research papers in management accounting

Features and Information

About Crossref

Crossref Similarity Check is a multi-publisher initiative to screen published and submitted content for originality. The American Accounting Association uses the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts. View American Accounting Association's plagiarism policy here. To find out more about Crossref Similarity Check visit www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check

About the American Accounting Association

The American Accounting Association is the largest community of accountants in academia. Founded in 1916, we have a rich history built on leading-edge research and publications. The diversity of our membership creates a fertile environment for collaboration and innovation. Collectively, we shape the future of accounting through teaching, research, and a powerful network, ensuring our position as thought leaders in accounting.

All full-text papers are provided in PDF format. All PDF papers are searchable using the "Find" utility in Adobe Acrobat Reader. All full-text papers provide links to references.

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1558-8033
• Print ISSN 1049-2127
• Information for Authors
• Authorship Policy
• Plagiarism Policy
• Data Integrity Policy
• Citing Corrected Articles Policy
• Minimizing Overlapping Decision Rights Policy
• Prior Publication Policy

• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Terms & Conditions
• Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
• © Copyright 1998 - 2023 American Accounting Association. All rights reserved.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Open access
• Published: 27 November 2021

Strategic management accounting and performance implications: a literature review and research agenda

• Jafar Ojra 1 ,
• Abdullah Promise Opute   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6221-1856 2 , 3 &
• Mohammad Mobarak Alsolmi 4  

Future Business Journal volume  7 , Article number:  64 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

36k Accesses

9 Citations

Metrics details

The important role that management accounting plays in driving organisational performance has been reiterated in the literature. In line with that importance, the call for more effort to enhance knowledge on strategic management accounting has increased over the years. Responding to that call, this study utilised a qualitative approach that involved a systematic review to synthesise existing literature towards understanding the strategic management accounting foundation, contingency factors, and organisational performance impact. Based on the evidence in reviewed literature, we flag key directions for advancing this theoretical premise towards providing further insights that would enable practitioners strategically align their strategic management accounting practices for optimal organisational performance. The limitations of this study have been acknowledged.

Introduction

Successful managerial decisions enable organisational profitability and accounting aids effective managerial decisions [ 75 ]. Aimed at optimising the decision-enabling substance of accounting, management was criticised in 1980s as being too focused on internal operational issues that offer little to management from the point of strategy formulation and sustaining competitive advantage (CIMA Report Footnote 1 ). Recognising the importance for a broader impact of accounting on managerial decision-making, Simmonds [ 82 , p. 26] introduced and defined strategic management accounting (SMA) as “the provision and analysis of management accounting data about a business and its competitors, for use in developing and monitoring business strategy” .

Subsequently there has been increasing efforts that stress the importance for organisations to embrace strategic management accounting theory towards boosting strategic decision-making and organisational performance (e.g. [ 4 , 8 , 9 , 17 , 23 , 53 , 58 , 86 , 90 , 48 ], amongst others). As rightly noted by Turner et al. [ 86 ], organisations that aim to enhance their competitiveness and performance, must not only develop but also “implement internal policies and procedures such as strategic management accounting that are consistent with their business strategies and account for changing competitive demands” (p. 33). Doing that will enable the strategic management accounting tool to be effectively used to drive corporate success. This is the underlying argument in this study.

The task of profitably satisfying customers is becoming more challenging [ 61 , 65 , 67 ]. Meeting that challenge requires that organisations recognise the importance for effective decision-making. Accountants play a significant role in enabling effective decision-making in organisations (e.g. [ 21 , 23 , 27 ]). Accounting information enables the organisation determine the going concern [ 6 , 36 ]. Accounting provides the management with relevant information for ensuring and sustaining growth and profitability. The strategic management accounting foundation emphasises that in order to fully fulfil its management decision-making enabling function, accounting practices must not only focus on the internal but also on the external components relating to the organisation's operations. In other words, accounting should embrace a much broader and market-oriented approach and focus on costing (e.g. [ 8 , 17 , 58 , 78 ]); planning, control and performance measurement (e.g. [ 17 , 58 ]), strategic decision-making (e.g. [ 8 , 58 ]), customer accounting (e.g. [ 58 , 86 ]) and competitor accounting (e.g. [ 17 , 58 , 86 ]).

Given the importance of strategic management accounting to effective management decision-making and corporate success, there remains a growing interest in understanding the topic. Little wonder therefore that the advocacy for more research towards a better understanding of what strategic management accounting practices organisations adopt and what motivates their preference for one technique over the other (e.g. [ 4 , 53 , 58 , 86 , 90 ]) remains current. While embracing strategic management accounting is a critical path for enabling effective managerial decision-making and boosting organisational performance (e.g. [ 3 , 9 , 58 ]), the enablement outcome of strategic management accounting practice would hinge on the effectiveness of the organisation in tailoring its strategic management accounting practices to its strategy and environment [ 9 , 11 , 58 ].

Following that contingency logic, this research is a response to the aforementioned call and the aim in this study is to contribute to strategic management accounting discourse by critically analysing the body of knowledge towards enhancing the understanding of how knowledge has evolved in this theoretical domain and also to contribute to knowledge by flagging directions for further knowledge development. To achieve the aim of this study, the theoretical focus in this study is premised along three questions:

What strategic management accounting techniques can organisations use towards driving organisational performance?

What factors would influence strategic management accounting techniques usage and performance association? and

What future research gaps exist based on the explored literature?

Literature review

This study follows the theoretical foundation that strategic management accounting would aid effective management decision-making, and ultimately boost organisational performance. In line with the aim of this study, relevant literature is reviewed to explain the theoretical premise of this study. The literature review is organised along three core themes in strategic management accounting discourse, namely, strategic management accounting techniques, contingency factors of strategic management accounting usage, and the impact of strategic management accounting on organisational performance.

Strategic management accounting: definition and techniques

Management accounting is noted to involve the “generation, communication, and use of financial and non-financial information for managerial decision-making and control activities” ([ 28 ] p. 3). One major criticism of accounting in the 1980s relates to the fact that accountants have hardly taken a proactive role in the strategic management process [ 7 , 8 ]. According to Nixon and Burns [ 55 , p. 229], although strategic management has been variously defined, there is “broad consensus that the key activities are (1) development of a grand strategy, purpose or sense of direction, (2) formulation of strategic goals and plans to achieve them, (3) implementation of plans, and (4) monitoring, evaluation and corrective action”. The role of management accounting is to enable effective decision-making, and it involves typically information gathering and analysis, identifying options, implementation, monitoring and evaluation [ 16 ]. Thus, the focus in strategic management accounting, rephrased also as accounting for strategic positioning [ 73 , 74 ], is to embrace a broader approach that incorporates a strategic management focus into its dynamics towards effectively enabling management decision-making and organisational performance [ 8 , 80 ]).

Since the first attempt by Simmonds [ 82 , p. 26] who defined strategic management accounting as “the provision and analysis of management accounting data about a business and its competitors, for use in developing and monitoring business strategy” , there have been numerous attempts to enhance that definition and identify core techniques of strategic management accounting. For example, CIMA [ 16 ] describes strategic management accounting as a management accounting form that emphasises focusing on information relating to external factor of the entity and also on non-financial information as well as information that is generated internally. In a much earlier contribution, Bromwich [ 7 , p. 28] offers a description of strategic management accounting as involving “the provision and analysis of financial information on the organisation’s product markets and competitors’ costs and cost structures and the monitoring of the organisation’s strategies and those of its competitors in the market over a number of periods” (Cited in [ 56 , p. 14]).

In their 2008 study, Cadez and Guilding asked the question “what is strategic management accounting?” (p. 838). In that same study, they conclude, based on evidence from reviewed literature, that there are two perspectives of strategic management accounting. While one perspective focuses on strategically oriented accounting techniques, the other focuses on the actual involvement of accountants in the strategic decision-making process. Following the former perspective (e.g. [ 8 , 9 , 17 , 58 ]), existing literature distils sixteen (16) strategic management accounting techniques that are categorised under five SMA themes (e.g. [ 9 , 11 , 58 ]):

Strategic costing;

Strategic planning, control and performance measurement;

Strategic decision-making;

Competitor accounting; and

Customer accounting.

Strategic costing

According to literature (e.g. [ 8 , 11 , 23 ]), strategic and marketing information-based cost data can be leveraged by organisations to ensure effective strategies for achieving sustainable competitive advantage. Thus, organisations must recognise the importance of integrating cost strategies and undertake multiple strategic cost analyses. Literature distils five key costing techniques: attribute costing (e.g. Roslender and Hart 2003), life-cycle costing (e.g. [ 8 , 17 ]), quality costing (e.g. [ 17 ]), target costing (e.g. [ 8 , 17 ]) and value chain costing (e.g. [ 8 ]).

Strategic planning, control and performance measurement

Literature has also underlined the need for organisations to give due attention to planning, control and performance measurement features of the strategic management accounting, as doing that is important in the pro-active market orientation approach for competing effectively in the marketplace (e.g. [ 8 , 58 ], Chenhall 2005). Core components under the strategic planning, control and performance measurement tool includes benchmarking (e.g. [ 8 , 17 ]) and integrated performance management (Balanced Scorecard) (e.g. [ 8 , 17 ]).

Strategic decision-making

As a strategic management accounting tool, strategic decision-making is a critical tool for supporting strategic choice [ 11 ]. Core strategic decision-making options include strategic costing (e.g. [ 58 ]), strategic pricing (e.g. [ 11 , 58 ]) and brand valuation (e.g. [ 11 , 58 ]).

The importance of addressing strategic costing as a key strategic decision-making element has been emphasised in the literature (e.g. [ 58 , 78 , 79 ]). In this discourse, it is underlined that effectively driving competitive advantage requires cost analysis that explicitly considers strategic issues. In line with that viewpoint, Cadez and Guilding [ 8 ] note that strategic costing involves “the use of cost data based on strategic and marketing information to develop and identify superior strategies that will produce a sustainable competitive advantage” (p. 27).

In the literature too, strategic pricing is underlined as another core element the strategic decision-making typology of strategic management accounting (e.g. [ 8 , 58 ], Simmonds 1982). According to scholars, understanding market competition level, which as noted by Guilding et al. [ 29 , p. 120] entails the appraisal of the following factors: “competitor price reaction, price elasticity; projected market growth; and economies of scale and experience”, is important (e.g. [ 8 , 11 , 58 ]).

Within the strategic management accounting literature, brand valuation is the third element of the strategic decision-making technique. The brand valuation component “involves combining projected brand earnings (an accounting-orientated measure) with a multiple derived from the brand’s strength on strategic factors such as the nature of the brand’s market, its position in that market and its level of marketing support” [ 29 , p. 118]. In the view of Cescon et al. [ 11 ], brand valuation enables organisations to understand market reputation trends over time and potential implications for marketing executives and strategic accounting. Cescon et al. [ 11 ] contend that organisations would achieve a variable brand valuation that would provide a potential measure of marketing achievement when perceived quality and branded products are considered, while Guilding et al. [ 29 ] remind that achievable impact of brand valuation would hinge, amongst others, on the valuation method used.

Competitor accounting

According to Porter [ 72 ], strategy involves developing appropriate tools that enable a firm to analyse and determine its position in a competitive market. Thus, a firm selects suitable strategies that enables it compete more effectively over its rivals. To effectively do that, a firm needs to collect competitor accounting information. The importance of giving due attention to competitor accounting has been underlined in the literature (e.g. [ 11 , 17 , 58 ]). Three forms of competitor accounting tools are described in the literature, namely, competitor cost assessment (e.g. [ 11 , 17 , 58 ]), competitor position monitoring (e.g. [ 11 , 58 ]) and competitor performance appraisal (e.g. [ 11 , 17 , 58 ]).

Customer accounting

The fifth cluster of strategic management accounting techniques described in the literature relates to customer accounting (e.g. [ 49 , 58 ]). Customer accounting concerns practices aimed at appraising profit, sales or costs related to customers or customer segments [ 58 ]. Core customer accounting techniques include customer profitability analysis (e.g. [ 30 , 58 ]), lifetime customer profitability analysis (e.g. [ 58 ]) and valuation of customers as assets (e.g. [ 30 , 58 ]).

The contingency factors of strategic management accounting

According to management accounting discourse, when organisations carefully embrace appropriate strategic management accounting practices, they would ensure successful managerial decisions that would ultimately lead to optimising organisational performance (e.g. [ 48 , 53 , 56 , 58 ]). Thus, the extent of improved performance that an organisation would achieve would depend on its careful utilisation of appropriate strategic management techniques. As noted by Roslender and Hart (2003), p. 4 and further supported by subsequent literature (e.g. [ 34 , 58 ]), “the adoption of strategically oriented management accounting techniques and accountants’ participation in strategic management processes”, is a core research premise. In line with the carefulness notion mentioned above, the contingency perspective has been widely utilised in the effort to understand strategic management accounting practices and performance impact (e.g. [ 8 , 12 , 30 , 34 , 58 ]). The underlying foundation in the contingency perspective is based on the notion “that an organisation maximises its efficiency by matching between structure and environment” [ 22 , p. 49]. According to Otley [ 68 ]:

The contingency approach to management is based on the premise that there is no universally appropriate accounting system that applies equally to all organisations in all circumstances. Rather, it is suggested that particular features of an appropriate accounting system will depend on the specific circumstances in which an organisation finds itself. Thus, a contingency theory must identify specific aspects of an accounting system which are associated with certain defined circumstances and demonstrate an appropriate matching (p. 413).

Thus, the central foundation in the contingency perspective is that no one single accounting system is universally fit for all organisation in all circumstances (e.g. [ 41 ]). No one accounting control system can be seen as “best” for all situations; rather, the appropriateness of any control system would depend on the organisation's ability to adapt effectively to the environment surrounding its operations [ 41 , 58 , 86 ].

From reviewed literature, numerous researchers have flagged key contingency factors that should be considered in relation to strategic management accounting practice. Four factors were identified as critical contingency factors in the strategic management accounting systems design in Cadez and Guilding's [ 8 ] study, namely: business strategy, strategy formulation pattern, market orientation and firm size. On their part, Islam and Hu [ 41 ] identify core organisational effectiveness factors to include technology, environmental volatility, organisational structure, information system and size of the organisation.

Analysed together, the conceptualisation in the aforementioned studies [ 8 , 41 ] reflect perspectives that have been recognised in the 1980s. For example, Merchant [ 50 ] describe contingency factors to include firm size, product diversity, extent of decentralisation and budgetary information use. In their study of accounting information systems, Gordon and Narayanan [ 26 ] classify three core contingency factors to include perceived environmental uncertainty, information characteristics and organisational structure. Based on a study that examined the extent to which accountants were involved in the strategic management process, CIMA Footnote 2 reports three key contingency factors: “organisational influences, accountant led influences and practicalities” (p. 12). Exploring strategic management accounting practices in the Palestinian context, Ojra [ 58 ] conceptualised a comprehensive contingency perspective that considered (1) organisational structure (involving formalisation and decentralisation), (2) organisational size, (3) technology and (4) organisational strategy. In more recent literature, Pavlatos [ 70 ] suggests seven factors that affect strategic management accounting usage in the hospitality industry (hotels) in Greece, namely, “perceived environmental uncertainty, structure, quality of information systems, organisational life cycle stage, historical performance, strategy and size” (p. 756).

The contingency framing in this study draws from the theoretical guideline which suggests that both the internal and external environments of organisations should be considered in the effort to advance strategic management accounting literature (e.g. [ 58 , 70 ]). The conceptual framing in this study includes two external (perceived environmental uncertainty—competitive intensity, and market turbulence) and three internal (organisational structure—formalisation, and decentralisation, and organisational strategy) factors.

Perceived environmental uncertainty and strategic management accounting usage

From the perceptual lens, the environment could be viewed as certain or uncertain only to the extent that decision makers perceive it to be (e.g. [ 1 , 11 ]). Perceived environmental uncertainty is described as the absence of information relating to organisations, activities and happenings in the environment [ 20 ]. According to Cescon et al. [ 11 ], organisations must give due attention to their operational environment because engaging with environmental uncertainty factors would enable them identify key change drivers.

Prior literature has documented that perceived uncertainty significantly influences the extent to which firms would embrace strategic management accounting practices (e.g. [ 49 , 58 , 70 ]). According to that foundation, how firms respond from the point of strategic management accounting practices that they would endorse would depend on the nature of environmental uncertainties that surround their operational activities.

Studying the hotel property setting, Pavlatos [ 70 ] documents a positive correlation between the degree of environmental uncertainty and the use of strategic management accounting tools. In other words, the higher the perceived environmental uncertainty, the higher the need for use of strategic management accounting tools. Intensified use of strategic management accounting tools is essential because that will enable the hotels to manage the uncertainties, and be more effective in managerial decision-making, and ultimately improves organisational performance [ 70 ]. The notion of a significant influence of environmental uncertainty on strategic management accounting practices is supported by prior literature (e.g. [ 15 ]). According to them, managers who operate in highly uncertain environments would require information that is timely, current and frequent. Other scholars have also argued that environmental uncertainty would be associated with more pro-active and externally focused accounting systems (e.g. [ 32 , 38 ]).

In their study of Italian manufacturing companies, Cescon et al. [ 11 ] found a positive association of perceived environmental uncertainty and strategic pricing usage as a feature of the strategic decision-making SMA technique. In other words, the more the perceived environmental uncertainty, the higher the usage of the strategic pricing feature of the strategic decision-making SMA component.

In the perceived environmental uncertainty literature, two core dimensions have been distilled, namely competitive intensity and market turbulence (e.g. [ 30 , 58 ]). Market turbulence—a subset of environmental turbulence [ 47 ], is defined by Calantone et al. [ 10 ] as characterised by continuous changes in customers’ preference/demands, in price/cost structures and in the composition of competitors. In settings where there is high market turbulence, organizations would need to modify their products and approaches to the market more frequently [ 44 ]. On the other hand, the notion of competitive intensity relates to the logic that organisations compete for numerous resources, such as raw materials, selling and distribution channels, as well as quality, variety and price of products [ 26 , 46 ]. Achieving organisation-environment alignment in highly competitive environments requires that organisations have the capacity to effectively detect environmental signals and timely communicate environmental information (e.g. [ 88 ]).

Exploring Australian hospitality industry, McManus [ 49 ] examined the association of competition intensity and perceived environmental uncertainty on customer accounting techniques usage. The study suggests that competition intensity positively associates with customer accounting practices but also found that higher perceived environmental uncertainty would not lead to greater usage of customer accounting techniques in the explored hotels. In a much similar conceptualisation, Cescon et al. [ 11 ] examined the association of environmental uncertainty and competitive forces on strategic management accounting techniques usage in large Italian manufacturing firms. Empirically, that study found that external factors (environmental uncertainty and competitive forces) positively associate with SMA usage (strategic pricing, balanced scorecard, risk analysis, target costing, life-cycle costing). Based on the two-dimensional conceptualisation, Ojra [ 58 ] examined the relationship between perceived environmental uncertainty and SMA usage in Palestinian firms. Ojra [ 58 ] hypothesised a positive correlation of perceived environmental uncertainty (conceptualised to include competition intensity and market turbulence) but found no support. To the contrary, Ojra [ 58 ] documents a potential for negative influence of perceived environmental uncertainty on strategic management accounting techniques usage, however only significant for the market turbulence dimension. In other words, Ojra [ 58 ] suggests that market turbulence associates negatively with strategic management accounting techniques usage in medium Palestine firms.

Organisational structure (formalisation) and strategic management accounting usage

Across the various streams of management, formalisation has been mentioned as a key contingency factor in understanding the operational dynamics of organisations (e.g. [ 58 , 63 , 64 ]). With regard to strategic management accounting discourse, this notion has been numerously supported (e.g. [ 26 , 58 , 85 ]).

Studying the influence of formalisation in the functional relationship between the accounting and marketing departments, Opute et al. [ 64 ] suggest a positive association. In other words, they argue that the more formalised the processes in the firm, the higher the achieved integration between both functional areas. However, Opute et al. [ 64 ] note that whether this positive association is achieved would depend on the integration component (information sharing, unified effort and involvement) considered.

In the strategic management accounting domain, there is mixed evidence of the association of organisational structure on strategic management accounting usage. For example, Ojra [ 58 ] hypothesised that less formalised organisational structure would lead to higher use of strategic management accounting techniques in Palestinian firms but found no support for that hypothesis. In that study, no support was found for the notion that less formalised structures would lead to higher use of strategic management accounting techniques, both for total SMA as well as for all the dimensions of SMA. Thus, that study concludes that formalisation has no significant influence on strategic management accounting techniques usage in Palestinian firms. That conclusion supports the findings in Gordon and Narayanan [ 26 ], but contrast the view in Tuan Mat’s [ 85 ] exploration of management accounting practices.

Organisational structure (decentralisation) and strategic management accounting usage

Similar to formalisation, management scholars have noted decentralisation as a core organisational structure factor that should be given due attention in the drive to enhance the understanding of contingency theory (e.g. [ 58 , 62 , 63 ]). Organisational structure has been noted to influence the strategic management accounting practices of a firm (e.g. [ 58 , 70 ]). Within that foundation, decentralisation (or its opposite) has been flagged as a major factor. A contention that has been underlined numerously in the discourse is that strategic management accounting usage would be higher in organisations that embrace decentralised structure. Following that foundation, Pavlatos [ 70 ] hypothesised that SMA usage is higher in decentralised hotels than in centralised hotels in Greece. The results support the hypothesis: there is higher need for strategic management accounting practices in decentralised firms, as lower-level managers require more information to aid decision-making.

The above conclusion supports as well as contrasts prior literature, namely Chenhall [ 14 ] and Verbeeten [ 87 ], respectively. According to Chenhall [ 14 , p. 525], “strategic management accounting has characteristics related to aspects of horizontal organisation as they aim to connect strategy to the value chain and link activities across the organisation…”. Chenhall [ 14 ] adds that a typical approach in horizontal organisation is identifying customer-oriented strategic priorities and then exploiting process efficiency, continuous improvements, flattened structures and team empowerment, to initiate change, a conclusion that suggests that higher use of strategic management accounting practices would seem ideal in such decentralised organisational structure. The reason for that outcome is that in decentralised structure, lower-level managers can adapt their MACS as necessary to meet requirements [ 52 ], a logic that finds support in McManus [ 49 ] who found that customer accounting usage is higher in Australian hotels that are decentralised than those that are centralised. In contrast to that logic, Verbeeten [ 87 ] found decentralisation to associate negatively with major changes in the decision-influencing components of MACS.

Insight about the less developed context, namely about Palestinian firms lend support to, as well as contrast past literature. According to Ojra [ 58 ], decentralisation has a tendency to associate negatively with strategic management accounting usage. Therefore, although statistically insignificant, the results indicate that explored Palestinian firms that endorse decentralised decision-making process would seemingly have lesser need for strategic management accounting practices. On the evidence that decentralisation may have a negative influence on strategic management accounting usage, Ojra [ 58 ] supports Verbeeten [ 87 ] but contrasts Pavlatos [ 70 ].

Organisational strategy and strategic management accounting usage

An internal organisational factor that has been considered important in the understanding of contingency perspective of management accounting relates to organisational strategy (e.g. [ 8 , 17 , 58 ]). Hambrick [ 33 ] defined strategy as:

A pattern of important decisions that guides the organisation in its relationship with its environment; affects the internal structure and processes of the organisation; and centrally affects the organisation’s performance (p.567).

In the strategic management accounting discourse, organisational strategy has been mentioned as one of the key factors that would condition strategic management accounting practices of a firm (e.g. [ 9 , 58 , 70 , 86 ]). For example, Turner et al. [ 86 ] note that in hotel property setting, strategic management accounting use would hinge on the market orientation business strategy of the firm. Given the notion that strategic management accounting would aid management decision-making and lead ultimately to improved organisational performance, there is some legitimacy in expecting that organisations that align their strategic management accounting practices to the strategic orientation of the firm would achieve a higher organisational performance.

Following Miles and Snow’s [ 51 ] strategy typology (prospector, defender, analyser, and reactor), efforts to understand the association of strategy to strategic management accounting tools usage have also tried to understand how the various strategy typologies play out in this association. For example, Cadez and Guilding [ 9 ] considered the prospector, defender and analyser typologies in the Slovenian context, while Ojra [ 58 ] considered the prospector and defender typologies in the Palestinian contexts.

Cadez and Guilding [ 9 ] report that companies that endorse the analyser strategy, which is a deliberate strategy formulation approach, are not highly market oriented, but tend to show high usage of SMA techniques, except for competitor accounting technique. Further, they report that prospector strategy-oriented companies also pursue a deliberate strategy formulation approach, but are highly market oriented, and SMA techniques usage is fairly high (for competitor accounting) and averagely high (for strategic costing). For very high prospector-oriented companies, they are highly market oriented, have a strong strategy drive and a very high SMA techniques usage. For the defender strategy-type companies, they suggest that such companies are not only average in their market orientation, but also in their usage of SMA techniques.

In the study of Palestinian companies, Ojra [ 58 ] offers insights that resonate relatively with the findings in Cadez and Guilding [ 9 ]. Ojra [ 58 ] suggests that prospector companies have a higher usage of SMA techniques than defender-type companies. So, SMA technique usage is positively associated to prospector strategy (see also [ 8 ]. Elaborating the findings, Ojra [ 58 ] reports that prospector-type companies focused more on four SMA techniques (mean values reported), namely SMAU-Planning, Control and Performance Measurement (4.601), SMAU-Strategic Decision Making (4.712), SMAU-Competitor Accounting (4.689) and SMAU-Customer Accounting (4.734), statistical results that are significantly higher than the results for 'defender'-type companies. Cinquini and Tenucci [ 17 ] lend support to Ojra [ 58 ]: 'defender'-type companies give more attention to the Costing dimension of SMA.

Without emphasising the strategy typologies, Pavlakos (2015) comments that organisational strategy affects SMA usage in the Greek hotel industry.

Strategic management accounting and organisational performance

A central tenet in the strategic management accounting foundation is that management accounting would significantly aid organisations to achieve sustained competitiveness [ 7 , 82 ]. Implicitly, these scholars argue that in order to stay competitive in the marketplace, organisations should not only focus on cost-volume-profit issues, but rather embrace a broad externally focused management accounting approach that is strategically driven and provides financial information that enables management to effectively formulate and monitor the organisation's strategy. Thus, management accounting should also focus on competitor information as that will enable management effectively organise the firm's strategic structure.

Over the years, there is growing recognition of the importance of strategic management accounting to organisations, leading therefore to increasing research attention. One area that has received attention in the strategic management accounting discourse relates to the organisational performance enhancement notion (e.g. [ 23 , 56 , 58 , 77 , 86 ]).

Insights from Malaysia also add to the discourse on the impact of strategic management accounting usage on organisational performance. In their study of Malaysian electrical and electronic firms, Noordin et al. [ 56 ] examined the extent of usage of strategic management accounting and influence on the performance of the participating firms. The study found that in explored Malaysian companies, the extent of strategic management accounting usage was significantly related to organisation’s performance. That conclusion supports Cadez and Guilding [ 8 ] who contend that there is a positive association between strategic management accounting usage and organisational performance.

In a performance perspective that considers the ISO 9000 Quality Management System (QMS) aspect, Sedevich-Fons [ 77 ] examined the connection between strategic management accounting and quality management systems performance. The findings show that strategic management accounting and quality management are complementary and their effective implementation would enhance overall performance. Sedevich-Fons [ 77 ] notes further that when both are used in conjunction that would spread SMA techniques and enable full exploitation of Quality Management Systems.

Insights from the less developed economy context also associate organisational performance to the implementation of strategic management accounting practices (e.g. [ 3 , 57 , 58 ]). In a conceptual approach that aimed to address one major gap in previous literature, Ojra [ 58 ] examined both the financial and non-financial dimensions of organisational performance. According to Ojra [ 58 ], strategic management accounting usage does not impact the financial dimension of organisational performance but exerts significant positive impact on non-financial performance. That finding resonates with Perera et al. [ 71 ] conclusion that various forms of management accounting associate positively with the use of non-financial measures.

On their part, Oboh and Ajibolade [ 57 ], in their investigation of the association between strategic management accounting practices and strategic decision-making in Nigerian banks, found that explored Nigerian banks “practice SMA not as a concept, but as a principle of operation, and that SMA contributes significantly to strategic decision-making in the area of competitive advantage and increased market share” (p.119).

Alabdullah [ 3 ] offers evidence that adds support to the insights in the aforementioned studies [ 57 , 58 ]. In a study that explored the Jordanian service sector, Alabdullah [ 3 ] found that strategic management accounting enables performance in the service sector in Jordan. If strategic management accounting is effectively implemented, that will enable optimal strategic decision-making and ultimately improve organisational performance.

Research methodology

Research design.

Qualitative research method [ 18 , 76 ] is used in this study to achieve the objectives of this research. Following the methodological approach, as well as responding to the research call, in a past study on the contingency perspective of strategic management accounting [ 41 ], a study which was literature review-based, literature review-based qualitative research approach was deemed fit in this study.

A systematic review approach (e.g. [ 5 , 39 , 81 ]) is used in this research on the topic of strategic management accounting. Using the systematic review approach in this study is appropriate because it enables a systematic and transparent approach in identifying, selecting, and evaluating relevant published literature on a specific topic or question [ 42 , 83 ]. Furthermore, systematic review approach was deemed appropriate for this study as it has been documented to aid core research gaps identification and steering future research (e.g. [ 40 , 59 , 66 ]).

Alves et al. [ 5 ] forward a two-stage guideline for systematic review of literature: planning the review and conducting the review and analysis. As they noted, researchers should describe how the systematic approach was planned (in the former) and also describe the phases of the review and selection of literature (in the latter). In this research, effort was made to combine the best evidence: careful planning was used to determine literatures for inclusion or exclusion (e.g. [ 5 , 65 , 67 ]). The planning was focused at identifying relevant publications in various academic journals on the topic of strategic management accounting. First, the theoretical themes to be considered in the conceptual premise of this study were confirmed and academic resource for tracking relevant publications determined [ 5 , 66 , 83 ].

In the preliminary stage of the literature review, electronic search was carried out to identify relevant literature relating to strategic management accounting. Three steps were taken in the systematic review: we searched the literature, analysed and synthesised the literature, and wrote the review. Several databases were scanned using key search terms to capture relevant literature [ 81 ]. Core search terms were used, such as strategic management accounting, historical aspects of strategic management accounting, contingencies of strategic management accounting practices, strategic management accounting and organisational strategy, strategic management accounting and organisational performance, amongst others. Relevant publications were also found using data extraction tools such as Google Scholar, Emerald Insight and Research Gate.

Using the aforementioned methodological approach, a collection of relevant articles published in academic journals was identified. Identifying the relevant literature in this study followed methodological guideline [ 69 ]: criteria of language, relevance and type of research to identify relevant studies were embraced, and articles that contained non-English contents and also articles that did not fit closely to the thematic premise of this study were excluded. It is important to emphasise here that this study recognises that not all publications relating to the topic of strategic management accounting may have been considered in this research. However, for the scope of this piece of research, the body of literature covered in this study was deemed adequate for the conceptual framing.

Table 1 shows a sample of selected literature covered in this piece of research, pinpointing clearly the focus, context of the studies and findings from the studies.

The analysis

The interpretive approach of analysis was followed in processing the qualitative data to achieve reliable meaning in this study (e.g. [ 59 , 65 , 67 , 84 ]). Following that precedence, an iterative approach that involved reading reviewed literature back and forth, was used in this study. Using that approach, a synthesis of literature was undertaken to capture the core threads, debates and themes in the literature (e.g. [ 65 , 67 ]). Guided also by that methodological approach, relevant directions for future research have been flagged towards enhancing the knowledge about strategic management accounting and performance association.

Subjectivity is a major concern in qualitative researches (e.g. [ 18 , 76 ]). To address that concern, steps taken in this research to validate the articles incorporated into this research include rigor of conduct and strength of evidence by cross-referencing, as well as undertaking a duplicate check (e.g. [ 76 , 81 ]).

The findings

Prompted by the central threads that emerged from the analysis of the selected literature, the findings from this study are organised along three core themes: strategic management accounting techniques, contingencies of strategic management accounting techniques usage and the organisational performance implications of strategic management accounting usage.

The importance of management accounting, and in particular the strategic management accounting element as a tool for enabling top management to make effective decisions that enable organisation compete effectively in the marketplace, is gaining increasing mention in management discourse. In that discourse, five core categorisations of SMA techniques: strategic costing; strategic planning, control and performance measurement; strategic decision-making; competitor accounting; and customer accounting. While literature distils numerous forms of strategic management accounting techniques that organisations may embrace towards enabling effective management decision-making and organisational performance, evidence was found in reviewed literature that in some organisations, practitioners do not believe that strategic management accounting as a separate concept is a notion they subscribe to (e.g. CIMA Footnote 3 ; [ 48 , 55 ]). For example, CIMA Footnote 4 documents that participants unanimously do not subscribe to the notion, a conclusion which lends support to prior literature [ 48 , 55 ] that notes that strategic management accounting as a term, did not exist in the lexicon of accounting practitioners.

Grounded on the substance that effective use of the SMA techniques would improve organisational performance, immense research effort has focused on how organisations can effectively align the SMA usage towards achieving desired performance improvement. Premised in that theoretical domain, this study examined existing literature on the contingency factors of competitive intensity, market turbulence, formalisation, decentralisation and organisational strategy and SMA usage. Cumulative evidence obtained from the review of literature reinforces the need for organisations to pay particular attention to their operational environment in their use of SMA techniques. Reinforcing the fit principle, the cummulative evidence underlines that optimising the benefits of the strategic management accounting techniques in enabling effective customer orientation and boosting organisational performance is dependent on the organisation's ability to effectively align strategic management accounting practices to its operational environment. In other words, what works for an organisation would depend on the organisational dynamics, internal, as well as external. For example, formalisation may work for some but not for some, as decentralisation could work for some but not for some. Similarly, the utility of SMA techniques would hinge on the competitive intensity and market turbulence features of an organisation. Thus, aligning SMA practices to the internal and external features of an organisation is essential to enable them adapt effectively to their circumstances, make rational decisions and optimise their performance. So, alignment is critical because there is no one-size fits all approach for achieving customer orientation and organisational performance goals.

The third focal point of this study relates to the association of SMA techniques usage to organisational performance. Reviewed literature shows that organisations are achieving higher performance through the use of SMA techniques. In other words, effective use of SMA techniques would improve organisational performance. The plausibility in that performance outcome lies in the fact that organisations are able to utilise appropriate SMA measures to ensure effective, customer, competitor, strategic decision-making, costing, and planning and control orientation in their operational activities. Further on the performance point, literature also suggests that management control systems (MCS)–performance relationship is mediated by business strategy (e.g. [ 2 ]). Also, that study documents that the impacts (both indirect and total) of MCS on performance are stronger for family businesses than non-family businesses.

Conclusions

Conclusions and implications.

One of the major challenges that organisations are facing in today's dynamic marketplace is to steer their organisations in a way that they can stay competitive. In the contemporary world, where globalisation and technological evolution have expanded the options that customers have (e.g. [ 31 , 61 , 65 , 67 ]), organisations must strive hard to win the loyalty of customers. For organisations wishing to achieve that, strategic management accounting practices offer a strategic pathway. Organisations must embrace strategic management accounting practices that would enable them understand the market, their competitors, and the customers and leverage the intelligence from that knowledge to organise their operations towards profitably satisfying the customer. To effectively do that, organisations must avoid the mistake of focusing only on the internal issues; rather, their effort must be tailored towards embracing strategic management accounting practices that would enable them to be fully informed of the market trends, customer dynamics and competitor trends. Thus, organisations must ensure that good costing, planning, control and performance measurement; strategic decision-making, customer accounting and competitor accounting measures are embraced to enable them compete effectively.

Furthermore, in that drive to compete effectively in the market and profitably satisfy customers, organisations would not only need to embrace appropriate strategic management accounting techniques but also do that bearing in mind the environments that surround the operational activities. In other words, organisations must give due attention to the contingencies of their operational setting. Organisations must ensure a good blend of critical factors that would enable their optimal operation. Due attention must be given to organisational structure (centralisation or decentralisation of decision-making process), external environment (dynamism and turbulence), technological development, strategic approach, size of the organisation, amongst others. Doing that is critical for corporate success because there is no one size fits all approach—the outcome achieved would depend significantly on the dynamics surrounding the operational activities of the firm.

Thirty-three months on after Covid 19 was documented, Footnote 5 the pandemic is still ever present and has remained a daunting global challenge. Competing effectively in the dynamic marketplace is a major challenge for organisations, and with the Corona pandemic exerting unprecedent effects on organisations globally, most organisations are facing a more daunting challenge to survive (e.g. [ 65 , 67 ]). Organisations must strive to strategically orientate their management accounting practices to enable them find ways to effectively navigate the daunting challenges they face in this Corona era.

Implications of this study

The implications of this study are organised along managerial and theoretical implications.

Managerial Implications —Managers are reminded that optimal use of strategic management accounting techniques would boost organisational performance. Achieving high levels of organisational performance would however hinge on an organisation's ability to effectively align its SMA techniques usage to its internal and external dynamics. In other words, managers must bear in mind that there is no one-size fits all approach; therefore, they should endorse SMA techniques usage that fits their operational dynamics.

Theoretical Implications —In line with the central objective of this paper to sensitise the need for enhancing the understanding of the contingency perspective of strategic management accounting, the theoretical implications of this study are tailored towards specifying core gaps in the reviewed literature.

Overall, evidence from reviewed literature underlines the criticality of SMA techniques usage to organisational performance. Thus, if organisations strategically align SMA techniques usage to their operational setting, this would positively impact organisational performance. Within the goal of enhancing the literature on how to optimise the performance impact, much gaps still exist from the point off illuminating how differences in marketing and national culture differentiate SMA acceptance, usage, contingencies and performance impact.

Finally, on the point of performance, reviewed literature documents an obvious gap in the literature from the point of illuminating SMA techniques usage impact along the performance dimensions. As noted by Ojra [ 58 ], for some societies (especially ones that are Islamic cultured), non-financial performance is of central importance. Theoretical development from the point of SMA techniques usage, contingencies and non-financial performance impact is scanty.

Limitations of the study

Based on systematic review approach, this study aimed to drive further knowledge development on the contingency perspective of strategic management accounting, drawing on the evidence from reviewed literature to understand the core debates in the literature and pinpoint directions for future research. Two core limitations of this research relate to the conceptual framework and volume of literature reviewed.

The conceptual framing of this study embraced only three themes in the SMA discourse, namely perceived environmental uncertainty, organisational structure and organisational strategy. Elaborated, the contingency premise considered in this study relates to perceived environmental uncertainty (competitive intensity, and market turbulence), organisational structure (formalisation and decentralisation), and organisational strategy. This study recognises that there are other contingencies of strategic management accounting practices that have not been included in the conceptual framing of this study.

To capture the central debates in the SMA discourse, extant literature was reviewed. It is however important to acknowledge that this study may have ignored some literature relevant to the conceptual premise of this study. Finally, although efforts were made by the researchers to ensure validity in this research by adopting an analytical approach that involved thorough reading of literature to ensure valid meaning in the interpretation, it must be reminded that subjectivity is a concern in every qualitative research.

Future research directions

In explaining the theoretical implications of this study, core gaps in the literature were underlined (Section “ Implications of this study ”), while the limitations of this study were acknowledged in Section “ Limitations of the study ”. Building on these, this Section “ Future research directions ” extends the contribution of this study by specifying core directions for further knowledge development on the contingency perspective of strategic management accounting.

No doubt, this study has limitations, amongst which are the conceptual framework and the literature review scope. In their study, Naranjo-Gil et al. [ 54 , p. 688] note that “future research is needed to examine other factors to add a more comprehensive view of management accounting”. Given the conceptual limitation of this study, this study reinforces the research call by Naranjo-Gil et al. [ 54 ]. Future research could expand the work done in this research and knowledge development by incorporating contingency factors that have not been considered in the conceptual framing of this study. More research is required in that regard, both from the point of a systematic literature review approach, as well as from the point of empirical investigations that seek to illuminate the contextual (industrial sectors and geographical settings) differentiators to the contingency impacts on the use of strategic management accounting techniques.

Furthermore, more research effort is required from the point of gaining deeper understanding of the various strategic management accounting techniques. Marketing dynamics (e.g. [ 62 ]) and national culture [ 35 , 60 ] differ from one setting to another, therefore exploring the nature of strategic management accounting techniques that organisations endorse and why are core premises for research.

As flagged in the findings, there is a growing support of the notion that accounting practitioners do not subscribe to the use of the term strategic management accounting (e.g. CIMA Footnote 6 ; [ 48 , 55 ]). Further research could help to shed more light not only on why practitioners may not subscribe to the use of the term strategic management accounting, but also on the understanding of how practitioners would prefer to describe the management accounting practices that they embrace, and also why the specific practices are prioritised.

Furthermore, on the point of the content of strategic management accounting, researchers have also noted that not much effort is given to highlighting clearly the accounting information that organisations should give much attention to towards boosting organisational performance (e.g. [ 53 , 89 ]). Future research should aim to fill this gap. Doing that is critical to fully optimising the performance benefits of strategic management accounting [ 56 ].

Reviewed literature has documented that the extent to which strategic management accounting practices would aid management decision-making and organisational performance would depend on the contingency dynamics of the organisation (e.g. [ 11 , 58 ]). Understanding the contingency premise of strategic management accounting utility in driving effective management decision-making and organisational performance is a critical research premise, and future research should aim to shed more light on that. No one size fits all approach that works for all organisations in all contexts. Therefore, future research should seek to enhance the 'fit' foundation of strategic management accounting relevance and performance outcome. In that regard, future research should seek to illuminate further how perceived environmental uncertainty, decentralisation, formalisation, strategy and other contingency factors not considered in this study, would influence strategic management accounting techniques usage and organisational performance impact. In the particular case of perceived environmental uncertainty, more research is not only required from the point of understanding the influence of the construct, but also clarifying the competitive intensity and market turbulence associations.

An insight that emerged from the reviewed literature relates to the fact that majority of efforts to improve strategic management accounting discourse have considered mainly financial aspects of organisational performance (e.g. [ 58 , 86 ]). Focusing only on financial performance is inadequate as the customer perspective of performance is neglected [ 45 , 58 ]. The importance of focusing on customer performance has been re-echoed in further literature: organisational-level customer satisfaction associates positively to financial performance (e.g. [ 24 , 86 ]), and customer performance enables business strategy and an organisation's ability to deliver value to its shareholders as well as customers [ 25 ]. Supporting prior research (e.g. [ 49 , 58 , 86 ]), this study underlines the need for more studies that illuminate non-financial performance aspects and strategic management accounting association.

Finally, the Corona pandemic, which remains a global crisis, has exerted unprecedent global economic damage. Organisations are facing daunting challenges as a result of the Corona pandemic and are still seeking ways to successfully navigate these challenges. Future research should illuminate what strategic management accounting practices organisations are endorsing in the effort to effectively navigate the Corona-crisis-induced challenges.

Availability of data and materials

This study is based on the review of literature.

Management Accounting in support of the strategic management process. https://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/Thought_leadership_docs/Management%20and%20financial%20accounting/Academic-Research-Report-Strategic-Management-Process.pdf .

January 9—WHO Announces Mysterious Coronavirus-Related Pneumonia in Wuhan, China.

Abbreviations

• Strategic management accounting

Strategic management accounting usage

Chartered Institute of Management Accountants

Management accounting and control system

Management control systems

Quality management system

Achrol R, Stern L (1988) Environmental determinants of decision-making uncertainty in marketing channels. J Mark Res 25:36–50

Google Scholar  

Acquaah M (2013) Management control systems, business strategy and performance: A comparative analysis of family and non-family businesses in a transition economy in sub-Saharan Africa. J Fam Bus Strat 4:13–146

Alabdullah TTY (2019) Management accounting and service companies’ performance: research in emerging economies. Austral Account Bus Finance J 13(4):100–118

Alamri AM (2019) Association between strategic management accounting facets and organizational performance. Balt J Manag 14(2):212–234

Alves H, Fernandes C, Raposo M (2016) Social media marketing: A literature review and implications. Psychol Mark 33(12):1029–1038

Atkinson AA, Kaplan RS, Matsumura EM, Young SM (2011) Management accounting information for decision making and strategy execution, 6th edn. Times Prentice Hall, Hoboken

Bromwich M (1990) The case for strategic management accounting: the role of accounting information for strategy in competitive markets. Account Organ Soc 15(1/2):27–46

Cadez S, Guilding C (2008) An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting. Account Organ Soc 33:836–873

Cadez S, Guilding C (2012) Strategy, strategic management accounting and performance: a configurational analysis. Ind Manag Data Syst 112(3):484–501

Calantone R, Garcia R, Dröge C (2003) The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning. J Prod Innov Manag 20:90–103

Cescon F, Costantini A, Grassetti L (2019) Strategic choices and strategic management accounting in large manufacturing firms. J Manag Governance 23:605–635

Chenhall R (2003) Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Account Organ Soc 28:127–168

Chenhall R (2007) Theorising contingencies in management control systems research. In: Chapman CS, Hopwood AG, Shields MD (eds) Handbook of management accounting research. Elsevier, New York, pp 163–205

Chenhall R (2008) Accounting for the horizontal organization. In: Chapman CS, Hopwood AG, Shields MD (eds) Handbook of management accounting research. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 1207–1233

Chenhall RH, Morris D (1986) The impact of structure, environment and interdependence on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems. Account Rev 61:16–35

CIMA (2005) Official terminology. CIMA Publishing, London

Cinquini L, Tennuci A (2010) Strategic management accounting and business strategy: a loose coupling? J Account Organ Change 33:228–259

Creswell JW (2014) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Cuganesan S, Dunford R, Palmer I (2012) Strategic management accounting and strategy practices within a public sector agency. Manag Account Res 23:245–260

Daft RL, Sormunen J, Parks D (1988) Chief executive scanning, environmental characteristics and company performance: an empirical study. Strateg Manag J 9(2):123–139

Dai J, Vasarhelyi MA (2017) Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance. J Inf Syst 31(3):5–21

Dik R (2011) Arab management accounting systems under the influence of their culture. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation submitted at Dortmund University of Technology, Germany

El Deeb MS (2012) Towards a strategic management accounting: framework for cost management in Egyptian healthcare industry. Egyptian Accounting Review, Cairo University, Faculty of Commerce, Issue No. 2-year 2.

Fornell C, Mithas S, Morgesson FV III, Krishnan MS (2006) Customer satisfaction and stock prices: high returns, low risk. J Mark 70:3–14

Franco-Santos M, Lucianetti L, Bourne M (2012) Contemporary performance measurement systems: a review of their consequences and a framework for research. Manag Account Res 23(2):79–119

Gordon LA, Narayanan VK (1984) Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: an empirical investigation. Account Organ Soc 9(2):33–47

Granlund M (2011) Extending AIS research to management accounting and control issues: a research note. Int J Account Inf Syst 12(1):3–19

Groot T, Selto F (2013) Advanced management accounting. Pearson, Harlow

Guilding C, Cravens KS, Tayles M (2000) An international comparison of strategic management accounting practices. Manag Account Res 11(1):113–135

Guilding C, McManus L (2002) The incidence, perceived merit and antecedents of customer accounting: an exploratory note. Account Organ Soc 27(1/2):45–59

Guesalaga R, Gabrielsson M, Rogers B, Ryals L, Cuevas JM (2018) Which resources and capabilities underpin strategic key account management. Ind Mark Manag 75:160–172

Haldma T, Lääts K (2002) Contingencies influencing the management accounting practices of Estonian manufacturing companies. Manag Acc Res 13(4):379–400

Hambrick D (1980) Operating the concept of business-level strategy in research. Acad Manag Rev 5:567–576

Henri J-F, Boiral O, Roy M-J (2016) Strategic cost management and performance: the case of environmental costs. Br Account Rev 48:269–282

Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M (2010) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York

Holm M, Ax C (2019) The interactive effect of competition intensity and customer service competition on customer accounting sophistication—Evidence of positive and negative associations. Manag Account Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2019.07.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Hoque Z (2004) A contingency model of the association between strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance measurement: Impact on organisational performance. Int Bus Rev 13:485–502

Hwang EJ (2005) Strategic management and financial performance in South Korean apparel retail stores, an unpublished Ph.D. Thesis submitted at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, US.

Ibidunni AS, Ufua DE, Opute AP (2021) Linking disruptive innovation to sustainable entrepreneurship within the context of small and medium firms: a focus on Nigeria. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2021.1975355

Irene BN, Opute AP, Ibidunni AS (2020) Competency-based entrepreneurship education: analysis of the disruptive innovation theory in African HEIs. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, Inderscience Publishers

Islam J, Hu H (2012) A review of literature on contingency theory in managerial accounting. Afr J Bus Manag 6(15):5159–5164

John KSt, McNeal KS (2017) The strength of evidence pyramid: one approach for characterizing the strength of evidence of geoscience education research (GER) community claims. J Geosci Educ 65(4):363–372

Jusoh R (2010) The influence of perceived environmental uncertainty, firm size, and strategy on multiple performance measure usage. Afr J Bus Manage 4(10):1972–1984

Kandemir D, Yaprak A, Cavusgil ST (2006) Alliance orientation: conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance. J Acad Mark Sci 34(3):324–340

Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2001) Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: part I. Account Horiz 15(1):87–104

Khandwalla P (1977) The design of organizations. Harcourt Brace Jovanovoich, New York

Kohli AJ, Jaworski BJ (1990) Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. J Mark 10:1–8

Langfield-Smith K (2008) Strategic management accounting: how far have we come in 25 years? Acc Audit Acc J 21:204–228

McManus L (2012) Customer accounting and marketing performance measures in the hotel industry: evidence from Australia. Int J Hosp Manag 33:140–152

Merchant KA (1985) Control in business organizations, Ballinger Publishing Company, New York

Miles RE, Snow CC (1978) Organizational strategy, structure and process. McGraw-Hill, New York

Moers F (2006) Performance measure properties and delegation. Account Rev 81(4):897–924

Mohammed BAH, Maelah R, Amir AM (2019) Strategic management accounting information and performance of private hospitals in Malaysia. Int J Econ Manag Account 27(2):473–502

Naranjo-Gil D, Maas V, Hartmann F (2009) How CFO’s determine management accounting innovation: an examination of direct and indirect effects. Eur Account Rev 18(4):667–695

Nixon B, Burns J (2012) The paradox of strategic management accounting. Manag Account Res 23:229–244

Noordin R, Zainuddin Y, Fuad, Mail R, Sariman NK (2015) Performance outcomes of strategic management accounting information usage in Malaysia: Insights from electrical and electronics companies. Procedia Econ Finance 31:13–25

Oboh CS, Ajibolade SO (2017) Strategic management accounting and decision making: a survey of the Nigerian banks. Future Business Journal 3:119–137

Ojra J (2014) Strategic management accounting practices in Palestinian companies: Application of contingency theory perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation submitted at University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

Ojra J, Opute AP, Sabti A (2020) Influence of culture on the effectiveness of internal audit: a literature review. Int Rev Bus Res Pap 16(2):46–65

Opute AP (2012) Maximizing effectiveness in team sports: The personal audit tool. Team Perform Manag 18(1 & 2):78–101

Opute AP (2017) Exploring personality, identity and self-concept among young customers. In: Young consumer behaviour. Routledge (Taylor and Francis) Publications, New York

Opute AP, Madichie N (2017) Accounting-marketing integration Dimensions and antecedents: insights from a Frontier Market. J Bus Ind Mark 32(8):1144–1158

Opute AP, Madichie N (2014) Integration of functional areas of business: a research Agenda. Afr J Bus Econ Res 9(1):29–54

Opute AP, Dedoussis E, Tzokas N (2013) Building blocks of Accounting-Marketing integration in UK financial services organizations. J Mark Oper Manag Res 1(4):323–336

Opute AP, Irene BN, Iwu CG (2020) Tourism service and digital technologies: a value creation perspective. Afr J Hosp Tour Leisure 9(2):1–18

Opute AP, Kalu KI, Adeola O, Iwu CG (2021) Steering sustainable economic growth: entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. J Entrep Innov Emerg Econ 7(2):216–245

Opute AP, Iwu CG, Adeola O, Mugobo V, Okeke-Uzodike OE, Fagbola S, Jaiyeoba O (2020) The covid-19-pandemic and implications for businesses: innovative retail marketing viewpoint. Retail Mark Rev 16:1-18

Otley DT (1980) The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and prognosis. Account Organ Soc 10:413–428

Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, London

Pavlatos O (2015) An empirical investigation of strategic management accounting in hotels. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 27(5):756–767

Perera S, Harrison G, Poole M (1997) Customer-focused manufacturing strategy and the use of operations-based non-financial performance measures: a research note. Acc Organ Soc 22(6):557–572

Porter ME (1985) The competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New York

Roslender R (1995) Accounting for strategic positioning: responding to the crisis in management accounting. Br J Manag 6:45–57

Roslender R (1996) Relevance lost and found: critical perspectives on the promise of management accounting. Crit Perspect Account 7:533–561

Roslender R, Hart S (2002) Integrating management accounting and marketing in the pursuit of competitive advantage: the case for strategic management accounting. Crit Perspect Account 14(2):77–255

Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2012) Research methods for business students. Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow

Sedevich-Fons L (2018) Linking strategic management accounting and quality management systems. Bus Process Manag J. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2018-0038

Shank JK, Govindarajan V (1992) Strategic cost management: tailoring controls to strategies. J Cost Manag Fall:14–24

Shank JK, Govindarajan V (1993) Strategic cost management: the new tool for competitive advantage. Free Press, New York

Sidhu BK, Roberts JH (2008) The marketing/accounting interface: lessons and limitations. J Market Manag 24(7–8):669–686

Silverman D (ed) (2016) Qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles, CA

Simmonds K (1981) Strategic management accounting. Manag Account 59(4):26–29

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339

Thomas DR (2006) A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 27(2):237–246

Tuan Mat T (2010) Management accounting and organizational change: impact of alignment of management accounting system, structure and strategy on performance. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/149

Turner MJ, Way SA, Hodari D, Witteman W (2017) Hotel property performance: the role of management accounting. Int J Hosp Manag 63:33–43

Verbeeten FHM (2010) Effects of business strategy, structure and technical innovativeness on change in management accounting and control systems at the business unit level: an empirical study. Int J Manag 27:123–143

Yasai-Ardekani M, Haug R (1997) Contextual determinants of strategic planning processes. J Manage Stud 34:729–767

Zakaria M (2015) Strategic management accounting information usage and the performance of SMEs in Malaysia. Int J Sci Commerce Human 3(1):99–113

Zamecnik R, Rajnoha R (2015) Strategic business performance management on the base of controlling and managerial information support. Procedia Econ Finance 26:769–776

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

No external funding was obtained.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Management, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

GPROM Academic and Management Solutions, Paderborn, Germany

Abdullah Promise Opute

University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, UK

Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia

Mohammad Mobarak Alsolmi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

OJ—the lead author—has made substantial contributions in the design of this study, in the design of the methodological approach and analysis of data, as well as in writing up the conclusions for this study. OA—the corresponding author—has made substantial contributions in the design of this study, the review of literature, the methodological approach and analysis of data, as well as in writing up the conclusions for this study. AM has contributed substantially to the design of this study, review of literature, methodological approach, as well as in writing up the conclusions for this study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdullah Promise Opute .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

There are no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ojra, J., Opute, A.P. & Alsolmi, M.M. Strategic management accounting and performance implications: a literature review and research agenda. Futur Bus J 7 , 64 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00109-1

Download citation

Received : 25 May 2021

Accepted : 30 October 2021

Published : 27 November 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00109-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Competition intensity
• Market turbulence
• Formalisation
• Decentralisation
• Organisational strategy
• Organisational performance

How important is practice-relevant management accounting research?

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management

ISSN : 1176-6093

Article publication date: 24 August 2012

Scapens, R.W. (2012), "How important is practice-relevant management accounting research?", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management , Vol. 9 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/qram.2012.31409caa.009

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2012, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Article Type: Commentary From: Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Volume 9, Issue 3

In recent years I have become particularly concerned about the relevance of management accounting research. In a response to the Polyphonic Debate published in Critical Perspectives on Accounting in 2008, I wrote a response which raised issues about this topic (Scapens, 2008). Over the years during which I have been an accounting researcher, many lessons have been learnt about management accounting practice. When I started in the 1970s, it was assumed that economic and operational research models could identify optimal solutions to management problems and the information that should be provided by management accountants. The belief seemed to be that academics had the right answers, and these needed to be communicated to practitioners who, once they learned “how to do it”, would adopt the optimal solutions provided by the academics.

However, in the 1980s, it became increasingly clear that practitioners were not adopting the techniques and optimal solutions that academics were providing. Indeed, questions were raised about whether academic accounting researchers knew what practice was really like. Consequently, researchers began to study management accounting practice. At first, they used questionnaire surveys (particularly in the early 1980s) and then, from the mid-1980s, case studies and fieldwork became quite popular with a largely European group of management accounting researchers. Some of these researchers continued to adopt the economic approaches that had been used previously, but many adopted social and organisational approaches.

Over the years, a considerable amount has been learnt about the nature of management accounting practice. Researchers have provided rich understandings of management accounting practices. These researchers are able to explain why companies come to have the systems and practices that we observe. Some studies were quite descriptive, but many, particularly those published in the top international research journals, were highly theorised, using a broad range of organisational and social theories. But an important question is now being asked: so what? In other words, what do we do, or indeed what should practitioners do, now we have these highly theorised explanations of management accounting practice?

In general, the research in the academic journals follows practice. It describes, explains and theorises what has been observed in case studies and other fieldwork. However, generally these studies do not provide implications for practice. Furthermore, academic researchers have been critical of the “consultant researchers”, who provide solutions for practitioners, but not theories for other academics. However, who has had the most impact on management accounting practice in the last 20-30 years? If we are thinking about academics, I suspect that everyone would agree that it is Bob Kaplan. However, he is not regarded as an academic researcher by many traditional accounting researchers. Nevertheless, his work has had a very significant impact on practice; an impact which is infinitely greater than most of the management accounting research that has appeared in the top accounting journals. So how can we extend the relevance of management accounting research?

Before addressing this question, it is important to distinguish different schools of (management) accounting research. One school of researchers offers managerial critiques of accounting practices. Researchers in this school are concerned primarily with the role of management accounting in the management of organisations. Another school of researchers offers social critiques of accounting practices. These researchers are more concerned with the social role of accounting and its consequences for individuals and society more generally – usually people who often do not have a voice in debates about the nature and role of accounting. Although these two schools address different issues, they both have the potential to be practice-relevant. In the latter case, however, it is not a matter of relevance for management accounting practitioners, but relevance for society more generally.

Personally, I would like to see academic papers giving more attention to the practical implications of the findings of management accounting research. These could be implications for managers and others within organisations, or they could also be implications for policy makers, politicians, and others in society with a public interest in (management) accounting. At present, such implications are not developed to any significant extent in research papers. There is clearly considerable scope for researchers to reflect on the practical implications of their work, and these reflections do have a place in academic research papers.

However, I do not expect research papers to be read by management accounting practitioners, managers, and/or the general public. Research papers are the place to develop ideas theoretically and to study issues “rigorously” – although “rigour” will depend greatly on the nature of the research undertaken. The peer-review process should ensure that appropriate research methods are used and that researchers provide compelling arguments and have sufficient evidence to support their conclusions. As academics, we have various ways in which we do this. Our emphasis on appropriate methodology and methods, and our use of jargon (which can be helpful within a particular research community), is likely to be off-putting to non-academic readers.

I have always believed that it is a mistake to try to write papers or reports that are designed to appeal to both academics and practitioners (or the public more generally). This usually means that academic standards are not maintained, and poor quality research can result, while at the same time still putting off the non-academic reader. This means that there needs to be different modes of communication. Academics should continue to use their research papers as a way of communicating with each other, and as a means of providing peer review of the quality of research. However, at the same time, researchers should engage with others beyond their fellow academic researchers. It is only through such engagement that researchers will be able to really demonstrate the practical relevance of their research. However, the nature of this engagement may differ according to the concerns and aims of the researchers. I mentioned the two schools of accounting research above; clearly these will have to engage in different ways.

Researchers who are doing work that has potential relevance for managers may engage in interventionist research. In such research, academics and practitioners work together to provide practical solutions, while at the same time developing theoretical understandings. Other researchers in this school could write articles for practitioner journals, or take part in the activities of professional bodies – thereby finding a wider audience for the findings of their research. However, such articles would have to be written in a form that engages with the concerns of practitioners and does not simply summarise academic research. In addition, such practice-relevant research could be used in executive education and/or MBA teaching. We should not underestimate the role of education and teaching in communicating the practical relevance of management accounting research.

The (management) accounting researchers who are concerned with social issues would need to communicate with a broader audience. This might be achieved by becoming involved in political and other public debates; for instance, by providing evidence to regulators, government committees, policy makers, and so on. Researchers might write in professional journals, but should probably be taking their debates more widely; for instance, to the newspapers and the types of journals and magazines that deal with public issues. They could also engage through new technology that enables them to reach a wide audience; blogs, internet forums, and so on.

Some researchers do these sorts of things. But, most do not! Furthermore, the numbers who are involved in these sorts of things seems to be declining. This is probably because of the increasing emphasis on journal rankings and the pressure on young academics to publish papers in top international journals. Whilst this is undoubtedly very important, such researchers should also be encouraged to write other papers/articles for audiences beyond their fellow academics, and/or to take part in other forms of engagement.

To conclude, whilst I feel that there is a need for researchers to give greater attention to the practical implications of the research when they are writing papers for academic journals, this is not a way to communicate the practice-relevance of the research to a wider audience. This has to be done outside the academic journals. Publication in academic journals should be seen as a way of ensuring that high-quality research is undertaken, but this should not be an end in itself – at least not in the practical subject such as (management) accounting. The benefits of this high-quality research will only be obtained if researchers are prepared to engage with others beyond the academic community – and if deans and universities allow time and give credit for such engagement.

Finally, I have deliberately not distinguished different types of research. I believe all types of management accounting research should be encouraged. Researchers should be able to select the most appropriate methods, qualitative or qualitative, for their research. Practical relevance is not determined by the research methods that are used, but by the nature of the research questions and the intentions of the researchers. Management accounting is a practical subject and most (if not all) management accounting research could have practical implications, if the researchers seriously reflect on what they are doing.

Robert W. Scapens

Scapens, R.W. (2008), “Seeking the relevance of interpretive research: a contribution to the polyphonic debate”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 915–9

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Management Accounting Research

Subject Area and Category

• Information Systems and Management

Academic Press

Publication type

10445005, 10961224

Information

How to publish in this journal

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2022. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Management Accounting

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• Accounting Follow Following
• Financial Accounting Follow Following
• Auditing Follow Following
• Accounting Education Follow Following
• Accountancy Follow Following
• Cost Accounting Follow Following
• Finance Follow Following
• Public sector accounting Follow Following
• Accounting Information Systems Follow Following
• Accounting and Auditing Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Showing papers in "Management Accounting Research in 2023"

Citation Count

1  citations

Advertisement

Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review

• LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
• Published: 02 March 2022

Cite this article

• Cecilia Silvestri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2528-601X 1 ,
• Luca Silvestri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6754-899X 2 ,
• Michela Piccarozzi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9717-9462 1 &
• Alessandro Ruggieri 1  

2853 Accesses

11 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 24 March 2022

This article has been updated

The implementation of sustainability and circular economy (CE) models in agri-food production can promote resource efficiency, reduce environmental burdens, and ensure improved and socially responsible systems. In this context, indicators for the measurement of sustainability play a crucial role. Indicators can measure CE strategies aimed to preserve functions, products, components, materials, or embodied energy. Although there is broad literature describing sustainability and CE indicators, no study offers such a comprehensive framework of indicators for measuring sustainability and CE in the agri-food sector.

Starting from this central research gap, a systematic literature review has been developed to measure the sustainability in the agri-food sector and, based on these findings, to understand how indicators are used and for which specific purposes.

The analysis of the results allowed us to classify the sample of articles in three main clusters (“Assessment-LCA,” “Best practice,” and “Decision-making”) and has shown increasing attention to the three pillars of sustainability (triple bottom line). In this context, an integrated approach of indicators (environmental, social, and economic) offers the best solution to ensure an easier transition to sustainability.

Conclusions

The sample analysis facilitated the identification of new categories of impact that deserve attention, such as the cooperation among stakeholders in the supply chain and eco-innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the temporal distribution of the articles under analysis

Source: Authors’ elaborations. Notes: The graph shows the time distribution of articles from the three major journals

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the composition of the sample according to the three clusters identified by the analysis

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of articles over time by cluster

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the network visualization

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the overlay visualization

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the classification of articles by scientific field

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: Article classification based on their cluster to which they belong and scientific field

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of items over time based on TBL

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the Pareto diagram highlighting the most used indicators in literature for measuring sustainability in the agri-food sector

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution over time of articles divided into conceptual and empirical

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the classification of articles, divided into conceptual and empirical, in-depth analysis

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the geographical distribution of the authors

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the distribution of authors according to the continent from which they originate

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: The graph shows the time distribution of publication of authors according to the continent from which they originate

Source: Authors’ elaboration. Notes: Sustainability measurement indicators and impact categories of LCA, S-LCA, and LCC tools should be integrated in order to provide stakeholders with best practices as guidelines and tools to support both decision-making and measurement, according to the circular economy approach

Similar content being viewed by others

Common Methods and Sustainability Indicators

Transition heuristic frameworks in research on agro-food sustainability transitions

Hamid El Bilali

Research on agro-food sustainability transitions: where are food security and nutrition?

Change history, 24 march 2022.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02038-9

Acero AP, Rodriguez C, Ciroth A (2017) LCIA methods: impact assessment methods in life cycle assessment and their impact categories. Version 1.5.6. Green Delta 1–23

Accorsi R, Versari L, Manzini R (2015) Glass vs. plastic: Life cycle assessment of extra-virgin olive oil bottles across global supply chains. Sustain 7:2818–2840. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032818

Adjei-Bamfo P, Maloreh-Nyamekye T, Ahenkan A (2019) The role of e-government in sustainable public procurement in developing countries: a systematic literature review. Resour Conserv Recycl 142:189–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Aivazidou E, Tsolakis N, Vlachos D, Iakovou E (2015) Water footprint management policies for agrifood supply chains: a critical taxonomy and a system dynamics modelling approach. Chem Eng Trans 43:115–120. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1543020

Alhaddi H (2015) Triple bottom line and sustainability: a literature review. Bus Manag Stud 1:6–10

Allaoui H, Guo Y, Sarkis J (2019) Decision support for collaboration planning in sustainable supply chains. J Clean Prod 229:761–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.367

Alshqaqeeq F, Amin Esmaeili M, Overcash M, Twomey J (2020) Quantifying hospital services by carbon footprint: a systematic literature review of patient care alternatives. Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104560

Anwar F, Chaudhry FN, Nazeer S et al (2016) Causes of ozone layer depletion and its effects on human: review. Atmos Clim Sci 06:129–134. https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2016.61011

Aquilani B, Silvestri C, Ruggieri A (2016). A Systematic Literature Review on Total Quality Management Critical Success Factors and the Identification of New Avenues of Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2016-0003

Aramyan L, Hoste R, Van Den Broek W et al (2011) Towards sustainable food production: a scenario study of the European pork sector. J Chain Netw Sci 11:177–189. https://doi.org/10.3920/JCNS2011.Qpork8

Arfini F, Antonioli F, Cozzi E et al (2019) Sustainability, innovation and rural development: the case of Parmigiano-Reggiano PDO. Sustain 11:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184978

Assembly UG (2005) Resolution adopted by the general assembly. New York, NY

Avilés-Palacios C, Rodríguez-Olalla A (2021) The sustainability of waste management models in circular economies. Sustain 13:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137105

Azevedo SG, Silva ME, Matias JCO, Dias GP (2018) The influence of collaboration initiatives on the sustainability of the cashew supply chain. Sustain 10:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062075

Bajaj S, Garg R, Sethi M (2016) Total quality management: a critical literature review using Pareto analysis. Int J Product Perform Manag 67:128–154

Banasik A, Kanellopoulos A, Bloemhof-Ruwaard JM, Claassen GDH (2019) Accounting for uncertainty in eco-efficient agri-food supply chains: a case study for mushroom production planning. J Clean Prod 216:249–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.153

Barth H, Ulvenblad PO, Ulvenblad P (2017) Towards a conceptual framework of sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Sustain 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091620

Bastas A, Liyanage K (2018) Sustainable supply chain quality management: a systematic review

Beckerman W (1992) Economic growth and the environment: whose growth? Whose environment? World Dev 20:481–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(92)90038-W

Belaud JP, Prioux N, Vialle C, Sablayrolles C (2019) Big data for agri-food 4.0: application to sustainability management for by-products supply chain. Comput Ind 111:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.06.006

Bele B, Norderhaug A, Sickel H (2018) Localized agri-food systems and biodiversity. Agric 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8020022

Bilali H El, Calabrese G, Iannetta M et al (2020) Environmental sustainability of typical agro-food products: a scientifically sound and user friendly approach. New Medit 19:69–83. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2002e

Blanc S, Massaglia S, Brun F et al (2019) Use of bio-based plastics in the fruit supply chain: an integrated approach to assess environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092475

Bloemhof JM, van der Vorst JGAJ, Bastl M, Allaoui H (2015) Sustainability assessment of food chain logistics. Int J Logist Res Appl 18:101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1015508

Bonisoli L, Galdeano-Gómez E, Piedra-Muñoz L (2018) Deconstructing criteria and assessment tools to build agri-sustainability indicators and support farmers’ decision-making process. J Clean Prod 182:1080–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.055

Bonisoli L, Galdeano-Gómez E, Piedra-Muñoz L, Pérez-Mesa JC (2019) Benchmarking agri-food sustainability certifications: evidences from applying SAFA in the Ecuadorian banana agri-system. J Clean Prod 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.054

Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Hug SE (2018) Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics 114:427–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2591-8

Boulding KE (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship earth. New York, 1-17

Bracquené E, Dewulf W, Duflou JR (2020) Measuring the performance of more circular complex product supply chains. Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104608

Burck J, Hagen U, Bals C et al (2021) Climate Change Performance Index

Calisto Friant M, Vermeulen WJV, Salomone R (2020) A typology of circular economy discourses: navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour Conserv Recycl 161:104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917

Campbell BM, Beare DJ, Bennett EM et al (2017) Agriculture production as a major driver of the earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol Soc 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09595-220408

Capitanio F, Coppola A, Pascucci S (2010) Product and process innovation in the Italian food industry. Agribusiness 26:503–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20239

Caputo P, Zagarella F, Cusenza MA et al (2020) Energy-environmental assessment of the UIA-OpenAgri case study as urban regeneration project through agriculture. Sci Total Environ 729:138819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138819

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chabowski BR, Mena JA, Gonzalez-Padron TL (2011) The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: a basis for future research opportunities. J Acad Mark Sci 39:55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7

Chadegani AA, Salehi H, Yunus M et al (2017) A comparison between two main academic literature collections : Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc Sci 9:18–26. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18

Chams N, Guesmi B, Gil JM (2020) Beyond scientific contribution: assessment of the societal impact of research and innovation to build a sustainable agri-food sector. J Environ Manage 264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110455

Chandrakumar C, McLaren SJ, Jayamaha NP, Ramilan T (2019) Absolute sustainability-based life cycle assessment (ASLCA): a benchmarking approach to operate agri-food systems within the 2°C global carbon budget. J Ind Ecol 23:906–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12830

Chaparro-Africano AM (2019) Toward generating sustainability indicators for agroecological markets. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 43:40–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1566192

Colicchia C, Strozzi F (2012) Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review

Conca L, Manta F, Morrone D, Toma P (2021) The impact of direct environmental, social, and governance reporting: empirical evidence in European-listed companies in the agri-food sector. Bus Strateg Environ 30:1080–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2672

Coppola A, Ianuario S, Romano S, Viccaro M (2020) Corporate social responsibility in agri-food firms: the relationship between CSR actions and firm’s performance. AIMS Environ Sci 7:542–558. https://doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2020034

Corona B, Shen L, Reike D et al (2019) Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—a review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour Conserv Recycl 151:104498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104498

Correia MS (2019) Sustainability: An overview of the triple bottom line and sustainability implementation. Int J Strateg Eng 2:29–38.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJoSE.2019010103

Coteur I, Marchand F, Debruyne L, Lauwers L (2019) Structuring the myriad of sustainability assessments in agri-food systems: a case in Flanders. J Clean Prod 209:472–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.066

CREA (2020) L’agricoltura italiana conta 2019

Crenna E, Sala S, Polce C, Collina E (2017) Pollinators in life cycle assessment: towards a framework for impact assessment. J Clean Prod 140:525–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.058

D’Eusanio M, Serreli M, Zamagni A, Petti L (2018) Assessment of social dimension of a jar of honey: a methodological outline. J Clean Prod 199:503–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.157

Dania WAP, Xing K, Amer Y (2018) Collaboration behavioural factors for sustainable agri-food supply chains: a systematic review. J Clean Prod 186:851–864

De Pascale A, Arbolino R, Szopik-Depczyńska K et al (2021) A systematic review for measuring circular economy: the 61 indicators. J Clean Prod 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124942

De Schoenmakere M, Gillabel J (2017) Circular by design: products in the circular economy

Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Strazza C, Del Borghi M (2014) An evaluation of environmental sustainability in the food industry through life cycle assessment: the case study of tomato products supply chain. J Clean Prod 78:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.083

Del Borghi A, Strazza C, Magrassi F et al (2018) Life cycle assessment for eco-design of product–package systems in the food industry—the case of legumes. Sustain Prod Consum 13:24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.11.001

Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan B (ed) The sage handbook of organization research methods. Sage Publications Ltd, Cornwall, pp 671–689

Google Scholar  

Dietz T, Grabs J, Chong AE (2019) Mainstreamed voluntary sustainability standards and their effectiveness: evidence from the Honduran coffee sector. Regul Gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12239

Dixon-Woods M (2011) Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med 9:9–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-39

do Canto NR, Bossle MB, Marques L, Dutra M, (2020) Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: a qualitative investigation of food supply chains in Brazil. Manag Environ Qual an Int J. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2019-0275

dos Santos RR, Guarnieri P (2020) Social gains for artisanal agroindustrial producers induced by cooperation and collaboration in agri-food supply chain. Soc Responsib J. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2019-0323

Doukidis GI, Matopoulos A, Vlachopoulou M, Manthou V, Manos B (2007) A conceptual framework for supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri‐food industry. Supply Chain Manag an Int Journal 12:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710742491

Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017) A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain management. J Supply Chain Manag 53:67–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12145

Durán-Sánchez A, Álvarez-García J, Río-Rama D, De la Cruz M (2018) Sustainable water resources management: a bibliometric overview. Water 10:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091191

Duru M, Therond O (2015) Livestock system sustainability and resilience in intensive production zones: which form of ecological modernization? Reg Environ Chang 15:1651–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0722-9

Edison Fondazione (2019) Le eccellenze agricole italiane. I primati europei e mondiali dell’Italia nei prodotti vegetali. Milan (IT)

Ehrenfeld JR (2005) The roots of sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 46(2)46:23–25

Elia V, Gnoni MG, Tornese F (2017) Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: a critical analysis. J Clean Prod 142:2741–2751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.196

Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks : the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone, Oxford

Esposito B, Sessa MR, Sica D, Malandrino O (2020) Towards circular economy in the agri-food sector. A systematic literature review. Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12187401

European Commission (2018) Agri-food trade in 2018

European Commission (2019) Monitoring EU agri-food trade: development until September 2019

Eurostat (2018) Small and large farms in the EU - statistics from the farm structure survey

FAO (2011) Biodiversity for food and agriculture. Italy, Rome

FAO (2012) Energy-smart food at FAO: an overview. Italy, Rome

FAO (2014) Food wastage footprint: fool cost-accounting

FAO (2016) The state of food and agriculture climate change, agriculture and food security. Italy, Rome

FAO (2017) The future of food and agriculture: trends and challenges. Italy, Rome

FAO (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets. Rome, Italy

Fassio F, Tecco N (2019) Circular economy for food: a systemic interpretation of 40 case histories in the food system in their relationships with SDGs. Systems 7:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7030043

Fathollahi A, Coupe SJ (2021) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) of road drainage systems for sustainability evaluation: quantifying the contribution of different life cycle phases. Sci Total Environ 776:145937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145937

Ferreira VJ, Arnal ÁJ, Royo P et al (2019) Energy and resource efficiency of electroporation-assisted extraction as an emerging technology towards a sustainable bio-economy in the agri-food sector. J Clean Prod 233:1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.030

Fiksel J (2006) A framework for sustainable remediation. JOM 8:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1021/es202595w

Flick U (2014) An introduction to qualitative research

Franciosi C, Voisin A, Miranda S et al (2020) Measuring maintenance impacts on sustainability of manufacturing industries : from a systematic literature review to a framework proposal. J Clean Prod 260:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121065

Gaitán-Cremaschi D, Meuwissen MPM, Oude AGJML (2017) Total factor productivity: a framework for measuring agri-food supply chain performance towards sustainability. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 39:259–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppw008

Galdeano-Gómez E, Zepeda-Zepeda JA, Piedra-Muñoz L, Vega-López LL (2017) Family farm’s features influencing socio-economic sustainability: an analysis of the agri-food sector in southeast Spain. New Medit 16:50–61

Gallopín G, Herrero LMJ, Rocuts A (2014) Conceptual frameworks and visual interpretations of sustainability. Int J Sustain Dev 17:298–326. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2014.064183

Gallopín GC (2003) Sostenibilidad y desarrollo sostenible: un enfoque sistémico. Cepal, LATIN AMERICA

Garnett T (2013) Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. Proc Nutr Soc 72:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665112002947

Garofalo P, D’Andrea L, Tomaiuolo M et al (2017) 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 200:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.12.007

Gava O, Bartolini F, Venturi F et al (2018) A reflection of the use of the life cycle assessment tool for agri-food sustainability. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010071

Gazzola P, Querci E (2017) The connection between the quality of life and sustainable ecological development. Eur Sci J 7881:1857–7431

Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken N, Hultink EJ (2017) The circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm ? The circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm ? J Clean Prod 143:757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) The entropy low and the economic process. Harward University Press, Cambridge Mass

Book   Google Scholar  

Gerbens-Leenes PW, Moll HC, Schoot Uiterkamp AJM (2003) Design and development of a measuring method for environmental sustainability in food production systems. Ecol Econ 46:231–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00140-X

Gésan-Guiziou G, Alaphilippe A, Aubin J et al (2020) Diversity and potentiality of multi-criteria decision analysis methods for agri-food research. Agron Sustain Dev 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00650-3

Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S (2016) A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J Clean Prod 114:11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007

Godoy-Durán Á, Galdeano- Gómez E, Pérez-Mesa JC, Piedra-Muñoz L (2017) Assessing eco-efficiency and the determinants of horticultural family-farming in southeast Spain. J Environ Manage 204:594–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.037

Gold S, Kunz N, Reiner G (2017) Sustainable global agrifood supply chains: exploring the barriers. J Ind Ecol 21:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12440

Goucher L, Bruce R, Cameron DD et al (2017) The environmental impact of fertilizer embodied in a wheat-to-bread supply chain. Nat Plants 3:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.12

Green A, Nemecek T, Chaudhary A, Mathys A (2020) Assessing nutritional, health, and environmental sustainability dimensions of agri-food production. Glob Food Sec 26:100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100406

Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future †. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v

Guiomar N, Godinho S, Pinto-Correia T et al (2018) Typology and distribution of small farms in Europe: towards a better picture. Land Use Policy 75:784–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.012

Gunasekaran A, Patel C, McGaughey RE (2004) A framework for supply chain performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 87:333–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003

Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21:71–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468

Hamam M, Chinnici G, Di Vita G et al (2021) Circular economy models in agro-food systems: a review. Sustain 13

Harun SN, Hanafiah MM, Aziz NIHA (2021) An LCA-based environmental performance of rice production for developing a sustainable agri-food system in Malaysia. Environ Manage 67:146–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01365-7

Harvey M, Pilgrim S (2011) The new competition for land: food, energy, and climate change. Food Policy 36:S40–S51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.009

Hawkes C, Ruel MT (2006) Understanding the links between agriculture and health. DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, USA

Hellweg S, Milà i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science (80)344:1109LP–1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248361

Higgins V, Dibden J, Cocklin C (2015) Private agri-food governance and greenhouse gas abatement: constructing a corporate carbon economy. Geoforum 66:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.09.012

Hill T (1995) Manufacturing strategy: text and cases., Macmillan

Hjeresen DD, Gonzales R (2020) Green chemistry promote sustainable agriculture?The rewards are higher yields and less environmental contamination. Environemental Sci Techonology 103–107

Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K (2009) Life cycle assessment: principles, practice, and prospects. Csiro Publishing, Collingwood, Australia

Horton P, Koh L, Guang VS (2016) An integrated theoretical framework to enhance resource efficiency, sustainability and human health in agri-food systems. J Clean Prod 120:164–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.092

Hospido A, Davis J, Berlin J, Sonesson U (2010) A review of methodological issues affecting LCA of novel food products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0130-4

Huffman T, Liu J, Green M et al (2015) Improving and evaluating the soil cover indicator for agricultural land in Canada. Ecol Indic 48:272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.008

Ilbery B, Maye D (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22:331–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.06.002

Ingrao C, Faccilongo N, Valenti F et al (2019) Tomato puree in the Mediterranean region: an environmental life cycle assessment, based upon data surveyed at the supply chain level. J Clean Prod 233:292–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.056

Iocola I, Angevin F, Bockstaller C et al (2020) An actor-oriented multi-criteria assessment framework to support a transition towards sustainable agricultural systems based on crop diversification. Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135434

Irabien A, Darton RC (2016) Energy–water–food nexus in the Spanish greenhouse tomato production. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:1307–1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1076-9

ISO 14040:2006 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles and framework

ISO 14044:2006 (2006) Environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines

ISO 15392:2008 (2008) Sustainability in building construction–general principles

Istat (2019) Andamento dell’economia agricola

Jaakkola E (2020) Designing conceptual articles : four approaches. AMS Rev 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

Jin R, Yuan H, Chen Q (2019) Science mapping approach to assisting the review of construction and demolition waste management research published between 2009 and 2018. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:175–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.029

Johnston P, Everard M, Santillo D, Robèrt KH (2007) Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 14:60–66. https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.01.375

Jorgensen SE, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013) Twenty volumes of ecological indicators-an accounting short review. Ecol Indic 28:4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.018

Joshi S, Sharma M, Kler R (2020) Modeling circular economy dimensions in agri-tourism clusters: sustainable performance and future research directions. Int J Math Eng Manag Sci 5:1046–1061. https://doi.org/10.33889/IJMEMS.2020.5.6.080

Kamilaris A, Gao F, Prenafeta-Boldu FX, Ali MI (2017) Agri-IoT: a semantic framework for Internet of Things-enabled smart farming applications. In: 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things, WF-IoT 2016. pp 442–447

Karuppusami G, Gandhinathan R (2006) Pareto analysis of critical success factors of total quality management: a literature review and analysis. TQM Mag 18:372–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780610671048

Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 47:8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444

Khounani Z, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Moustakas K et al (2021) Environmental life cycle assessment of different biorefinery platforms valorizing olive wastes to biofuel, phosphate salts, natural antioxidant, and an oxygenated fuel additive (triacetin). J Clean Prod 278:123916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123916

Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering version 2.3. Engineering 45. https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500

Korhonen J, Nuur C, Feldmann A, Birkie SE (2018) Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J Clean Prod 175:544–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111

Kuisma M, Kahiluoto H (2017) Biotic resource loss beyond food waste: agriculture leaks worst. Resour Conserv Recycl 124:129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.04.008

Laso J, Hoehn D, Margallo M et al (2018) Assessing energy and environmental efficiency of the Spanish agri-food system using the LCA/DEA methodology. Energies 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123395

Lee KM (2007) So What is the “triple bottom line”? Int J Divers Organ Communities Nations Annu Rev 6:67–72. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9532/cgp/v06i06/39283

Lehmann RJ, Hermansen JE, Fritz M et al (2011) Information services for European pork chains - closing gaps in information infrastructures. Comput Electron Agric 79:125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.09.002

León-Bravo V, Caniato F, Caridi M, Johnsen T (2017) Collaboration for sustainability in the food supply chain: a multi-stage study in Italy. Sustainability 9:1253

Lepage A (2009) The quality of life as attribute of sustainability. TQM J 21:105–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730910938119

Li CZ, Zhao Y, Xiao B et al (2020) Research trend of the application of information technologies in construction and demolition waste management. J Clean Prod 263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121458

Lo Giudice A, Mbohwa C, Clasadonte MT, Ingrao C (2014) Life cycle assessment interpretation and improvement of the Sicilian artichokes production. Int J Environ Res 8:305–316. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijer.2014.721

Lueddeckens S, Saling P, Guenther E (2020) Temporal issues in life cycle assessment—a systematic review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01757-1

Luo J, Ji C, Qiu C, Jia F (2018) Agri-food supply chain management: bibliometric and content analyses. Sustain 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051573

Lynch J, Donnellan T, Finn JA et al (2019) Potential development of Irish agricultural sustainability indicators for current and future policy evaluation needs. J Environ Manage 230:434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.070

MacArthur E (2013) Towards the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 2:23–44

MacArthur E (2017) Delivering the circular economy a toolkit for policymakers, The Ellen MacArthur Foundation

MacInnis DJ (2011) A framework for conceptual. J Mark 75:136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136

Mangla SK, Luthra S, Rich N et al (2018) Enablers to implement sustainable initiatives in agri-food supply chains. Int J Prod Econ 203:379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.012

Marotta G, Nazzaro C, Stanco M (2017) How the social responsibility creates value: models of innovation in Italian pasta industry. Int J Glob Small Bus 9:144–167. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2017.088923

Martucci O, Arcese G, Montauti C, Acampora A (2019) Social aspects in the wine sector: comparison between social life cycle assessment and VIVA sustainable wine project indicators. Resources 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020069

Mayring P (2004) Forum : Qualitative social research Sozialforschung 2. History of content analysis. A Companion to Qual Res 1:159–176

McKelvey B (2002) Managing coevolutionary dynamics. In: 18th EGOS Conference. Barcelona, Spain, pp 1–21

McMichael AJ, Butler CD, Folke C (2003) New visions for addressing sustainability. Science (80- ) 302:1191–1920

Mehmood A, Ahmed S, Viza E et al (2021) Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in agri-food supply chain: a review. Bus Strateg Dev 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.171

Mella P, Gazzola P (2011) Sustainability and quality of life: the development model. In: Kapounek S (ed) Enterprise and competitive environment. Mendel University: Brno, Czechia. 542–551

Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A (2018) How do scholars approach the circular economy ? A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 178:703–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112

Merli R, Preziosi M, Acampora A et al (2020) Recycled fibers in reinforced concrete: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 248:119207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119207

Miglietta PP, Morrone D (2018) Managing water sustainability: virtual water flows and economic water productivity assessment of the wine trade between Italy and the Balkans. Sustain 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020543

Mitchell MGE, Chan KMA, Newlands NK, Ramankutty N (2020) Spatial correlations don’t predict changes in agricultural ecosystem services: a Canada-wide case study. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.539892

Moraga G, Huysveld S, Mathieux F et al (2019) Circular economy indicators: what do they measure?. Resour Conserv Recycl 146:452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.045

Morrissey JE, Dunphy NP (2015) Towards sustainable agri-food systems: the role of integrated sustainability and value assessment across the supply-chain. Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 6:41–58. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSESD.2015070104

Moser G (2009) Quality of life and sustainability: toward person-environment congruity. J Environ Psychol 29:351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.02.002

Muijs D (2010) Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London

Muller MF, Esmanioto F, Huber N, Loures ER (2019) A systematic literature review of interoperability in the green Building Information Modeling lifecycle. J Clean Prod 223:397–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.114

Muradin M, Joachimiak-Lechman K, Foltynowicz Z (2018) Evaluation of eco-efficiency of two alternative agricultural biogas plants. Appl Sci 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8112083

Naseer MA, ur R, Ashfaq M, Hassan S, et al (2019) Critical issues at the upstream level in sustainable supply chain management of agri-food industries: evidence from Pakistan’s citrus industry. Sustain 11:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051326

Nattassha R, Handayati Y, Simatupang TM, Siallagan M (2020) Understanding circular economy implementation in the agri-food supply chain: the case of an Indonesian organic fertiliser producer. Agric Food Secur 9:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00264-8

Nazari-Sharabian M, Ahmad S, Karakouzian M (2018) Climate change and eutrophication: a short review. Eng Technol Appl Sci Res 8:3668–3672. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2532694

Nazir N (2017) Understanding life cycle thinking and its practical application to agri-food system. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 7:1861–1870. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.7.5.3578

Negra C, Remans R, Attwood S et al (2020) Sustainable agri-food investments require multi-sector co-development of decision tools. Ecol Indic 110:105851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105851

Newsham KK, Robinson SA (2009) Responses of plants in polar regions to UVB exposure: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 15:2574–2589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01944.x

Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indic 8:14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.012

Niero M, Kalbar PP (2019) Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based indicators: a proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at the product level. Resour Conserv Recycl 140:305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.002

Nikolaou IE, Tsagarakis KP (2021) An introduction to circular economy and sustainability: some existing lessons and future directions. Sustain Prod Consum 28:600–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.017

Notarnicola B, Hayashi K, Curran MA, Huisingh D (2012) Progress in working towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J Clean Prod 28:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.007

Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli PA, Monforti F (2017) Energy flows and greenhouses gases of EU (European Union) national breads using an LCA (life cycle assessment) approach. J Clean Prod 140:455–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.150

Opferkuch K, Caeiro S, Salomone R, Ramos TB (2021) Circular economy in corporate sustainability reporting: a review of organisational approaches. Bus Strateg Environ 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2854

Padilla-Rivera A, do Carmo BBT, Arcese G, Merveille N, (2021) Social circular economy indicators: selection through fuzzy delphi method. Sustain Prod Consum 26:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.015

Pagotto M, Halog A (2016) Towards a circular economy in Australian agri-food industry: an application of input-output oriented approaches for analyzing resource efficiency and competitiveness potential. J Ind Ecol 20:1176–1186. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12373

Parent G, Lavallée S (2011) LCA potentials and limits within a sustainable agri-food statutory framework. Global food insecurity. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 161–171

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Pattey E, Qiu G (2012) Trends in primary particulate matter emissions from Canadian agriculture. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 62:737–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.672058

Pauliuk S (2018) Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organizations. Resour Conserv Recycl 129:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.019

Peano C, Migliorini P, Sottile F (2014) A methodology for the sustainability assessment of agri-food systems: an application to the slow food presidia project. Ecol Soc 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06972-190424

Peano C, Tecco N, Dansero E et al (2015) Evaluating the sustainability in complex agri-food systems: the SAEMETH framework. Sustain 7:6721–6741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066721

Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, Herts

Pelletier N (2018) Social sustainability assessment of Canadian egg production facilities: methods, analysis, and recommendations. Sustain 10:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051601

Peña C, Civit B, Gallego-Schmid A et al (2021) Using life cycle assessment to achieve a circular economy. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:215–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01856-z

Perez Neira D (2016) Energy sustainability of Ecuadorian cacao export and its contribution to climate change. A case study through product life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 112:2560–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.003

Pérez-Neira D, Grollmus-Venegas A (2018) Life-cycle energy assessment and carbon footprint of peri-urban horticulture. A comparative case study of local food systems in Spain. Landsc Urban Plan 172:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.01.001

Pérez-Pons ME, Plaza-Hernández M, Alonso RS et al (2021) Increasing profitability and monitoring environmental performance: a case study in the agri-food industry through an edge-iot platform. Sustain 13:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010283

Petti L, Serreli M, Di Cesare S (2018) Systematic literature review in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:422–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1135-4

Pieroni MPP, McAloone TC, Pigosso DCA (2019) Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: a review of approaches. J Clean Prod 215:198–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.036

Polit DF, Beck CT (2004) Nursing research: principles and methods. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA

Porkka M, Gerten D, Schaphoff S et al (2016) Causes and trends of water scarcity in food production. Environ Res Lett 11:015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/015001

Prajapati H, Kant R, Shankar R (2019) Bequeath life to death: state-of-art review on reverse logistics. J Clean Prod 211:503–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.187

Priyadarshini P, Abhilash PC (2020) Policy recommendations for enabling transition towards sustainable agriculture in India. Land Use Policy 96:104718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104718

Pronti A, Coccia M (2020) Multicriteria analysis of the sustainability performance between agroecological and conventional coffee farms in the East Region of Minas Gerais (Brazil). Renew Agric Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170520000332

Rabadán A, González-Moreno A, Sáez-Martínez FJ (2019) Improving firms’ performance and sustainability: the case of eco-innovation in the agri-food industry. Sustain 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205590

Raut RD, Luthra S, Narkhede BE et al (2019) Examining the performance oriented indicators for implementing green management practices in the Indian agro sector. J Clean Prod 215:926–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.139

Recanati F, Marveggio D, Dotelli G (2018) From beans to bar: a life cycle assessment towards sustainable chocolate supply chain. Sci Total Environ 613–614:1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.187

Redclift M (2005) Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustain Dev 13:212–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.281

Rezaei M, Soheilifard F, Keshvari A (2021) Impact of agrochemical emission models on the environmental assessment of paddy rice production using life cycle assessment approach. Energy Sources. Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 1–16

Rigamonti L, Mancini E (2021) Life cycle assessment and circularity indicators. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01966-2

Risku-Norja H, Mäenpää I (2007) MFA model to assess economic and environmental consequences of food production and consumption. Ecol Econ 60:700–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.001

Ritzén S, Sandström GÖ (2017) Barriers to the circular economy – integration of perspectives and domains. Procedia CIRP 64:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.005

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

Roos Lindgreen E, Mondello G, Salomone R et al (2021) Exploring the effectiveness of grey literature indicators and life cycle assessment in assessing circular economy at the micro level: a comparative analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01972-4

Roselli L, Casieri A, De Gennaro BC et al (2020) Environmental and economic sustainability of table grape production in Italy. Sustain 12.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093670

Ross RB, Pandey V, Ross KL (2015) Sustainability and strategy in U.S. agri-food firms: an assessment of current practices. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 18:17–48

Royo P, Ferreira VJ, López-Sabirón AM, Ferreira G. (2016) Hybrid diagnosis to characterise the energy and environmental enhancement of photovoltaic modules using smart materials. Energy 101:174–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.01.101

Ruggerio CA (2021) Sustainability and sustainable development: a review of principles and definitions. Sci Total Environ 786:147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481

Ruiz-Almeida A, Rivera-Ferre MG (2019) Internationally-based indicators to measure agri-food systems sustainability using food sovereignty as a conceptual framework. Food Secur 11:1321–1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00964-5

Ryan M, Hennessy T, Buckley C et al (2016) Developing farm-level sustainability indicators for Ireland using the Teagasc National Farm Survey. Irish J Agric Food Res 55:112–125. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijafr-2016-0011

Saade MRM, Yahia A, Amor B (2020) How has LCA been applied to 3D printing ? A systematic literature review and recommendations for future studies. J Clean Prod 244:118803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118803

Saitone TL, Sexton RJ (2017) Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands. Eur Rev Agric Econ 44:634–657. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbx003

Salim N, Ab Rahman MN, Abd Wahab D (2019) A systematic literature review of internal capabilities for enhancing eco-innovation performance of manufacturing firms. J Clean Prod 209:1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.105

Salimi N (2021) Circular economy in agri-food systems BT - strategic decision making for sustainable management of industrial networks. In: International S (ed) Rezaei J. Publishing, Cham, pp 57–70

Salomone R, Ioppolo G (2012) Environmental impacts of olive oil production: a life cycle assessment case study in the province of Messina (Sicily). J Clean Prod 28:88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.004

Sánchez AD, Río DMDLC, García JÁ (2017) Bibliometric analysis of publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ 23:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2016.02.001

Saputri VHL, Sutopo W, Hisjam M, Ma’aram A (2019) Sustainable agri-food supply chain performance measurement model for GMO and non-GMO using data envelopment analysis method. Appl Sci 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061199

Sassanelli C, Rosa P, Rocca R, Terzi S (2019) Circular economy performance assessment methods : a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 229:440–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.019

Schiefer S, Gonzalez C, Flanigan S (2015) More than just a factor in transition processes? The role of collaboration in agriculture. In: Sutherland LA, Darnhofer I, Wilson GA, Zagata L (eds) Transition pathways towards sustainability in agriculture: case studies from Europe, CPI Group. Croydon, UK, pp. 83

Seuring S, Muller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020

Silvestri C, Silvestri L, Forcina A, et al (2021) Green chemistry contribution towards more equitable global sustainability and greater circular economy: A systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126137

Smetana S, Schmitt E, Mathys A (2019) Sustainable use of Hermetia illucens insect biomass for feed and food: attributional and consequential life cycle assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 144:285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.042

Sonesson U, Berlin J, Ziegler F (2010) Environmental assessment and management in the food industry: life cycle assessment and related approaches. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge

Soussana JF (2014) Research priorities for sustainable agri-food systems and life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 73:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.061

Soylu A, Oruç C, Turkay M et al (2006) Synergy analysis of collaborative supply chain management in energy systems using multi-period MILP. Eur J Oper Res 174:387–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.02.042

Spaiser V, Ranganathan S, Swain RB, Sumpter DJ (2017) The sustainable development oxymoron: quantifying and modelling the incompatibility of sustainable development goals. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 24:457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1235624

Stewart R, Niero M (2018) Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: a review of corporate sustainability reports in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. Bus Strateg Environ 27:1005–1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2048

Stillitano T, Spada E, Iofrida N et al (2021) Sustainable agri-food processes and circular economy pathways in a life cycle perspective: state of the art of applicative research. Sustain 13:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052472

Stone J, Rahimifard S (2018) Resilience in agri-food supply chains: a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework. Supply Chain Manag 23:207–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2017-0201

Strazza C, Del Borghi A, Gallo M, Del Borghi M (2011) Resource productivity enhancement as means for promoting cleaner production: analysis of co-incineration in cement plants through a life cycle approach. J Clean Prod 19:1615–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.014

Su B, Heshmati A, Geng Y, Yu X (2013) A review of the circular economy in China: moving from rhetoric to implementation. J Clean Prod 42:215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.020

Suárez-Eiroa B, Fernández E, Méndez-Martínez G, Soto-Oñate D (2019) Operational principles of circular economy for sustainable development: linking theory and practice. J Clean Prod 214:952–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.271

Svensson G, Wagner B (2015) Implementing and managing economic, social and environmental efforts of business sustainability. Manag Environ Qual an Int Journal 26:195–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-09-2013-0099

Tasca AL, Nessi S, Rigamonti L (2017) 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 140:725–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.170

Tassielli G, Notarnicola B, Renzulli PA, Arcese G (2018) Environmental life cycle assessment of fresh and processed sweet cherries in southern Italy. J Clean Prod 171:184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.227

Teixeira R, Pax S (2011) A survey of life cycle assessment practitioners with a focus on the agri-food sector. J Ind Ecol 15:817–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00421.x

Tobergte DR, Curtis S (2013) ILCD Handbook. J Chem Info Model. https://doi.org/10.278/33030

Tortorella MM, Di Leo S, Cosmi C et al (2020) A methodological integrated approach to analyse climate change effects in agri-food sector: the TIMES water-energy-food module. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217703

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidenceinformed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222

Trivellas P, Malindretos G, Reklitis P (2020) Implications of green logistics management on sustainable business and supply chain performance: evidence from a survey in the greek agri-food sector. Sustain 12:1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410515

Tsangas M, Gavriel I, Doula M et al (2020) Life cycle analysis in the framework of agricultural strategic development planning in the Balkan region. Sustain 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051813

Ülgen VS, Björklund M, Simm N (2019) Inter-organizational supply chain interaction for sustainability : a systematic literature review.

UNEP S (2020) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations 2020.

UNEP/SETAC (2009) United Nations Environment Programme-society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. France

United Nations (2011) Guiding principles on business and human rights. Implementing the United Nations “protect, respect and remedy” framework

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. sustainabledevelopment.un.org

Van Asselt ED, Van Bussel LGJ, Van Der Voet H et al (2014) A protocol for evaluating the sustainability of agri-food production systems - a case study on potato production in peri-urban agriculture in the Netherlands. Ecol Indic 43:315–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.027

Van der Ploeg JD (2014) Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food sovereignty. J Peasant Stud 41:999–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876997

van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2019) Manual for VOSviwer version 1.6.10. CWTS Meaningful metrics 1–53

Vasa L, Angeloska A, Trendov NM (2017) Comparative analysis of circular agriculture development in selected Western Balkan countries based on sustainable performance indicators. Econ Ann 168:44–47. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V168-09

Verdecho MJ, Alarcón-Valero F, Pérez-Perales D et al (2020) A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Cent Eur J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3

Vergine P, Salerno C, Libutti A et al (2017) Closing the water cycle in the agro-industrial sector by reusing treated wastewater for irrigation. J Clean Prod 164:587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.239

WCED (1987) Our common future - call for action

Webster K (2013) What might we say about a circular economy? Some temptations to avoid if possible. World Futures 69:542–554

Wheaton E, Kulshreshtha S (2013) Agriculture and climate change: implications for environmental sustainability indicators. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 175:99–110. https://doi.org/10.2495/ECO130091

Wijewickrama MKCS, Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R, Ochoa JJ (2021) Information sharing in reverse logistics supply chain of demolition waste: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 280:124359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124359

Woodhouse A, Davis J, Pénicaud C, Östergren K (2018) Sustainability checklist in support of the design of food processing. Sustain Prod Consum 16:110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.06.008

Wu R, Yang D, Chen J (2014) Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited Sustain 6:4200–4226. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074200

Yadav S, Luthra S, Garg D (2021) Modelling Internet of things (IoT)-driven global sustainability in multi-tier agri-food supply chain under natural epidemic outbreaks. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16633–16654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11676-1

Yee FM, Shaharudin MR, Ma G et al (2021) Green purchasing capabilities and practices towards Firm’s triple bottom line in Malaysia. J Clean Prod 307:127268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127268

Yigitcanlar T (2010) Rethinking sustainable development: urban management, engineering, and design. IGI Global

Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2011) Strengths or bias in social LCA? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:596–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0309-3

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economy, Engineering, Society and Business Organization, University of “Tuscia, ” Via del Paradiso 47, 01100, Viterbo, VT, Italy

Cecilia Silvestri, Michela Piccarozzi & Alessandro Ruggieri

Department of Engineering, University of Rome “Niccolò Cusano, ” Via Don Carlo Gnocchi, 3, 00166, Rome, Italy

Luca Silvestri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cecilia Silvestri .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Communicated by Monia Niero

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: a number of ill-placed paragraph headings were removed and the source indication "Authors' elaborations" was added to Tables 1-3.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 31 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Silvestri, C., Silvestri, L., Piccarozzi, M. et al. Toward a framework for selecting indicators of measuring sustainability and circular economy in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02032-1

Download citation

Received : 15 June 2021

Accepted : 16 February 2022

Published : 02 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02032-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Agri-food sector
• Sustainability
• Circular economy
• Triple bottom line
• Life cycle assessment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research