Next Article in Journal
Motivators of Circular Fashion: The Antecedents of Chinese Consumers’ Fashion Renting Intentions
Previous Article in Journal
The Challenge Posed by Emerging Environmental Contaminants: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Phenoxyethanol Biological Removal from Groundwater through Mesocosm Experiments
Previous Article in Special Issue
Factors Affecting Dietary Intake of Copper and Zinc via Rice Consumption by Residents of Major Rice-Producing Regions in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/su16052185
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Government Support Mechanisms for Sustainable Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda

by
Marcelo Werneck Barbosa
Department of Agricultural Economics, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 7820436, Chile
Sustainability 2024, 16(5), 2185; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052185
Submission received: 29 January 2024 / Revised: 28 February 2024 / Accepted: 1 March 2024 / Published: 6 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Agriculture and Agri-Food)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Government support for enterprises can be provided in different forms, such as subsidies, tax incentives, or direct public investment. Government support can also be given to develop environmentally and socially responsible initiatives. In the agriculture sector, government support involves providing early-warning information from meteorological monitoring, policies to encourage companies and citizens to engage in sustainable behavior, and the organization of disaster relief activities. A comprehensive view of the government support mechanisms employed in the agriculture industry and their possible effects on the adoption of sustainable initiatives is yet to be provided in the literature. Through a systematic literature review of articles published from 1992 to 2023 in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, this study found that subsidies, programs, regulations, and financial assistance are the main mechanisms used by governments to support sustainable initiatives in agriculture. Moreover, our review also found that the reduction in environmental impacts, the stimulus to organic production, industry growth, and rural development are the most common goals of using government support for sustainable agriculture. We also geographically categorize research in this field by showing where research has been produced and where it should be improved. We call for more research focused on support from governments in South America. We also observed that environmental protection, the supply of organic foods, and urban agriculture are frequently impacted when there is not enough government support. At last, we propose some research questions to guide future studies. We expect that policymakers will use the outcomes of this study to guide the design and implementation of new government support mechanisms aimed at improving the sustainable performance of agriculture firms. The outcomes of this study will also help managers make investment decisions.

1. Introduction

The food industry currently has to deal with competing pressures, as well as the requirements for sustainable production [1]. Sustainable practices have become more critical in achieving the cost-effective production and distribution of goods [1]. Sustainable initiatives are aimed at promoting environmental, social, and economic development and are considered an essential element of companies’ current strategies for achieving sustainable development [2,3].
Unsustainable agricultural practices, which include residue burning, deforestation, the use of specific types of fertilizers or pesticides [4], using a simple crop structure [5], unsustainable water management [6], and the use of fossil fuels [7], pose severe threats to the integrity of agri-food systems. Their effects comprise greenhouse gas emissions, soil erosion [8,9], the depletion of ecosystem services on which agricultural systems depend [10], soil degradation and desertification [6], water scarcity [6], and reductions in available farmland [11].
Researchers highlight the need for the development of mechanisms to support farmers with the implementation of sustainable practices. These mechanisms could include policies and subsidies to companies committed to sustainable agriculture [12]. Scholars agree that, due to the diverse and complex obstacles to sustainable agriculture, reducing unsustainable practices demands a broader approach that comprises different dimensions and stakeholders and should simultaneously consider social, economic, and environmental issues [12]. Therefore, sustainability transitions should focus on a broader view of agri-food systems to foster the implementation of sustainable production practices [4].
Government institutions have the holistic vision required to determine the needs and pathways to implement sustainable agriculture practices. Since achieving economic growth with social and environmental sustainability is also considered an important policy goal for governments, government support has played a leading role in dealing with environmental problems [13]. Government support is acknowledged as a strategic external resource due to its potential to influence the business ecosystem significantly and contribute to entrepreneurship and innovation [14].
Government support includes public policy mechanisms to subsidize and assure firms’ obligations and operations [15]. Studies have indicated that government support helps to improve firms’ innovation capacity and performance [16]. In terms of environmental benefits, government support can impact green innovation, promote environmental pollution regulations [14], and motivate companies or individuals to change their ecological behavior [13]. Government support is also fundamental to the development of agribusinesses and agricultural development policies. Also, this type of support is required to overcome and reduce the negative impacts on natural resources caused by the sector’s activities [17]. In addition, it can also support the development of businesses that require significant investments, such as organic farming [18], or those that have relevant social impacts. In addition, some government support mechanisms seek to guarantee decent work conditions for workers and improve the overall income of farmers [19]. Due to the importance of this topic, scholars have been calling for more research on the environmental sustainability of agri-food systems [20].
Government support for sustainable agriculture has been implemented with different purposes and levels in developed countries and emerging economies. In Europe, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has attempted to mitigate unsustainable agricultural practices and their adverse effects. European Union (EU) subsidies have been given considering sustainable and social concerns [21], like job maintenance in agriculture [22]. However, the effectiveness of the CAP has been put in doubt [23], and researchers have focused on analyzing the effects of CAP policy instruments on agricultural productivity and efficiency [24]. It has been observed that CAP resource assignment is not optimal since resources only sometimes get to where they are most needed, and the substantial reallocation of resources should be necessary [25]. In China, subsidies and policies have been implemented during the last decades to protect the economic interests of farmers and improve productivity and the quality of agri-food products. Currently, their goal has been to strengthen the protection of agricultural environmental resources [26]. Emerging countries have been criticizing agricultural subsidies in developed countries arguing that subsidies have been partially responsible for keeping prices low and maintaining poverty in developing countries [27]. Currently, government support for agriculture production in large emerging economies is reaching the support level of developed countries [27]. Differences in how countries support sustainable agriculture are to be further comprehended.
Previous studies have analyzed the effects government support has on business activities. Kirchweger and Kantelhardt [18] examined the effects of government investments on structural change in the industry. Wasserbaur et al. [28] conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) that investigated the interactions between governmental policies and business models [28]. Bozhikin et al. [29] identified different levels and mechanisms to facilitate the development of social entrepreneurship [29]. Researchers consider that little attention has been paid to the impact of government support and sustainability on rural activities. Hence, despite the importance of government support to sustainable transitions in agriculture [30], previous research has yet to review its impact in the agricultural context systematically.
It is still unclear which government mechanisms have been adopted to foster the implementation of sustainable agricultural practices. It is also unknown which outcomes and benefits have been provided by each of these government mechanisms. Understanding how governments have been supporting sustainable agricultural practices is necessary to objectively assess the use of public resources, as well as plan upcoming investments. Scholars consider that a holistic approach to sustainable agriculture in regard to government support is still missing [23]. The consequences and adverse impacts of the lack of government support have not been explored by previous research either.
To fill these research gaps, the objective of this study was to perform a systematic literature review to classify the body of knowledge related to government support in the sustainable agriculture field. More specifically, the following research questions (RQs) are addressed:
  • RQ1: What are the government support mechanisms usually adopted in the sustainable agriculture industry?
  • RQ2: What are the primary purposes and benefits of adopting these mechanisms?
  • RQ3: Which countries have been mostly investigated in this research field?
  • RQ4: Which crops/agricultural products have often been supported by government support mechanisms?
  • RQ5: What impacts does the lack of government support present to the industry?
This review is grounded on the Institutional theory [31], which identifies three different institutional mechanisms that might exert some pressure on organizations: coercive (from government regulations), normative (from the public), and mimetic (from competitors and other institutions) [32]. We assume that companies that are able to obtain recognition and support from governments achieve higher levels of legitimacy and visibility, which leads competing firms to imitate their structure or operations to obtain similar outcomes [31].
This study presents several contributions that will be further discussed. The mechanisms usually adopted by governments to stimulate sustainable agriculture were identified. Second, the main goals of government support towards sustainable agriculture were also identified, shedding light on the need to implement more varied mechanisms. Some research questions that might guide future studies have also been proposed. We expect this study to contribute to improving policymaking in sustainable agriculture.

2. Theoretical Background

Government support refers to “the extent to which a particular firm gains assistance such as favorable policies, incentives, and programs from the government and its administrative bureaus” [33,34]. Thus, government support is related to financial and non-financial assistance to promote the continuous growth of companies [35]. It is implemented through different mechanisms, such as financial assistance, subsidies, technical assistance, regulations, and tax exemptions [36]. Government support also happens indirectly through assistance for building inter-organizational networks, providing financial guarantees, and publicity [33]. Furthermore, this kind of support is critical, especially for emergent economies, to achieve long-term competitiveness and to encourage companies to extend their operations internationally [35].
Direct government support provides the necessary resources for companies to develop their activities, which can be particularly important in emerging economies [33]. Previous research indicates that government support positively affects firms’ innovation capacity and technology adoption, research and development, and collaborations with other partners [37,38]. Government support can also be helpful to develop environmentally and socially responsible initiatives [39]. Moreover, regulatory pressures exerted by governmental agencies and public institutions force companies to invest in sustainable initiatives often aligned with their supply chain partners. In fact, pressures exerted by these regulators are an essential influence on the adoption of sustainable supply chain practices [40], impacting not only organizations but also their supply chain partners.
Firms grant support when their strategies and operations are aligned with the government’s expectations and regulations [34]. Hence, government plays a vital role in the implementation of firms’ sustainable innovations, a usually common governmental goal. Governments support sustainable development by establishing policies and providing access to external knowledge, resources, and capital for the implementation of sustainable initiatives in companies [41]. In the agriculture sector, government support involves providing early-warning information from meteorological monitoring, policies to encourage companies and citizens to manage water resources better, and the planning of disaster response activities [42].
Institutional theory focuses on how external influence towards conformity influences firms’ operations [31]. This theory describes a process called institutional isomorphism, in which firms align their strategy with the expectations of institutions [2]. The theory considers three types of pressure. Coercive pressure is exerted by external agencies and national or international regulators to influence firms’ structure or behavior [43]. It has a great influence on environmental initiatives [40]. It includes laws, policies, and regulations that can affect the adoption of sustainable activities in firms. Hence, coercive pressures force organizations to increase their sustainable performance [44]. Normative pressures are derived from norms specified by professional or industry associations, whose compliance is not enforced nor penalized [45]. Mimetic isomorphic pressures occur under conditions of environmental uncertainty. To be stable, firms attempt to copy the behavior of their successful competitors and leaders, who appear to be more legitimate companies [46]. We understand that firms that can grant government support inspire competing firms to imitate them in order to obtain the same type of benefit.

3. Materials and Methods

An SLR is a kind of literature review that systematically and comprehensively identifies, assesses, and synthesizes scientific research with a rigorous methodological process with the aim of addressing specific research questions [47]. It is unbiased, reproducible, and reliable due to the clear and well-planned protocol adopted to consolidate the research field [48,49,50].
We followed recommendations given by Tranfield et al. [48] and Kitchenham [51]. Due to the previously mentioned characteristics, an SLR must be conducted under specific quality parameters. We followed some guidelines and quality criteria defined in DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) [52], such as explicitly defining inclusion criteria and presenting information about each primary study in data summaries that can clearly be traced to primary studies.

3.1. Planning the Review

This step begins with defining a research area and stating the review questions [53,54,55]. Then, the search string and the search period are defined, the research databases are identified, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria are established [48]. A keyword-based search protocol was defined. The search string was determined based on keywords used in previous related studies [33,56], considering the three topics involved in this study: government support, the agriculture industry, and sustainability. Hence, the following search query was used [“government support” and agriculture and (sustainab* OR “corporate social responsibility” OR csr OR “corporate sustainability” OR “Triple Bottom Line” OR “Circular Economy”)].
The inclusion criteria comprise (1) only articles written in English published from 1992 to May 2023 and (2) studies that clearly declare or investigate the use of some government mechanism in sustainable agriculture. We decided to include different types of publications other than journal papers, like conference papers and book chapters, to increase the set of analyzed documents and to promote diverse perspectives. This decision has also been adopted in previous studies [57,58]. The exclusion criterion comprises studies that do not clearly identify a type of government support mechanism in sustainable agriculture. The search was performed in Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases because they cover high-quality journals and articles [59,60].

3.2. Conducting the Review

The search retrieved a total of 178 papers. After removing duplicate studies, we ended up with 135 papers. Initially, inclusion and exclusion criteria considered the studies’ titles and abstracts. A total of 110 papers remained after this step. Finally, a full-text reading was conducted to analyze the papers’ inclusion in the SLR. At the end of this process, 56 papers were selected. The complete list of primary studies analyzed is presented in Appendix A. Figure 1 shows the methodological process carried out to retrieve the set of articles analyzed by this SLR.

3.3. Reporting the Results

The final step of the process comprises the presentation of the review’s outcomes. Data extracted from primary studies were stored in an Excel file and analyzed to address the proposed research questions.

4. Results

4.1. Research Sample

This section shows the results of the SLR analysis performed. As explained previously, 56 publications on government support mechanisms applied to sustainable agriculture were retrieved. Figure 2 presents the number of articles published in this period. An increasing number of published studies can be observed.
Table 1 shows the number of studies published per journal. The Sustainability Journal is the leading venue for government support research in sustainable agriculture.

4.2. Government Support in Sustainable Agriculture

RQ1 aimed to identify the government support mechanisms usually adopted in the sustainable agriculture industry. The identified government support mechanisms are shown in Table 2. We can see that subsidies are the government support mechanisms more often reported in sustainable agriculture research, followed by programs, regulations and policies, and financial and technical assistance.
RQ2 aimed to identify the main purposes and benefits of adopting these support mechanisms. Most mechanisms are adopted with the objective of promoting sustainable development, implementing environmentally friendly practices, and reducing environmental impact, which are general objectives of sustainable agriculture. More specific goals are related to organic production, the stimulus to industry growth, rural development, productivity increases, and training. Table 3 shows all the goals of the identified government support mechanisms.
RQ3 aimed to identify in which countries government support for sustainable agriculture has been adopted. Most studies reported and explored the use of government support mechanisms for sustainable agriculture in China, followed by Australia, the USA, and Malaysia. Table 4 shows all the identified countries.
To get a clearer vision of the geographical distribution of studies, Table 5 shows the names of the continents where studies have been conducted.
The fourth research question (RQ4) addressed the types of crops that government support mechanisms have often supported. Most studies do not make any explicit reference to specific crops. However, government support mechanisms have been primarily investigated to promote sustainable agriculture for straw and rice/paddy production. Table 6 shows all the identified crops.
The final research question (RQ5) addressed the kinds of negative impacts of the lack or absence of government support that have been explicitly mentioned in the primary studies. Most studies do not clearly highlight a negative consequence of the lack of government support. However, some studies express that environmental impacts, the supply of organic foods, and urban agriculture are frequently impacted when there is not enough government support. Table 7 shows these areas.

5. Discussions

The sustainable development of agriculture benefits from the implementation of government support measures [63]. Hence, transitions to sustainable agriculture will demand institutions that support farmers with resources and knowledge [64]. Our findings contribute to the extant literature because knowing the supporting mechanisms for sustainable agriculture that have been investigated is vital to comprehending and assessing their contribution to sustainability, as well as identifying gaps in this research field.
The role of subsidies in the promotion of sustainable agriculture was highlighted. Agricultural subsidies have been a critical feature of agricultural development policies in several economies [65]. In fact, an agricultural subsidy policy is an essential way of supporting and protecting the agricultural system by transferring financial support to agriculture, providing sponsorship for certification, and regulating relationships between the producers, consumers, suppliers, and other actors in our society [19,66]. Through government support, governments actively guide the behavior of firms, stimulating innovation, entrepreneurship, and sustainable initiatives [13]. In the agriculture sector, this kind of support has been promoting environmental protection, green and sustainable agricultural development, and employment [22,26].
Agricultural subsidies have been a controversial issue due to criticism regarding effective targeting and possible exploitation for personal or political benefit [65]. Experts call for additional supporting mechanisms and efforts for the agricultural sector beyond the strategies of subsidies and incentives [67]. Some past studies have shown that expected outcomes from government support through subsidy policies have not been achieved [13] and that agricultural subsidies do not play a significant role in rural production despite the fact that incredible amounts of financial resources are spent through this kind of supportive mechanism. Other studies found positive effects of subsidies on supporting sustainable practices, like farm employment [22] and a reduction in chemical fertilizer use [68]. Thus, researchers claim that the impacts they have on agricultural production still need to be clarified [26]. Scholars defend that subsidies need to be considerably reduced and adopted as a complementary measure since there are more efficient policy instruments in addressing important drivers for unsustainability [7]. Typical governance problems should be avoided. We extend previous research by showing that agricultural subsidies are by far the main government support mechanism that has been studied in the literature. Hence, we call for diversifying the types of studies in the area of government support for agricultural sustainability.
The main reason for government support is related to the reduction and mitigation of environmental impacts. We also identified more mechanisms related to environmental outcomes in comparison to social and economic results. This finding is corroborated by previous research in other contexts, which has shown a predominance of environmental themes in contrast to the other sustainability dimensions, especially the social one [69]. Despite the identification of studies focused on rural development, food security, and job creation, we call for further research in government support mechanisms focused on social and economic goals in the field of sustainable agriculture.
We observed a predominance of studies carried out in Asia, mainly in China. The country’s government agricultural policies have considerable relevance for international agricultural trade with global impacts [70]. Furthermore, only some studies related to South America were identified. This finding is surprising considering the fact that there are relevant exporters of agricultural products in the continent [71], such as Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. We also highlight that, in order to be accepted by international markets, producers and exporters must comply with regulations by government institutions both in the exporting country and in the destination countries [72]. Hence, since governments generally support companies to develop the required capabilities to get into international markets, this is a research gap that needs to be explored. Our vision is shared by other scholars who have stated that emerging Latin American economies represent a different research scenario in relation to the EU, USA, and Asia [73].
Lastly, our study identified that the lack of proper government support could have environmental impacts and could also affect organic agricultural practices and production. Despite increasing production and consumption growth in several countries, organic production is somehow dependent on policies for environmental protection and rural development [74]. Therefore, aligned with previous studies that have shown that farmers can be frustrated by the lack of support [75], this study calls our attention to the impacts that can be derived from this situation.
This study also presents some theoretical contributions, extending the application of the Institutional View theory. This theory states that organizations are rewarded for being similar to others in their fields. This can make them be acknowledged as legitimate, reputable, and eligible for public and private grants, investments, and support. This theory considers that the greater the extent to which organizations transact with state agencies, the greater the total extent of isomorphism in their field [31]. Our study extends this theory by considering that firms attempt to mimic their competitors’ behaviors to obtain government support. By leveraging their core capabilities and resources with government support, they achieve competitive advantages [16]. Companies attempt to imitate their competitors because of one of the central aspects of Institutional View theory, legitimacy. Organizations gain legitimacy by following institutional norms and beliefs created by society and governments [46]. Legitimate firms ensure their credibility with different stakeholders. Since the implementation of sustainable agricultural activities is expected by society and is supported by governments, firms will continuously look for the adoption of these initiatives to achieve legitimacy and different kinds of support from governmental institutions. We also propose that future studies should investigate the effects that government support has on agri-food companies’ legitimacy.
A robust governmental support policy is necessary, but more is needed to foster sustainable development in the agriculture industry. Through different support mechanisms, governments can help companies implement sustainable practices. However, different stakeholders form agricultural systems and each one of them also need to support sustainable practices. From producers to consumers, all actors in the chain have their share of responsibility and influence on the different dimensions of sustainable agriculture. Government support mechanisms are a way of achieving sustainable performance, which cannot be achieved only through these mechanisms. As previously discussed, firms need to be convinced that sustainable practices will lead to better economic performance and that the implementation of these practices is a required capability in the current world.
An outlook of government support mechanisms related to sustainable agriculture has been depicted, which, in turn, allows for the identification of some gaps and research opportunities. Table 8 presents some research questions proposed based on this study’s findings, organized in terms of the different sustainability dimensions. The research findings that support each research question are also presented.

6. Conclusions

This study performed an SLR to identify government support mechanisms adopted in the context of sustainable agriculture. We found out that subsidies are the most recurrent mechanism investigated and reported in this research field. Other mechanisms include programs, regulations and laws, financial and technical assistance, support, consulting, and training. We also found that most of these mechanisms aim to implement sustainable practices and reduce environmental impacts caused by agricultural activities. We also observed some mechanisms that aim to support organic farming, industry growth, and rural development. We also found that most studies were carried out in Asia, mainly in China. We also called the scholars’ attention to the low number of studies performed in South America. Finally, we identified some of the negative consequences of the absence or lack of government support in the industry.
This study adopted a rigorous protocol based on previous research recommendations. However, some limitations need to be reported. First, other terms similar to government support, like public policies, could have been used to identify related research papers, which could lead to the consideration of a different number of studies. Nevertheless, in this study, we were particularly interested in the adoption of government support mechanisms. Future research could explore this aspect. Second, the assessment of inclusion and exclusion criteria was performed based on explicit information reported in each article. However, some studies did not present explicit data so that inclusion and exclusion criteria could be assessed, which increased the difficulty of finding the desired information. Despite considerable efforts to avoid errors, some misinterpretation of the data provided in the sample of articles could have occurred. Finally, this review included only research published in indexed databases (Scopus and WoS). Expanding the search to other databases or even to grey literature is a suggestion for future work.

Funding

This research was funded by ANID FONDECYT INICIACIÓN N°11230058.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. References for Studies Included in the SLR

Study IDReference
(1)[76]
(2)[77]
(3)[78]
(4)[79]
(5)[80]
(6)[81]
(7)[82]
(8)[83]
(9)[84]
(10)[85]
(11)[64]
(12)[86]
(13)[87]
(14)[88]
(15)[66]
(16)[89]
(17)[90]
(18)[91]
(19)[75]
(20)[92]
(21)[63]
(22)[93]
(23)[94]
(24)[95]
(25)[96]
(26)[97]
(27)[98]
(28)[99]
(29)[100]
(30)[101]
(31)[102]
(32)[103]
(33)[104]
(34)[105]
(35)[106]
(36)[107]
(37)[108]
(38)[109]
(39)[110]
(40)[111]
(41)[112]
(42)[113]
(43)[114]
(44)[115]
(45)[116]
(46)[117]
(47)[118]
(48)[119]
(49)[120]
(50)[121]
(51)[122]
(52)[123]
(53)[124]
(54)[67]
(55)[125]
(56)[126]

References

  1. Glover, J.L.; Champion, D.; Daniels, K.J.; Dainty, A.J.D. An Institutional Theory perspective on sustainable practices across the dairy supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 152, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Qi, G.; Jia, Y.; Zou, H. Is institutional pressure the mother of green innovation. Examining the moderating effect of absorptive capacity. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Murphy, K. The social pillar of sustainable development: A literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2012, 8, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Downing, A.S.; Kumar, M.; Andersson, A.; Causevic, A.; Gustafsson, Ö.; Joshi, N.U.; Krishnamurthy, C.K.B.; Scholtens, B.; Crong, B. Unlocking the unsustainable rice-wheat system of Indian Punjab: Assessing alternatives to crop-residue burning from a systems perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 195, 107364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kovách, I.; Megyesi, B.G.; Bai, A.; Balogh, P. Sustainability and Agricultural Regeneration in Hungarian Agriculture. Sustainability 2022, 14, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ferreira, C.S.S.; Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S.; Destouni, G.; Ghajarnia, N.; Kalantari, Z. Soil degradation in the European Mediterranean region: Processes, status and consequences. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 805, 150106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Heyl, K.; Ekardt, F.; Sund, L.; Roos, P. Potentials and Limitations of Subsidies in Sustainability Governance: The Example of Agriculture. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Balogh, J.M.; Jámbor, A. The environmental impacts of agricultural trade: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hellin, J.; Balie, J.; Fisher, E.; Blundo-Canto, G.; Meah, N.; Kohli, A.; Connor, M. Sustainable agriculture for health and prosperity: Stakeholders’ roles, legitimacy and modus operandi. Dev. Pract. 2020, 30, 965–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rocchi, L.; Boggia, A.; Paolotti, L. Sustainable agricultural systems: A bibliometrics analysis of ecological modernization approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ibrahim, M.A.; Johansson, M. Attitudes to climate change adaptation in agriculture—A case study of Öland, Sweden. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 86, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Siebrecht, N. Sustainable agriculture and its implementation gap—Overcoming obstacles to implementation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhou, Y.; He, Z.; Zhao, S. How do government subsidies affect the strategic choices of enterprises and individuals in agricultural waste recycling. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 1687–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Roh, T.; Lee, K.; Yang, J.Y. How do intellectual property rights and government support drive a firm’s green innovation? The mediating role of open innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 317, 128422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Onjewu, A.K.E.; Olan, F.; be isan Nyuur, R.B.; Paul, S.; Nguyen, H.T.T. The effect of government support on Bureaucracy, COVID-19 resilience and export intensity: Evidence from North Africa. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 156, 113468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chen, H.; Amoako, T.; Quansah, C.E.; Danso, S.A.; Jidda, D.J. Assessment of the impact of management commitment and supply chain integration on SMEs’ innovation performance: Moderation role of government support. Heliyon 2023, 9, e15914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Fanelli, R.M. The spatial and temporal variability of the effects of agricultural practices on the environment. Environments 2020, 7, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kirchweger, S.; Kantelhardt, J. The dynamic effects of government-supported farm-investment activities on structural change in Austrian agriculture. Land Use Policy 2015, 48, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bai, J.; Wang, Y.; Sun, W. Exploring the role of agricultural subsidy policies for sustainable agriculture Based on Chinese agricultural big data. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 53, 102473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Badenko, V.; Badenko, G.; Topaj, A.; Medvedev, S.; Zakharova, E.; Terleev, V. Comparative simulation of various agricultural land use practices for analysis of impacts on environments. Environments 2017, 4, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Blasi, E.; Rossi, E.S.; Zabala, J.Á.; Fosci, L.; Sorrentino, A. Are citizens willing to pay for the ecosystem services supported by Common Agricultural Policy? A non-market valuation by choice experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 893, 164783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bojnec, Š.; Fertő, I. Do different types of Common Agricultural Policy subsidies promote farm employment. Land Use Policy 2022, 112, 105823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Czyżewski, B.; Guth, M. Impact of policy and factor intensity on sustainable value of european agriculture: Exploring trade-offs of environmental, economic and social efficiency at the regional level. Agriculture 2021, 11, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Santos-Arteaga, F.J.; Manuel, J.; Quiroga, S.; Su, C. Do common agricultural policy subsidies matter for the market-environment trade off. An evaluation of R & D objectives and decisions across farmers. J. Agric. Food Res. 2024, 15, 101047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Scown, M.W.; Brady, M.V.; Nicholas, K.A. Billions in Misspent EU Agricultural Subsidies Could Support the Sustainable Development Goals. One Earth 2020, 3, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Fan, P.; Mishra, A.K.; Feng, S.; Su, M. The effect of agricultural subsidies on chemical fertilizer use: Evidence from a new policy in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 344, 118423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Borsellino, V.; Schimmenti, E.; El Bilali, H. Agri-food markets towards sustainable patterns. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wasserbaur, R.; Sakao, T.; Milios, L. Interactions of governmental policies and business models for a circular economy: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 337, 130329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bozhikin, I.; Macke, J.; da Costa, L.F. The role of government and key non-state actors in social entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 730–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ogujiuba, K.K.; Olamide, E.; Agholor, A.I.; Boshoff, E.; Semosa, P. Impact of Government Support, Business Style, and Entrepreneurial Sustainability on Business Location of SMEs in South Africa’s Mpumalanga Province. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism in Organizational Fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Huang, X.X.; Hu, Z.P.; Liu, C.S.; Yu, D.J.; Yu, L.F. The relationships between regulatory and customer pressure, green organizational responses, and green innovation performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3423–3433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ji, H.; Miao, Z. Corporate social responsibility and collaborative innovation: The role of government support. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shu, C.; Zhou, K.Z.; Xiao, Y.; Gao, S. How Green Management Influences Product Innovation in China: The Role of Institutional Benefits. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 133, 471–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ganlin, P.; Qamruzzaman, M.D.; Mehta, A.M.; Naqvi, F.N.; Karim, S. Innovative finance, technological adaptation and smes sustainability: The mediating role of government support during covid-19 pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Najib, M.; Rahman, A.A.A.; Fahma, F. Business survival of small and medium-sized restaurants through a crisis: The role of government support and innovation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, M.K.; Oh, J.; Park, J.H.; Joo, C. Perceived value and adoption intention for electric vehicles in Korea: Moderating effects of environmental traits and government supports. Energy 2018, 159, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jugend, D.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Scaliza, J.A.A.; Rocha, R.S.; Gobbo, J.A., Jr.; Latan, H.; Salgado, M.H. Relationships among open innovation, innovative performance, government support and firm size: Comparing Brazilian firms embracing different levels of radicalism in innovation. Technovation 2018, 74–75, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Beccarello, M.; Di Foggia, G. Sustainable Development Goals Data-Driven Local Policy: Focus on SDG 11 and SDG 12. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Esfahbodi, A.; Zhang, Y.; Watson, G.; Zhang, T. Governance pressures and performance outcomes of sustainable supply chain management—An empirical analysis of UK manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 155, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Thongsri, N.; Chang, A.K.H. Interactions among factors influencing product innovation and innovation behaviour: Market orientation, managerial ties, and government support. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, X.; Yang, Y.; Poon, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, H. Anti-drought measures and their effectiveness: A study of farmers’ actions and government support in China. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 87, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zeng, H.; Chen, X.; Xiao, X.; Zhou, Z. Institutional pressures, sustainable supply chain management, and circular economy capability: Empirical evidence from Chinese eco-industrial park firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 155, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Trujillo-Gallego, M.; Sarache, W.; Sellitto, M.A. Identification of practices that facilitate manufacturing companies’ environmental collaboration and their influence on sustainable production. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1372–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Amin-Chaudhry, A.; Young, S.; Afshari, L. Sustainability motivations and challenges in the Australian agribusiness. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 361, 132229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Struckell, E.; Ojha, D.; Patel, P.C.; Dhir, A. Strategic choice in times of stagnant growth and uncertainty: An institutional theory and organizational change perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 182, 121839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mhatre, P.; Panchal, R.; Singh, A.; Bibyan, S. A Systematic Literature Review on the Circular Economy Initiatives in the European Union. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 26, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D. Smart, towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hochrein, S.; Glock, C.H.; Bogaschewsky, R.; Heider, M. Literature reviews in supply chain management: A tertiary study. Manag. Rev. Q. 2015, 65, 239–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rathnayake, C.; Joshi, S.; Cerratto-Pargman, T. Mapping the current landscape of citizen-driven environmental monitoring: A systematic literature review. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2020, 16, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kitchenham, B. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews; no. TR/SE-0401; Keele University: Keele, UK, 2004; Volume 33, p. 28. [Google Scholar]
  52. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-Assessed Reviews; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK): York, UK, 1995. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285222/ (accessed on 3 February 2024).
  53. Alleri, M.; Amoroso, S.; Catania, P.; Lo Verde, G.; Orlando, S.; Ragusa, E.; Sinacori, M.; Vallone, M.; Vella, A. Recent developments on precision beekeeping: A systematic literature review. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 14, 100726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Barbosa, M.W.; de la Calle Vincente, A.; Ladeira, M.B.; de Oliveira, M.P.V. Managing supply chain resources with Big Data Analytics: A systematic review. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2017, 21, 177–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tadesse, B.; Ahmed, M. Impact of adoption of climate smart agricultural practices to minimize production risk in Ethiopia: A systematic review. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 13, 100655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Barbosa, M.W.; Oliveira, V.M. The Corporate Social Responsibility professional: A content analysis of job advertisements. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Denter, N.M.; Seeger, F.; Moehrle, M.G. How can Blockchain technology support patent management? A systematic literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2023, 68, 102506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Harahap, B.; Risfandy, T.; Futri, I.N. Islamic Law, Islamic Finance, and Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Skute, I. Opening the black box of academic entrepreneurship: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 2019, 120, 237–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bannor, R.K.; Arthur, K.K.; Oppong, D.; Oppong-Kyeremeh, H. A comprehensive systematic review and bibliometric analysis of food fraud from a global perspective. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 14, 100686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. de Almeida Guimaraes, L.G.; Blanchet, P.; Cimon, Y. Collaboration among small and medium-sized enterprises as part of internationalization: A systematic review. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tartaglione, A.M.; Cavacece, Y.; Russo, G.; Granata, G. A systematic mapping study on customer loyalty and brand management. Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Shkarupa, E.; Perehodov, P.; Ulanova, I. Regional State-Supported Agricultural Insurance Development in Context of Global Transformations. Adv. Econ. Bus. Manag. Res. 2018, 39, 573–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wakeford, J.; Swilling, M. Implications of increasing world oil scarcity for national food security in South Africa. Agrekon 2014, 53, 68–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Obayelu, A.E.; Arowolo, A.O.; Oyawole, F.P.; Aminu, R.O.; Ibrahim, S.B. The linkage between agricultural input subsidies, productivity, food security, and nutrition. In Food Security and Nutrition; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nandi, R.; Bokelmanna, W.; Nithya, V.G.; Dias, G. Smallholder organic farmer’s attitudes, objectives and barriers towards production of organic fruits and vegetables in India: A multivariate analysis. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2015, 27, 396–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alam, M.M.; Toriman, M.E.B.; Siwar, C.; Molla, R.I.; Talib, B. The impacts of agricultural supports for climate change adaptation: Farm level assessment study on paddy farmers. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 7, 178–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Guo, L.; Li, H.; Cao, X.; Cao, A.; Huang, M. Effect of agricultural subsidies on the use of chemical fertilizer. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 299, 113621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Barbosa, M.W.; Ladeira, M.B.; de Oliveira, M.P.V.; de Oliveira, V.M.; de Sousa, P.R. The effects of internationalization orientation in the sustainable performance of the agri-food industry through environmental collaboration: An emerging economy perspective. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 31, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Shao, Y.T.; Wang, Y.P.; Yuan, Y.W. Food safety and government regulation in rural China. J. Agric. Food Res. 2021, 5, 100170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Moreno García, R.R.; Giannetti, B.F.; Agostinho, F.; Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Sevegnani, F.; Parra Perez, K.M.; Velasquez, L. Assessing the sustainability of rice production in Brazil and Cuba. J. Agric. Food Res. 2021, 4, 100152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Safitri, K.I.; Abdoellah, O.S.; Gunawan, B.; Suparman, Y.; Parikesit, P. Market Pressure Based on International Food Standards in Export-Scale Urban Farming: Political Ecology Perspective. Qual. Rep. 2022, 27, 1311–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Vinicio, L.; Solano, L.; Brümmer, B.; Engler, A.; Otter, V. Effects of intra- and inter-regional geographic diversification and product diversification on export performance: Evidence from the Chilean fresh fruit export sector. Food Policy 2019, 86, 101730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Foteinis, S.; Hatzisymeon, M.; Borthwick, A.G.L.; Chatzisymeon, E. Environmental impacts of conventional versus organic eggplant cultivation systems: Influence of electricity mix, yield, over-fertilization, and transportation. Environments 2021, 8, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Laforge, J.M.L.; Anderson, C.R.; McLachlan, S.M. Governments, grassroots, and the struggle for local food systems: Containing, coopting, contesting and collaborating. Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 34, 663–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hermansen, J.E. Organic livestock production systems and appropriate development in relation to public expectations. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 80, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shi, T.; Gill, R. Developing effective policies for the sustainable development of ecological agriculture in China: The case study of Jinshan County with a systems dynamics model. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 53, 223–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Colton, J.W.; Bissix, G. Developing agritourism in Nova Scotia: Issues and challenges. J. Sustain. Agric. 2005, 27, 91–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Radcliffe, J.C. Policy issues impacting on crop production in water-limiting environments. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2005, 56, 1303–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yang, H.S. Resource management, soil fertility and sustainable crop production: Experiences of China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 116, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Campos, P.; Ovando, P.; Montero, G. Does private income support sustainable agroforestry in Spanish dehesa. Land Use Policy 2008, 25, 510–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Voytenko, Y.; Peck, P. Organization of straw-to-energy systems in Ukraine and Scandinavia. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining Model Anal. 2011, 5, 654–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bernal, L.E.P.; Lara-Herrera, A.; Reyes-Rivas, E.; Perez-Veynad, O. Competitiveness, Efficiency and Environmental Impact of Protected Agriculture in Zacatecas, Mexico. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2012, 15, 49–64. [Google Scholar]
  84. Teklewold, H.; Kassie, M.; Shiferaw, B. Adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural practices in rural Ethiopia. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 64, 597–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Gheewala, S.H.; Damen, B.; Shi, X. Biofuels: Economic, environmental and social benefits and costs for developing countries in Asia. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2013, 4, 497–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Song, Z.; Zhang, C.; Yang, G.; Feng, Y.; Ren, G.; Han, X. Comparison of biogas development from households and medium and large-scale biogas plants in rural China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 33, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fielke, S.J.; Bardsley, D.K. Regional agricultural governance in peri-urban and rural South Australia: Strategies to improve multifunctionality. Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kassie, M.; Teklewold, H.; Jaleta, M.; Marenya, P.; Erenstein, O. Understanding the adoption of a portfolio of sustainable intensification practices in eastern and southern Africa. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 400–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. dos Reis, M.M.; de Oliveira, A.P.N.; Turci, S.R.B.; Dantas, R.M.; dos Santos Pinto da Silva, V.; Gross, C.; Jensen, T.; da Costa e Silva, V.L. Conhecimentos, atitudes e práticas de agricultoras sobre o processo de produção de tabaco em um município da região sul do Brasil. Cad. Saude Publica 2017, 33, S148–S161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jacobi, J.; Rist, S.; Altieri, M.A. Incentives and disincentives for diversified agroforestry systems from different actors’ perspectives in Bolivia. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2017, 15, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sony, K.C.; Upreti, B.R. The Political Economy of Cardamom Farming in Eastern Nepal: Crop Disease, Coping Strategies, and Institutional Innovation. SAGE Open 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Eludoyin, A.O.; Nevo, A.O.; Abuloye, P.A.; Eludoyin, O.M.; Awotoye, O.O. Climate events and impact on cropping activities of small-scale farmers in a part of Southwest Nigeria. Weather Clim. Soc. 2017, 9, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Su, M.; Sun, Y.; Min, Q.; Jiao, W. A Community livelihood approach to agricultural heritage system conservation and tourism development: Xuanhua Grape Garden Urban Agricultural Heritage Site, Hebei Province of China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. de la Poterie, A.T.; Burchfield, E.K.; Carrico, A.R. The implications of group norms for adaptation in collectively managed agricultural systems: Evidence from Sri Lankan paddy farmers. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mushtaq, S. Managing climate risks through transformational adaptation: Economic and policy implications for key production regions in Australia. Clim. Risk Manag. 2018, 19, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Poku, A.G.; Birner, R.; Gupta, S. Is Africa ready to develop a competitive bioeconomy? The case of the cassava value web in Ghana. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 200, 134–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Greenland, S.; Levin, E.; Dalrymple, J.F.; O’Mahony, B. Sustainable innovation adoption barriers: Water sustainability, food production and drip irrigation in Australia. Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 15, 727–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Daryanto, S.; Jacinthe, P.A.; Fu, B.; Zhao, W.; Wang, L. Valuing the ecosystem services of cover crops: Barriers and pathways forward. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 270–271, 76–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Shakya, B.; Shrestha, A.; Sharma, G.; Gurung, T.; Mihin, D.; Yang, S.; Jamir, A.; Win, S.; Han, X.; Yang, Y.; et al. Visualizing sustainability of selective mountain farming systems from Far-eastern Himalayas to support decision making. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Durić, K.; Cvijanović, D.; Prodanović, R.; Čavlin, M.; Kuzman, B.; Bulatović, M.L. Serbian agriculture policy: Economic analysis using the PSE approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Robinson, G.M.; Song, B. Rural transformation: Cherry growing on the Guanzhong Plain, China and the Adelaide Hills, South Australia. J. Geogr. Sci. 2019, 29, 675–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wu, F.; Ma, J. Evolution Dynamics of Agricultural Internet of Things Technology Promotion and Adoption in China. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2020, 2020, 1854193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Su, M.M.; Sun, Y.; Wall, G.; Min, Q. Agricultural heritage conservation, tourism and community livelihood in the process of urbanization–Xuanhua Grape Garden, Hebei Province, China. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 25, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nosov, A.; Murzin, D.; Tagirova, O.; Fedotova, M. State Support of Small Private Companies as the Basis for Sustainable Rural Development. Sci. Pap. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2020, 20, 329–334. [Google Scholar]
  105. Soetriono, S.; Soejono, D.; Hani, E.S.; Suwandari, A.; Narmaditya, B.S. Challenges and opportunities for agribusiness development: Lesson from Indonesia. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 791–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Nyam, Y.S.; Kotir, J.H.; Jordaan, A.J.; Ogundeji, A.A.; Turton, A.R. Drivers of change in sustainable water management and agricultural development in South Africa: A participatory approach. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 6, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Derunova, E.; Kireeva, N.; Pruschak, O. the Role of State Support in Ensuring the Incusive Development of the Agri-Food System. Sci. Pap. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2020, 20, 161–171. [Google Scholar]
  108. Kılıç, O.; Boz, İ.; Eryılmaz, G.A. Comparison of conventional and good agricultural practices farms: A socio-economic and technical perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Wadumestrige Dona, C.G.; Mohan, G.; Fukushi, K. Promoting urban agriculture and its opportunities and challenges—A global review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Akkaya, D.; Bimpikis, K.; Lee, H. Government interventions to promote agricultural innovation. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2021, 23, 437–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Chanda, S.; Bhat, M.; Shetty, K.G.; Jayachandran, K. Technology, policy, and market adaptation mechanisms for sustainable fresh produce industry: The case of tomato production in Florida, USA. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zheng, H.; Ma, J.; Yao, Z.; Hu, F. How Does Social Embeddedness Affect Farmers’ Adoption Behavior of Low-Carbon Agricultural Technology? Evidence From Jiangsu Province, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 909803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Thurman, M. Climate-Smart Agriculture Certification: A Call for Federal Action. Columbia Law Rev. 2022, 122, 37–60. [Google Scholar]
  114. Singh, P.; Kaur, J. Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Conventional and Organic Farming in Indian Punjab: A Behavioural Analysis. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 2022, 59, 512–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ren, Z.; Zhong, K. Driving mechanism of subjective cognition on farmers’ adoption behavior of straw returning technology: Evidence from rice and wheat producing provinces in China. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 922889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Parak, F.; Poursaeed, A.; Eshraghi-Samani, R.; Chaharsoughi-Amin, H. Designing a Model via Grounded Theory to Reduce Agricultural Work Injury among Orchardists in Ilam Province. J. Agromed. 2022, 27, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Qu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Z.; Ma, X.; Wei, G.; Kong, X. The Future of Agriculture: Obstacles and Improvement Measures for Chinese Cooperatives to Achieve Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Molossi, L.; Hoshide, A.K.; de Abreu, D.C.; de Oliveira, R.A. Agricultural Support and Public Policies Improving Sustainability in Brazil’s Beef Industry. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Alam, M.M.; Siwar, C.; bin Toriman, M.E.; Molla, R.I.; Talib, B. Climate change induced adaptation by paddy farmers in Malaysia. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2012, 17, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Obayelu, A.E. Cross-country comparison of voucher-based input schemes in sub-sahara Africa agricultural transformation: Lessons learned and policy implications. Agric. Conspec. Sci. 2016, 81, 251–267. [Google Scholar]
  121. Rosmiza, M.Z.; Davies, W.P.; Rosniza, A.C.R.; Jabil, M.J.; Wan Toren, W.Y.; Che Rosmawati, C.M. Developing More Green Agribusiness: The Case for Exploiting Malaysia’s Under-Utilised Rice Straw. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2015, 6, 532–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Jiang, W.; Yan, T.; Chen, B. Impact of media channels and social interactions on the adoption of straw return by Chinese farmers. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 144078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Dixon, J.; Richards, C. On food security and alternative food networks: Understanding and performing food security in the context of urban bias. Agric. Hum. Values 2016, 33, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Constance, D.H.; Choi, J.Y. Overcoming the barriers to organic adoption in the United States: A Look at pragmatic conventional producers in Texas. Sustainability 2010, 2, 163–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Ivascu, L.; Ahimaz, D.F.; Arulanandam, B.V.; Tirian, G.O. The perception and degree of adoption by urbanites towards urban farming. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. da Cunha, M.A.; de Cassia Vieira Cardoso, R. Urban gardens in promoting Food and Nutrition Security and sustainable development in Salvador, Brazil. Ambient. Soc. 2022, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 02185 g001
Figure 1. The methodological process followed in the study.
Figure 1. The methodological process followed in the study.
Sustainability 16 02185 g001
Sustainability 16 02185 g002
Figure 2. Number of studies published per year.
Figure 2. Number of studies published per year.
Sustainability 16 02185 g002
Table 1. Number of studies published by journal.
Table 1. Number of studies published by journal.
Journal NameNumber of Studies
Sustainability10
Agriculture and Human Values2
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment2
Journal of Cleaner Production2
Land Use Policy2
Scientific Papers-Series Management Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development2
Table 2. Government support mechanisms.
Table 2. Government support mechanisms.
Support MechanismsNumber of StudiesReferences
Subsidies32[1,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,15,17,18,19,20,21,24,26,31,33,35,37,39,40,42,43,45,48,49,50,51,53,61]
Programs18[8,12,16,17,19,25,28,30,33,36,37,42,47,49,53,54,55,62]
Regulations and laws14[4,6,7,12,19,21,22,32,38,41,44,50,51,55]
Financial assistance12[4,12,14,22,29,31,32,36,37,45,46,48]
Technical assistance/support/consulting/training11[17,28,31,32,33,34,37,38,44,48,53]
Interagency cooperation/collaboration/farmers/inter-sector coordination10[3,11,13,18,23,28,30,33,38,46]
Infrastructure development/facilities7[20,33,34,38,44,48,61]
Low-interest loan rates/credits6[2,17,18,20,47,49]
Public organizations and structures/development centers6[4,11,13,18,34,47]
Tariffs/taxes6[7,10,24,39,45,61]
Direct investments6[5,26,29,33,42,47]
Insurance5[9,17,21,45,48]
Research funding2[11,27]
Table 3. Goals and benefits.
Table 3. Goals and benefits.
Goals and BenefitsNumber of StudiesReferences
Adoption of ecological practices/reduction of environmental impact32[1,2,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,17,23,24,26,27,28,32,36,37,39,41,42,43,44,46,47,48,50,51,53,55]
Organic production7[1,15,34,39,42,43,62]
Stimulating the agriculture sector/growth7[1,15,17,36,46,47,48]
Rural development7[1,10,12,16,17,21,29]
Productivity6[25,34,39,40,47,48]
Training5[2,18,20,27,37]
Crop production4[4,5,30,40]
Infrastructure and resource management4[5,13,16,20]
Bioenergy development/biogas/bioeconomy4[7,10,12,25]
Technology adoption/diffusion4[31,40,41,47]
Energy security3[7,10,12]
Diversifying production3[1,16,34]
Agritourism development3[3,22,32]
Food security3[25,34,61]
Protected agriculture2[8,40]
Crop failure2[9,14]
Irrigation2[24,26]
Urban agriculture2[54,55]
Certification2[42,62]
Marketing2[19,43]
Disease control1[18]
Work conditions1[45]
Job creation1[10]
Extreme weather/events1[20]
Agricultural water management1[35]
Small businesses1[33]
Table 4. Countries/regions.
Table 4. Countries/regions.
Country/Region NameNumber of StudiesReferences
China11[2,5,12,22,30,31,32,41,44,46,51]
Australia6[4,13,24,26,30,61]
USA4[19,40,42,62]
Malaysia4[48,50,53,54]
Brazil3[16,47,55]
Russia3[21,33,36]
Africa2[14,49]
India2[15,43]
Canada2[3,19]
South Africa2[11,35]
Iran1[45]
Denmark1[39]
Turkey1[37]
Indonesia1[34]
Serbia1[29]
South Asia1[28]
Ghana1[25]
Sri Lanka1[23]
Nigeria1[20]
Nepal1[18]
Bolivia1[17]
Asia1[10]
Ethiopia1[9]
Mexico1[8]
Ukraine/Scandinavia1[7]
Spain1[6]
European Union1[1]
Table 5. Continents.
Table 5. Continents.
Continent NameNumber of Studies
Asia23
Europe9
Africa7
North America7
Australia6
South America4
Table 6. Crops/agricultural products.
Table 6. Crops/agricultural products.
Crops/Agricultural ProductsNumber of StudiesReferences
Straw4[7,44,50,51]
Rice/paddy4[23,34,48,51]
Cherry1[30]
Eggs1[39]
Tomato1[40]
Dairy1[42]
Horticulture1[45]
Fruits and vegetables1[15]
Cattle/beef1[47]
Tobacco1[16]
Cassava1[25]
Cardamom1[18]
Table 7. Areas in which the lack of government support has negative effects.
Table 7. Areas in which the lack of government support has negative effects.
AreasNumber of StudiesReferences
Environmental impacts (straw burning, bioenergy, agrobiodiversity)4[7,28,40,44]
Supply of organic foods/organic agricultural practices/organic production3[15,43,62]
Urban agriculture2[38,55]
Agritourism development1[3]
Crop diversification1[16]
Conflict in land-use policy1[28]
Productivity losses1[61]
Securing inputs1[49]
Drip irrigation1[26]
Direct marketing1[22]
Table 8. Proposed research agenda.
Table 8. Proposed research agenda.
DimensionResearch Findings That Support Research QuestionsProposed Research Questions
General
(a)
A lower number of studies on government support for sustainable agriculture in South America has been identified. Comprehending the differences in implemented mechanisms would be beneficial.
(b)
A lower number of studies on government support for sustainable agriculture in South America has been identified. More research on their effectiveness is necessary.
(c)
Agricultural subsidies are the main government support mechanism studied. Diversifying the types of studies in the area of government support for agricultural sustainability is needed.
(d)
Grounded on Institutional View theory, organizations gain legitimacy and increase their credibility with different stakeholders by adopting institutional norms and behaviors expected by society and governments.
(a)
How do government support mechanisms implemented in South America differ from those implemented in Europe or Asia in the agri-food industry?
(b)
Have government support mechanisms implemented in Asia and Europe been more effective than mechanisms adopted in South America in the agriculture industry?
(c)
Which type of supporting mechanism has been demanded by agri-food companies in different regions of the world?
(d)
What are the effects that government support has on agri-food companies’ legitimacy?
Environment
(e)
A low number of studies that investigate the effects of government support on water resources management was identified.
(f)
A low number of studies that investigate the effects of government support on protected agriculture was identified.
(e)
How does government support affect environmental initiatives related to agricultural water resources management?
(f)
How does protected agriculture benefit from government support?
Social
(g)
Few studies that assess the effects of government support on the social aspects of sustainable agriculture were identified.
(h)
More mechanisms related to environmental outcomes in comparison to social and economic results were identified. Further research in government support mechanisms focused on social and economic goals in the field of sustainable agriculture is required.
(i)
A low number of studies that investigate the effects of government support on agritourism development was identified.
(g)
What kind of government support mechanisms have been implemented to improve work conditions and promote job creation in the agriculture industry?
(h)
Which government support mechanisms have been most effective in dealing with food security challenges?
(i)
How can governments support agritourism development?
Economic
(j)
Government support mechanisms require direct or indirect financial assistance to companies. A precise evaluation of the use of these resources is required.
(k)
Some studies investigate the use of government support with the aim of stimulating the agriculture sector and promoting its growth.
(j)
Which indicators have been used to measure the economic impact of government support mechanisms for agri-food companies?
(k)
Have some specific government support mechanisms been able to promote economic development in the agriculture industry efficiently?
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barbosa, M.W. Government Support Mechanisms for Sustainable Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052185

AMA Style

Barbosa MW. Government Support Mechanisms for Sustainable Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability. 2024; 16(5):2185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052185

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barbosa, Marcelo Werneck. 2024. "Government Support Mechanisms for Sustainable Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda" Sustainability 16, no. 5: 2185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052185

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop