 , 16. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 135. Cavallo, A.; Olivieri, F.M. Sustainable local development and agri-food system in the post Covid crisis: The case of Rome Cities 2022 , 131 , 103994. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 136. Jribi, S.; Ben Ismail, H.; Doggui, D.; Debbabi, H. COVID-19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? Environ. Dev. Sustain 2020 , 22 , 3939–3955. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 137. Wallnoefer, L.M.; Riefler, P. Short-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Outbreak on Consumer Perceptions of Local Food Consumption and the Local Agri-Food Sector in Austria Agronomy 2022 , 12 , 1940. [ CrossRef ] 138. Weersink, A.; von Massow, M.; Bannon, N.; Ifft, J.; Maples, J.; McEwan, K.; McKendree, M.G.S.; Nicholson, C.; Novakovic, A.; Rangarajan, A.; et al. COVID-19 and the agri-food system in the United States and Canada Agric. Syst 2021 , 188 , 103039 [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 139. Foti, V.T.; Timpanaro, G. Relationships, sustainability and agri-food purchasing behaviour in farmer markets in Italy Br. Food J 2021 , 123 , 428–453. [ CrossRef ] 140. Priyadarshini, P.; Abhilash, P.C. Agri-food systems in India: Concerns and policy recommendations for building resilience in post COVID-19 pandemic times Glob. Food Secur 2021 , 29 , 100537. [ CrossRef ] 141. Manikas, I.; Sundarakani, B.; Anastasiadis, F.; Ali, B. A Framework for Food Security via Resilient Agri-Food Supply Chains: The Case of UAE Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6375. [ CrossRef ] 142. Wang, M.; Fan, X. An empirical study on how livestreaming can contribute to the sustainability of green agri-food entrepreneurial firms Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 12627. [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 5616 31 of 31 143. Trivellas, P.; Malindretos, G.; Reklitis, P. Implications of green logistics management on sustainable business and supply chain performance: Evidence from a survey in the greek agri-food sector Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 10515. [ CrossRef ] 144. Castellini, G.; Savarese, M.; Graffigna, G. The Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak in Italy on the Sustainable Food Consumption Intention From a "One Health" Perspective Front. Nutr 2021 , 8 , 622122. [ CrossRef ] 145. Senturk, S.; Senturk, F.; Karaca, H. Industry 4.0 technologies in agri-food sector and their integration in the global value chain: A review J. Clean. Prod 2023 , 408 , 137096. [ CrossRef ] 146. Castillo-D í az, F.J.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; L ó pez-Serrano, M.J.; Camacho-Ferre, F. Assessment of the sustainability of the European agri-food sector in the context of the circular economy Sustain. Prod. Consum 2023 , 40 , 398–411. [ CrossRef ] 147. Talukder, B.; VanLoon, G.W.; Hipel, K.W.; Orbinski, J. COVID-19's implications on agri-food systems and human health in Bangladesh Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain 2021 , 3 , 100033. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 148. Alam, G.M.M.; Sarker, M.N.I.; Kamal, M.A.S.; Khatun, M.N.; Bhandari, H. Impact of COVID-19 on Smallholder Aquaculture Farmers and Their Response Strategies: Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 2638. [ CrossRef ] 149. Kunyanga, C.N.; Byskov, M.F.; Hyams, K.; Mburu, S.; Werikhe, G.; Bett, R. Influence of COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Market Prices and Food Supply in Urban Markets in Nairobi, Kenya Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 1304. [ CrossRef ] 150. Upite, I.; Bite, D.; Pilvere, I.; Nipers, A. Impacts of COVID-19 on the Food Supply Chain for Arable Crops in Latvia Rural Sustain Res 2022 , 47 , 47–60. [ CrossRef ] 151. Bixby, M.E.F.; Polinsky, M.; Scarlett, R.; Higo, H.; Common, J.; Hoover, S.E.; Foster, L.J.; Zayed, A.; Cunningham, M.; Guarna, M.M. Impacts of COVID-19 on Canadian Beekeeping: Survey Results and a Profitability Analysis J. Econ. Entomol 2021 , 114 , 2245–2254. [ CrossRef ] 152. Abebe, G.K.; Charlebois, S.; Music, J. Canadian Consumers’ Dining Behaviors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Implications for Channel Decisions in the Foodservice Industry Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 4893. [ CrossRef ] 153. Tanasa, L.; Bruma, I.S.; Ulman, S.R.; Hoha, G.V. Theoretical approach with regard to the main benefits of short supply chains focus on small producers and local communities Sci. Pap. -Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev 2022 , 22 , 743–752 154. Nemes, G.; Chiffoleau, Y.; Zollet, S.; Collison, M.; Benedek, Z.; Colantuono, F.; Dulsrud, A.; Fiore, M.; Holtkamp, C.; Kim, T.-Y.; et al. The impact of COVID-19 on alternative and local food systems and the potential for the sustainability transition: Insights from 13 countries Sustain. Prod. Consum 2021 , 28 , 591–599. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 155. Zollet, S.; Colombo, L.; De Meo, P.; Marino, D.; McGreevy, S.R.; McKeon, N.; Tarra, S. Towards Territorially Embedded, Equitable and Resilient Food Systems? Insights from Grassroots Responses to COVID-19 in Italy and the City Region of Rome Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 2425. [ CrossRef ] 156. Ben Hassen, T.; El Bilali, H.; Allahyari, M.S. Impact of COVID-19 on Food Behavior and Consumption in Qatar Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 6973. [ CrossRef ] 157. Altarrah, D.; Alshami, E.; Alhamad, N.; Albesher, F.; Devarajan, S. The impact of coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic on food purchasing, eating behavior, and perception of food safety in Kuwait Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 8987. [ CrossRef ] 158. Dewick, P.; Pineda, J.; Ramlogan, R. Hand in Glove? Processes of Formalization and the Circular Economy Post-COVID-19 IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev 2020 , 48 , 176–183. [ CrossRef ] 159. Barrett, C.B.; Fanzo, J.; Herrero, M.; Mason-D'Croz, D.; Mathys, A.; Thornton, P.; Wood, S.; Benton, T.G.; Fan, S.G.; Lawson-Lartego, L.; et al. COVID-19 pandemic lessons for agri-food systems innovation Environ. Res. Lett 2021 , 16 , 101001. [ CrossRef ] 160. Di Giacomo, M.G.G.; De Felice, P. COVID-19 pandemic: Warning for the sustainability of European agri-food systems Psychol Erzieh. Und Unterr 2022 , 4 , 1–25. [ CrossRef ] 161. Galanakis, C.M.; Rizou, M.; Aldawoud, T.M.S.; Ucak, I.; Rowan, N.J. Innovations and technology disruptions in the food sector within the COVID-19 pandemic and post-lockdown era Trends Food Sci. Technol 2021 , 110 , 193–200. [ CrossRef ] 162. Ardekani, Z.F.; Sobhani, S.M.J.; Barbosa, M.W.; de Sousa, P.R. Transition to a sustainable food supply chain during disruptions: A study on the Brazilian food companies in the COVID-19 era Int. J. Prod. Econ 2023 , 257 , 108782. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 163. Alam, M.F.B.; Tushar, S.R.; Zaman, S.M.; Gonzalez, E.D.S.; Bari, A.M.; Karmaker, C.L. Analysis of the drivers of Agriculture 4.0 implementation in the emerging economies: Implications towards sustainability and food security Green Technol. Sustain 2023 , 1 , 100021 [ CrossRef ] 164. Righi, S.; Vigan ò , E. How to ensure the sustainability of organic food system farms? Environmental protection and fair price/Come garantire la sostenibilit à delle aziende agricole del sistema alimentare biologico? Protezione dell'ambiente e prezzo equo Il Capitale Cult. Stud. Value Cult. Herit 2023 , 27 , 377–400 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.

Other Environmental Sciences Concepts:

[back to top]

Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘Transformation of the Three Pillars of Agri-Food Sustainability around the...’. Further sources in the context of Environmental Sciences might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:

India, Shme, Trade, Urban center, Horticulture, Agriculture, Food supply, Malaysia, Resource management, Food distribution, Due diligence, Lack of trust, Fresh meat, Financial difficulties, Collective action, Knowledge dissemination, Soil quality, Literature review, Infectious disease, Food consumption, Bangladesh, Meat-market, Quality of life, Environmental pollution, Different branches, Transportation, Market demand, Food production, Social media, Restrictive measures, Climate change, Local development, Three Pillars, Government support, Economic output, Rural population, Economic reason, Social problem, Social equity, Social inequalities, Social research, Social cohesion, Economic benefit, Human need, Food aid, Sustainable development, Cleaner technology, Purchasing power, Environmental education, Global warming, Food Security, Healthy eating, Food safety, COVID 19, Systematic Review, COVID-19 Pandemic, Low- and middle-income countries, Developing country, Supply chain, Organic Farming, Movement restriction, Sustainable agriculture, Waste management, Research question, Covid 19 outbreak, Digital technology, Product Innovation, Circular economy, Oil crisis, Environmental sustainability, Environmental security, Labour market, Research gap, Business Development, Waste Reduction, Cost reduction, Local market, Production cost, Organic agriculture, Energy Efficiency, Local communities, Knowledge Management, Market access, Government regulation, Sustainability, Innovation and Technology, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, Carbon Sequestration, Emerging economies, Precision agriculture, Technological development, Economic cost, Intelligent packaging, Household income, Food insecurity, Food waste, Marketing activities, Consumer behavior, Processed products, Sustainable production, Social network, Carbon footprint, Food supply chain, Consumer attitude, Business opportunities, Family relationship, Food price, Safe food, Foreign workers, Food system, E-commerce, Vertical integration, Public responsibilities, Household food security, Food and nutritional security, Process innovation, Soil erosion, One health perspective, Beekeepers, Middle-income countries, Economic downturn, COVID-19 crisis, Digitalisation, Private consumption, Social safety net, Sustainable food, Consumer behaviour, Social trust, Nairobi, Local product, Economic sustainability, Economic survival, Water use, Online sales, Food insecure, Sociodemographic groups, Local food, Supply management, Logistics network, New area of research, Distribution network, Organisational change, Smallholder farmer, North Macedonia, Fish farming, Food service, Financial resource, Plant based food, Future research direction, Deficiency disease, Food sector, Local food system, Social innovation, State support, UAE, Environmental pillar, Economic pillar, Sustainable Performance, Social Sustainability, Global warming potential, Carbon emission, Regional perspective, Technical condition, Direct sale, Grassroots initiatives, Resource efficiency, Effective response, Eco-friendly product, Sustainable food system, Transport mode, Sustainable Food Production, Local producers, Sustainable food consumption, Renewable Energy Source, Global value chain, Food behavior, Food purchasing, Sustainable Product, Online Shopping, Food poverty, Quality food, Economic decision, Extremadura, Agri-food industry, Processing plant, Consumer habits, Supply Chain Performance, Interdisciplinary character, Sharing economy, Agri-food system, Online Purchasing, Labour Shortage, Vertical coordination, Small enterprise, Local Food Consumption, Bee Colonies, Local food supply, Research direction, PRISMA Protocol, Agricultural Product, Formalization, Organic farm, Freshwater Shortage, Short food supply chain, Public intervention, COVID-19 Virus Outbreak, Food System Resilience, Eating at home, Market relations, Food safety regulation, Online food purchasing, Urban market, Local workers, Domestic Food Consumption, Commodity Price, Marketing channel, Food supply disruptions, Agriculture workers, Grassroots Responses.