The impacts of environmental collaboration on the environmental performance of agri-food supply chains: a mediation-moderation analysis of external pressures

1 The impacts of environmental collaboration on the environmental performance of 1 agri-food supply chains: A mediation-moderation analysis of external pressures 2 3 4 Abstract 5 Although researchers have investigated the relationship between inter-organizational 6 collaboration and firm performance, there is scattered evidence of the relationship between 7 environmental collaboration and environmental performance in agri-food supply chains. 8 This study assesses the effects of environmental collaboration on five dimensions of 9 environmental performance (greenhouse gas emissions management, energy efficiency 10 management, food waste reduction management, food safety management, and water 11 footprint management) in agri-food supply chains, especially when mediated or moderated 12 by customer and regulatory pressures. The study used a survey of Chilean agri-food 13 companies. Data were analyzed with the Partial Least Square – Structural Equation 14 Modeling. We found that environmental collaboration positively influences all five 15 dimensions of environmental performance and that customer and regulatory pressures 16 mediate this relationship. The influence of regulatory pressures was observed as higher 17 than the one exerted by customer pressures. Our study identified that the dimension most 18 impacted by environmental collaboration is water footprint management. Finally, we 19 provide some recommendations for increasing the environmental performance of 20 companies in agri-food supply chains through collaboration. 21 22 Keywords: agri-food supply chains; environmental collaboration; water footprint 23 management; energy efficiency; greenhouse gas reduction; food safety; food waste. 24 25 1. Introduction 26 27 In today’s global context, firms are expected by different stakeholders to act 28 sustainably. In the pursuit of sustainability, one key challenge is the extension of such 29 expectations to supply chain partners. To effectively extend sustainability concerns to its 30 suppliers, a firm should implement sustainable supply management (SSCM) (Sancha et al., 31 2016), which has emerged as an approach for firms to improve sustainable supply chain 32 outcomes (Koberg & Longoni, 2019). 33 Agri-food supply chains (AFSCs) differ from regular supply chains due to concerns 34 with sustainability, food quality and safety improvement, and food waste reduction 35 (Badraoui et al., 2020). In fact, there is currently increasing concern for the environmental 36 effects caused by food production and consumption (Kamble et al., 2020), as well as 37 growing external pressures to reduce the environmental consequences of agricultural 38 production (Naik & Suresh, 2018). Moreover, it is known that significant environmental 39 impacts have been created in AFSCs, which highlights the importance of collaboration 40 among partners to improve supply chains’ sustainability (Krishnan et al., 2021). 41 The positive effects inter-organizational collaboration has on supply chain 42 performance have been observed by several past studies (Asamoah et al., 2020; Malesios 43 et al., 2020). However, environmental collaboration, aimed at jointly setting environmental 44 2 goals, sharing environmental planning, and working together with business partners to 45 reduce environmental impacts (Vachon & Klassen, 2008), is yet to be explored (Barbosa 46 et al., 2022). Some few studies on the subject have been identified. Gölgeci et al. (2019) 47 analyzed the effects of environmental collaboration using relational capability to improve 48 environmental performance. Barbosa et al. (2022) found that internationalization 49 orientation strengthens the effects of environmental collaboration on sustainable 50 performance. Moreover, Kumar et al. (2018) stated that only a limited number of studies 51 comprehensively discuss the link between sustainable performance and collaboration. 52 These previous studies suggest that environmental collaboration might have positive 53 impacts on firms’ environmental performance. Nonetheless, since environmental 54 collaboration with third parties can be industry-specific, focused research in the agriculture 55 sector is necessary (Sharma et al., 2022). 56 According to Kleindorfer et al. (2005), environmental performance is defined as a 57 firm’s performance in fulfilling environmental responsibilities. According to Kamble et al. 58 (2020), the environmental performance of the AFSC is measured by the extent to which 59 the available natural resources are protected during the production, delivery, and 60 consumption of agricultural products. Therefore, this concept involves critical performance 61 indicators such as the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water footprint (WF) 62 management, energy savings, food safety, and the amount of food wastage (Kamble et al., 63 2020). Previous studies have identified potential impacts of SSCM on some of the before- 64 mentioned environmental performance dimensions. However, there is scattered evidence 65 of the relationship between collaboration and the several dimensions of environmental 66 performance in the agricultural industry. 67 Customer and regulatory environmental requirements exert significant pressures on 68 companies (Baah et al., 2021), which are extended to supply chain partners, who also need 69 to act sustainably and comply with environmental norms (Seuring & Müller, 2008). It is 70 known that pressure level to implement environmental practices varies across different 71 countries and industries. In the agriculture sector, pressures may be higher due to the great 72 environmental impacts the sector generates (Jazairy & Haartman, 2019). Moreover, these 73 pressures might also be higher when companies export their products to countries with 74 more substantial pressures in favor of environmentally friendly practices (Amer, 2023). 75 Previous studies on collaboration and environmental performance have shown 76 contradictory results (Davis-Sramek et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2016), and some gaps still 77 exist. It is to be further investigated whether customer and regulatory pressures mediate or 78 moderate the relationship between environmental collaboration and environmental 79 performance in the agricultural sector. 80 In order to fill in these research gaps, this study aimed to assess the effects 81 environmental collaboration has on five different dimensions of environmental 82 performance (GHG emissions management, energy efficiency management, food waste 83 reduction management, food safety, and water footprint management) in AFSCs, especially 84 when mediated and moderated by customer and regulatory pressures. To that end, the study 85 adopts a quantitative methodology, using a cross-sectional survey of Chilean agri-food 86 companies. Data were analyzed with the Partial Least Square – Structural Equation 87 Modeling (PLS-SEM) method. 88 This study is grounded on two complementary theories: The Relational View (RV) 89 theory and the Natural-Resources-Based View (NRBV) theory. RV suggests that firms’ 90 critical resources are embedded in interfirm interactions (Dyer & Singh, 1998). For this 91 3 reason, the relationships in which these firms are embedded may influence their 92 performance. According to RV, relation-specific assets, such as knowledge-sharing 93 routines, complementary resources and capabilities, and effective governance, can be 94 viewed as essential relational resources that should be developed by firms to compete 95 successfully in different markets (Gölgeci et al., 2019). The relationship between 96 environmental collaboration and environmental performance is explained by the NRBV 97 theory (Bae & Grant, 2018). NRBV highlights the potential for firms to generate unique 98 sources of competitive advantage through engagement with nature (Graham, 2018). 99 This research offers significant contributions to researchers, practitioners, and 100 authorities, which are summarized as follows. The first contribution is to fill the gap in the 101 extant literature on the relationship between environmental collaboration and 102 environmental performance in AFSCs. The second contribution is the analysis of the 103 mediating and moderating roles of regulatory and customer pressures on the relationship 104 between environmental collaboration and environmental performance. The third 105 contribution is that environmental performance is modeled and assessed as a five- 106 dimension construct. The fourth contribution is that it motivates logistics managers to 107 develop environmental collaboration to increase firms’ environmental performance. 108 Finally, the outcomes of this study will be used to recommend tangible policy actions to 109 Chilean authorities and other emerging economies. 110 111 2. Research Hypotheses 112 113 There are significant issues that need to be addressed to perform AFSC 114 management, such as the lack of involvement of the small farmers, lack of stringent norms 115 to control food safety and quality (Naik & Suresh, 2018), lack of industrialization, 116 inadequate management, and information inaccuracy (Kamble et al., 2020). Collaboration 117 among supply chain partners may help reduce these problems, especially for those farmers 118 who have limited access to resources, technology, information, and skill development to 119 sustain their operations and improve the quality and availability of their food in the market 120 (Dania et al., 2018). Collaboration occurs when stakeholders participate in processes with 121 common rules and criteria to determine solutions to collective demands (Tseng et al., 122 2022). To build collaborative supply chains, it is essential to understand how firms share 123 information, integrate processes, communicate, and jointly create knowledge with their 124 partners (Cao et al., 2010). Hence, sharing information, incentives, responsibilities, risks, 125 and jointly designing products are some of the most common collaborative practices 126 (Sudusinghe & Seuring, 2022). 127 Environmental collaboration involves a joint effort to improve environmental 128 performance at the supply chain level, whereby input from suppliers and customers is 129 sought. This requires a high level of proactivity and commitment from the focal company 130 (Graham, 2018). Especially in pressured chain contexts, the lack of a shared culture makes 131 it challenging to translate information about sustainability issues into collaboration (van 132 der Heijden & Cramer, 2017). Environmental collaboration positively affects 133 environmental performance due to the focal firm’s ability to share environment-related 134 capabilities with other supply chain partners (Bae & Grant, 2018). In the case of AFSCs, 135 firms must implement collaborative practices such as goal alignment, sharing of benefits, 136 costs, risks, knowledge, and information among producers and cooperatives (Despoudi et 137 4 al., 2018) to reduce food waste and other environmental impacts. In the agriculture sector, 138 the effects of collaboration on sustainability are considered a hot topic for future research 139 (Allaoui, 2015). However, further studies are necessary to comprehend the relationship 140 between environmental collaboration and environmental performance. In this regard, there 141 is a need to investigate how environmental collaboration among AFSC entities improves 142 the environmental performance of the food supply chain (Krishnan et al., 2021). These 143 facts ground our first hypothesis: 144 145 H1: Environmental collaboration has a positive influence on environmental 146 performance. 147 148 Previous studies have identified some of the environmental impacts and issues our 149 society deals with nowadays: climate change, scarcity of natural resources, biodiversity 150 loss, deforestation, soil degradation, and issues related to water use (Quarshie et al., 2016). 151 Thus, the literature presents numerous examples in which environmental performance is 152 significantly improved through optimizing the use of natural resources and energy, 153 reducing wastewater, electricity usage, and GHG emissions (Belhadi et al., 2020). 154 Agriculture contributes to a substantial fraction of global GHG emissions, which are the 155 outcome of a combination of agricultural activities with environmental impacts: intensive 156 livestock, fertilization, and land use (Baldoni et al., 2018). The AFSC generates GHG 157 emissions at all stages, from manufacturing and distribution of inputs used at the farm level 158 to food processing and preparation, distribution, and waste disposal (Garofalo et al., 2017). 159 In fact, increases in GHG emissions have been attributed to increasing agricultural output 160 (Yan et al., 2017). Some agricultural activities are commonly considered impactful for 161 GHG emissions, for instance, due to the use of pesticides and fertilizers utilized for disease 162 control (Pattara et al., 2017). 163 Among the methods used for the mitigation of GHG emissions are switching to 164 low-carbon fossil fuels, suppressing emissions, and increasing the use of renewable energy 165 sources (Cansino et al., 2010). Previous studies have observed that the adoption of GHG 166 management improves productivity and increases demand, encouraging investments in 167 technologies for cleaner production while also reducing costs and environmental risks 168 (Cucchiella et al., 2017). Further research is required to identify means of reductions in 169 GHG emissions in agriculture (Yan et al., 2017). Environmental collaboration with supply 170 chain partners might have positive impacts on mitigating the emissions of GHG due to 171 imposed restrictions, knowledge sharing, and learning through innovative practices. This 172 leads us to the study’s second hypothesis. 173 174 H2: Environmental collaboration has a positive influence on GHG emissions 175 management. 176 177 Sustainable economic development is associated with increased energy efficiency 178 (Zakari et al., 2022). Energy-intensive organizations are confronted with increasing 179 pressures to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption. Among the 180 expected benefits from energy efficiency improvements are the mitigation of GHG 181 emissions, positive employment effects, the creation of business opportunities, a reduction 182 in primary energy dependence, and an improvement in energy security (Cansino et al., 183 2015). 184 5 Environmental performance should be improved by streamlining energy use in the 185 agricultural sector (Shen et al., 2022). Li et al. (2021) stated that it is necessary to improve 186 agricultural energy efficiency and accelerate the decoupling of agricultural development 187 from fossil energy input. The provision of energy efficiency and reduction in GHG 188 emissions becomes necessary since energy efficiency reduces GHG emissions and the 189 demand for energy import (Zakari et al., 2022). The improvement in energy efficiency 190 management is so necessary that it should double so that global sustainable goals can be 191 achieved (Molinos-Senante & Maziotis, 2022). In fact, energy efficiency management 192 strengthens the effects of energy management practices and environmental performance 193 (Patel et al., 2022). By developing collaboration relationships focused on environmental 194 purposes, companies might interchange technologies and processes to achieve enhanced 195 energy efficiency management. Thus, environmental collaboration could improve energy 196 efficiency management. This context leads us to our third hypothesis. 197 198 H3: Environmental collaboration has a positive influence on energy efficiency 199 management. 200 201 Food waste is a major global challenge, not only from ethical and social points of 202 view but also from environmental and economic ones (Caldeira et al., 2019). Researchers 203 expect that FW will increase in a way that it may impact countries’ transition to sustainable 204 waste management (Ogunmoroti et al., 2022). Public, private, and social institutions have 205 been working in this direction, generating and implementing alternative actions (Diaz-Ruiz 206 et al., 2019) to reduce FW and, consequently, the required use of agricultural land 207 (Ogunmoroti et al., 2022). 208 Stakeholders have implemented FW reduction strategies across AFSCs (Annosi et 209 al., 2021). In fact, FW reduction is a critical factor in AFSCs that needs to be considered 210 in supply chain design and planning to achieve sustainable outcomes. (A. Kumar et al., 211 2020). Environmental collaboration among suppliers and producers helps to reduce the use 212 of raw materials and waste generation. Environmental collaboration within a closed-loop 213 supply chain, for instance, reduces waste by utilizing returned used products as inputs for 214 other processes (Krishnan et al., 2021). In addition, environmental collaboration among the 215 different stakeholders in the supply chain encourages mutually supportive relationships to 216 address the FW problem (Sánchez-Teba et al., 2021). Moreover, environmental 217 collaboration with technology providers based on complete data sharing and co-design 218 positively impacts FW prevention (Ciccullo et al., 2021). Additionally, FW is more 219 significant in supply chains in which partners do not frequently coordinate operational 220 activities (Annosi et al., 2021). This leads us to the study’s fourth hypothesis: 221 222 H4: Environmental collaboration has a positive influence on food waste reduction 223 management. 224 225 Food quality includes all the desirable properties a food product is perceived to 226 possess according to consumers. Previous studies suggest that perceived quality is affected 227 by food safety and environmental friendliness (Lagerkvist et al., 2012). In fact, food quality 228 is assessed through parameters such as chemical, psycho-sensory, nutritional, and health 229 and safety standards (Pattara et al., 2017). Hence, a critical dimension of food quality is 230 food safety. Food safety is the assurance that food produced and consumed will not cause 231 6 harm or adverse health effects. Food can become unsafe due to chemical contaminants. 232 (Dzudzor & Gerber, 2023). Food safety issues occur when human health threats are 233 introduced during food production, processing, storage, and consumption, either by toxic 234 or harmful substances or technological or management factors during operations 235 (FAO/WHO, 1997; Gao et al., 2023). Contaminants that can make food unsafe include 236 food-borne pathogens, chemical contaminants, pesticides, and other adulterants 237 (Nordhagen et al., 2023). Depending on the contamination level, these compounds can be 238 detrimental to both human and animal health and yield adverse effects on the sustainability 239 of the industry (Montgomery et al., 2020). Thus, fertilizers and pesticides should be 240 reduced because their use results in soil pollution that has adverse consequences on human 241 health and the ecosystem (Krishnan et al., 2021). 242 Food safety issues can be significantly reduced by following good agricultural 243 practices. Recently, food safety problems have been related to firms’ improper behaviors 244 through the supply chain in pursuit of economic advantages (Gao et al., 2023). Thus, 245 AFSCs play a crucial role in ensuring food safety since actions taken at every echelon of 246 the chain can impact food safety at markets and homes. Besides, strategies across value 247 chains must consider both food safety and environmental sustainability (Feliciano et al., 248 2022). Hence, food safety is a collective and shared responsibility of all stakeholders 249 (Dzudzor & Gerber, 2023). Therefore, environmental collaboration can foster food safety 250 management (Despoudi et al., 2018). Strategic alliance, information quality, trust, and 251 commitment are significantly related to food safety management (Ding et al., 2014). In 252 fact, one mechanism to foster environmental collaboration in AFSC is through 253 cooperatives. They are responsible for decisions about the coordination of food safety 254 requirements between customers, cooperative firms, and their farmers (Kirezieva et al., 255 2016). Hence, environmental collaboration could reinforce food safety management due to 256 pressures from supply chain partners towards environmental goals as well as information 257 exchange, knowledge acquisition, and resource integration resulting from collaborative 258 relationships. This context leads us to our fifth hypothesis: 259 260 H5: Environmental collaboration has a positive influence on food safety 261 management. 262 263 Agriculture is the primary consumer of water resources worldwide (Novoa et al., 264 2019). WF is an indicator of water resource use that allows the volume of water directly or 265 indirectly consumed or polluted for the production of a good or service to be determined 266 (Novoa et al., 2019). In turn, WF management is defined as the use of policies and actions 267 at the strategic, tactical, and operational levels that support mitigating the WF of a product 268 across its entire supply chain (Aivazidou et al., 2015, 2016). It is critical for promoting 269 environmental sustainability in AFSCs (Vanham & Bidoglio, 2013). In AFSCs, WF 270 management methods can be adopted to guarantee that supply chain partners comply with 271 sustainability standards and goals (Tsolakis et al., 2014). Previous research has identified 272 that WF assessment studies at a supply chain extent are somewhat limited (Aivazidou et 273 al., 2016) and that the full potential of WF management along supply chain partners needs 274 to be seen (Hoekstra et al., 2019). 275 Severe water pollution caused by agriculture over-exploitation has threatened 276 sustainable development. It is necessary to optimize wastewater treatment efficiency and 277 reduce the discharge of pollutants into the environment (Ly et al., 2022). In this context, 278 7 environmental collaboration that promotes water resources management practices is 279 effective in solving regulatory and environmental challenges (Xu et al., 2022). In addition, 280 previous research has identified a need to foster collaborative relationships and extend the 281 adoption of water footprint management initiatives to supply chain partners (Barbosa & 282 Cansino, 2022) in order to improve firms’ environmental performance. This allows us to 283 present the study’s sixth hypothesis. 284 285 H6: Environmental collaboration has a positive influence over water footprint 286 management. 287 288 An increasing number of firms are experiencing more significant pressure from 289 stakeholders to incorporate green practices into their operations and supply chain practices 290 (Wang et al., 2018). Stakeholder pressures add complexity to the management of an already 291 challenging multi-tiered supply chain. Therefore, institutional pressures push firms to 292 adopt and maintain environmental initiatives and produce environmentally friendly 293 products and services (Esfahbodi et al., 2017). Huang et al. (2016) found that regulatory 294 and customer pressures, the two most important types of institutional pressures, affect 295 sustainable organizational initiatives. 296 Empirical evidence shows that pressure from customers stimulates businesses to 297 adopt green management practices, which may improve competitiveness by differentiating 298 their products from those of their competitors and enhancing their reputation and image 299 (Chen & Liu, 2019). Customers can motivate firms to adopt green practices by exerting 300 pressure on the company. Therefore, customers represent externally oriented drivers of the 301 application of green supply chain practices (Wang et al., 2018). Hence, consumers’ 302 responses to and preferences towards environmentally responsible products put pressure 303 on firms to adopt green practices (Yenipazarli, 2019). Although environmental 304 collaboration does not establish formal rules, it helps develop a cultural expectation and a 305 clear vision of customer pressures, thereby affecting the firm’s perceived customer 306 pressures (Ke et al., 2009). Hence, the effects customer pressures might have on the 307 relationship between environmental collaboration and environmental performance need to 308 be clarified. On the one hand, environmental collaboration might increase the awareness 309 of customer pressures, which will, in turn, increase firms’ environmental performance 310 (mediating effect). On the other hand, customer pressures may strengthen the effects of 311 environmental collaboration on environmental performance (moderating effect). This 312 context grounds the presentation of the study’s following hypotheses. 313 314 H7: Customer pressures mediate the effect environmental collaboration has on 315 environmental performance. 316 H8: Customer pressures moderate the effect environmental collaboration has on 317 environmental performance. 318 319 Huang et al. (2016) state that customer demand may not be sufficient to improve 320 environmental performance, especially in underdeveloped countries where the 321 consumption of green products is not as strong as in developed countries. Besides, some 322 customers might not accept the high price of environmentally friendly products. Thus, other 323 types of pressures might be necessary to stimulate green consumption and production. Not 324 only do customer demands have great potential to force organizations, but also regulatory 325 8 standards. Regulation and compliance standards impose other types of pressures on 326 companies (Yenipazarli, 2019). Regulatory pressures lead firms to pay close attention to 327 their environmental alignment in SCM contexts. For instance, in order to promote energy 328 savings initiatives, quota regulations, statutory entitlement of electricity plants, and price 329 regulation are usually adopted (Cansino et al., 2010). In fact, pressures exerted by 330 government agencies and national or international regulators are deemed to be the major 331 driving forces that influence the adoption of SSCM practices (Esfahbodi et al., 2017). 332 In order to promote environmental collaboration among supply chain partners, focal 333 firms might exert pressure on partners by establishing strict guidelines and procedures for 334 sustainability (Ke et al., 2009). This may increase firms’ perception of the existence of 335 regulatory and normative pressures. Although regulatory and customer pressures have been 336 studied before, some gaps still exist. In a study with manufacturing companies, Huang et 337 al. (2016), for instance, found that while customer pressures have a significant positive 338 impact on collaboration networks, the impact of regulatory pressures on these networks is 339 not significant. Davis-Sramek et al. (2022) found out that environmental regulatory 340 pressures do not increase the effects of environmental strategic focus on environmental 341 supplier collaboration. Hence, when environmental collaboration is observed, firms are 342 more conscious of the existing regulatory pressures, which might increase their 343 environmental performance. Considering this context, regulatory pressures might have a 344 mediating or a moderating effect on the relationship between environmental collaboration 345 and environmental performance, which leads us to present the study’s final hypotheses: 346 347 H9: Regulatory pressures mediate the effect environmental collaboration has on 348 environmental performance. 349 H10: Regulatory pressures moderate the effect environmental collaboration has on 350 environmental performance. 351 352 According to the hypotheses presented, Figure 1 illustrates our research model. 353 354 355 Figure 1. Research Model 356 357 3. Methodology 358 9 359 The study adopted a quantitative methodology, using a cross-sectional e-mail 360 survey with Chilean agri-food companies. For this study, all survey measurement items for 361 each construct were retrieved from the extant literature, using the following references: 362 Environmental collaboration (Gölgeci et al., 2019; Vachon & Klassen, 2008); 363 Environmental performance (Kamble et al., 2020); Energy efficiency management 364 (Belhadi et al., 2020); Food safety management (Lagerkvist et al., 2012); Food waste 365 reduction management (Diaz-Ruiz et al., 2019); Water footprint management (Barbosa & 366 Cansino, 2022); GHG emissions management (da Rosa et al., 2019); Customer pressures 367 (Chen & Liu, 2019; Wang et al., 2018); and Regulatory pressures (Huang et al., 2016; 368 Solomon et al., 2019). Items were measured with a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) 369 strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Measurement items for these constructs can be 370 found in Appendix A. 371 The survey was administered to professionals working in Chilean-producing firms 372 of the agriculture sector. The survey was distributed to professionals with the support of 373 the National Agriculture Society (SNA – Sociedad Nacional de Agricultura – in Spanish) 374 and the Chilean Association of Agricultural Engineers (Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos 375 de Chile – in Spanish). SNA brings together a large part of the producers, professionals, 376 associations, and federations linked to Chilean agriculture and agribusiness, with the aim 377 of ensuring the general interests of the sector, such as representing farmers in defense of 378 their common interests, promoting public policies that stimulate competitiveness and 379 entrepreneurship in agriculture, promoting the formation and training of human capital, 380 and stimulating good labor relations. Non-response bias was addressed by sending follow- 381 up e-mails to respondents every ten days, during the data collection stage of the research. 382 The survey was administered to company owners, Chief Executive Officers 383 (CEOs), directors, managers, coordinators, and supervisors in Chilean agriculture 384 companies. The final sample obtained was 122 respondents. In terms of the hierarchy of 385 survey participants, 21 respondents (17.2%) are CEOs, members of the board, or company 386 owners. Twenty-four respondents (19.7%) are directors, most of them in the areas of 387 logistics and supply chain, sustainability, and marketing. Most participating firms are in 388 the country’s regions where most of the country’s agricultural production is present. Table 389 1 shows the profile of the participating firms. 390 391 Table 1. Firm and Respondents’ Descriptive Characteristics 392 Number of Respondents % Company size Small size 47 38.6 Medium and large size 75 61.4 Main crops Fruits 60 50.0 Grapes 24 20.0 Vegetables and legumes 17 14.2 Olives and nuts 13 10.8 Cereals and oilseeds 11 9.2 Country region Metropolitan 43 35.2 Maule 24 19.7 Bernardo O´Higgins 23 18.9 393 16 Finally, among the different paths through which regulatory and customer pressures 607 can lead to improvements in firms’ environmental performance, our study identified that 608 developing collaborative relationships under these pressures can lead to improvements in 609 environmental performance (H7 and H9). Our study showed that these types of pressure 610 do not moderate but mediate the relationship between environmental collaboration and 611 environmental performance. Our study extends previous research by showing that part of 612 the effects of environmental collaboration on environmental performance are exerted 613 through regulatory and customer pressures. Hence, aligned with Ke et al. (2009), our study 614 showed that more intense environmental collaboration fosters a shared vision of increased 615 customer and regulatory pressures, which, in turn, affects firms’ environmental 616 performance. Thus, when firms develop collaborative relationships regarding 617 environmental initiatives, a stronger perception of more intense pressures coming from 618 customers and regulations is shared among supply chain partners. This stronger perception 619 promotes a virtuous cycle in which companies feel more inclined to implement 620 environmental initiatives. 621 Among institutional pressures, regulatory pressure is the most critical factor that 622 drives environmental initiatives (Esfahbodi et al., 2017). Therefore, laws and regulations, 623 government policies, and non-governmental organizations’ guidelines can affect the 624 adoption of sustainable activities in firms. Regulatory pressures force organizations to 625 improve their sustainable practices. They play a vital role in firms’ decision-making due to 626 strict regulations in some sectors (Trujillo-Gallego et al., 2021). Although previous studies 627 demonstrated that firms’ responses to government regulation can yield increased 628 competitive advantage (Bamgbade et al., 2017; Esfahbodi et al., 2017), a recent study 629 showed that regulatory pressures had a negative effect on the adoption of sustainable 630 practices (Saeed et al., 2018). Our study recommends that equal attention should be paid 631 to both types of pressures, although regulatory pressures seem to have a slightly more 632 significant influence on environmental performance. This is aligned with previous research 633 that has found that environmentally related regulations encourage supply chain actors to 634 work collaboratively (Ramanathan et al., 2014). 635 636 5.1. Practical contributions 637 Our study answers calls made by several scholars to assess the effects 638 environmental collaboration has on different dimensions of environmental performance. In 639 addition, our study contributes to the literature on the subject by studying these 640 relationships in emerging economies contexts, particularly in Chile, a country that, like 641 several others, is expected to suffer from several consequences of ongoing climate changes. 642 Our study found considerable effects of environmental collaboration on water footprint 643 management in AFSC, which is also an exciting outcome for several countries nowadays. 644 Chile presents some characteristics that are similar to other emerging economies, 645 which allows us to generalize the outcomes of this study to broader contexts. First, Chile 646 is an important exporter of agricultural products. Second, the country has been facing 647 serious challenges related to water use in agriculture. Chile has experienced an 648 uninterrupted and severe drought since 2010, with mean rainfall deficits of 20–40%. 649 Climate projections estimate that drought frequency and intensity may also increase in 650 different regions of the world (Zambrano et al., 2018). It is known that one of the primary 651 consumers of water resources worldwide is the agriculture industry (Novoa et al., 2019). 652 17 Thus, research on agri-food water resources management is a topic of increasing research 653 interest (Jia et al., 2019) in several countries. Third, the Chilean agriculture sector has been 654 developed in the country based on the development of collaborative relationships between 655 importers and exporters as well as among other partners. In the country, agricultural 656 commodities have been primarily developed within specialized exporters or multinational 657 enterprises, which establish contracts with large numbers of farms. In turn, exporting firms 658 provide farmers with specialized equipment, credit, technical assistance, and insurance 659 (Berdegué et al., 2001). Besides, farms also often form cooperatives for input supply and 660 domestic and international marketing (Fleming & Abler, 2013). Finally, by being an 661 emerging economy from Latin America, it offers a different context when compared to 662 Europe, North America, or Asian countries (Vinicio et al., 2019), where research in this 663 field has been more intense. Due to these characteristics and the fact that it is one of the 664 most important economies in South America, Chile is a suitable scenario to perform this 665 study. 666 In the specific case of Chile, this study identified some improvement opportunities 667 regarding environmental performance. Firms’ performance in the GHG emissions 668 management dimension was considered low (its mean is under 3 – see Appendix A). Firms 669 should also improve the implementation of some FW initiatives, such as the redistribution 670 of food to social entities and the development of a donation program to minimize biowaste. 671 Higher performance was observed in the food safety management dimension, probably due 672 to restrictions and expectations of countries that import agri-food products from the 673 country. Therefore, public policies should plan actions to reduce GHG emissions in the 674 agricultural industry as well as improve FW reduction management programs. The 675 outcomes of this study can be used to recommend tangible policy actions to Chilean 676 authorities, focused on the research topics presented in related programs promoted by the 677 Chilean Ministry of Agriculture. This is the case of the National Program for Sustainable 678 Consumption and Production (Chile, 2017), which aims to promote sustainable food 679 systems, seeking to reduce the environmental footprint and negative social impacts of food 680 products. The program also aims to reduce the loss and waste of food throughout the value 681 chain and promote the incorporation of more sustainable practices in the processes, 682 products, and services of the food value chain. One of the tools to achieve these objectives 683 is the Plan of adaptation to climate change in the agricultural sector (Chile, 2013), which 684 the outcomes of our research will also influence. This plan seeks to strengthen the planning 685 and management of water resources to optimize the use of water in agriculture, establish 686 measures to face climate change and promote research programs. 687 Moreover, scholars have been calling for more research in countries outside Europe 688 and the United States since sustainability initiatives in supply chain environments are 689 context-specific (Jia et al., 2018). In addition, southern countries are more in need of a 690 transition towards sustainability concerning their agri-food systems (El Bilali, 2019). By 691 identifying the impacts environmental collaboration has on several environmental 692 dimensions, our study stimulates the development of collaborative relationships among 693 supply chain partners to produce different kinds of environmental benefits. 694 695 696 5.2. Managerial contributions 697 698 18 One significant managerial contribution of this study is that it fills the gap in the 699 extant literature on the relationship between environmental collaboration and 700 environmental performance in AFSCs. Most researchers narrowed the concept of firm 701 performance towards economic performance (Sudusinghe & Seuring, 2022), so 702 investigating environmental performance fills this gap. The second contribution has been 703 the observation of a mediating role of regulatory and customer pressures on the relationship 704 between environmental collaboration and environmental performance. Moreover, a unique 705 characteristic of this study is that environmental performance has been modeled as a five- 706 dimension construct. Therefore, the impacts environmental collaboration has on each of 707 these dimensions (GHG emissions management, energy efficiency management, food 708 waste reduction management, water footprint management, and food safety management) 709 are also determined. To the best of our knowledge, this gap in the literature remained 710 unbridged so far. 711 This study also presents contributions to logistics managers. This study highlights 712 the importance of involving the entire supply chain in the development of environmentally 713 focused initiatives through collaboration among partners. These initiatives include 714 establishing common environmental objectives and requirements, implementing waste and 715 energy reduction plans, and promoting cleaner production. Hence, this study showed that 716 managers should promote the management of integrated processes, flow of materials, and 717 sharing of environmentally related information along the entire supply chain in order to 718 increase firms’ environmental performance in each one of its five assessed dimensions. 719 Firms can develop collaborative relationships through different mechanisms. Table 720 6 depicts some of these mechanisms usually found in the extant literature (Cao et al., 2010; 721 Daugherty et al., 2006; G. Kumar & Banerjee, 2014; Nyaga et al., 2010; Simatupang & 722 Sridharan, 2002). Based on these mechanisms and this study’s findings, we provide some 723 managerial recommendations for increasing the environmental performance of companies 724 in AFSCs through environmental collaboration. 725 726 Table 6. Recommendations for the development of collaborative relationships in 727 environmentally-focused AFSCs 728 Collaboration mechanisms Recommendations Information sharing Firms should share product specifications concerned with environmental requirements. Firms should share production forecasts with partners to reduce waste, facilitate planning, and be flexible when necessary. Goal congruence Firms should establish common goals for the reduction of GHG emissions, energy use, water footprint management, and food waste reduction management. Firms should establish common standards and guidelines for the reduction of GHG emissions, energy use, water footprint management, and food waste reduction management. Firms should establish common policies regarding the use of pesticides and chemicals to reduce soil and water pollution. Incentive alignment Firms should establish economic incentives associated with achieving environmental goals. Collaborative communication Firms should communicate environmental performance indicators that are of interest to supply chain partners (e.g., water footprint management and GHG emissions management). 19 Joint knowledge creation Firms should collaborate to develop innovative strategies to improve their environmental-focused activities (e.g., waste reduction, water reuse, food safety improvement, and energy use reduction). Joint planning / Jointly development of strategic plans Firms should jointly plan their activities to avoid surpluses and waste. Firms should jointly plan their operations to optimize resources and comply with common standards. Joint investments Firms should jointly invest in technologies to reduce the environmental impacts of their operations. 729 5.3. Theoretical contributions 730 This study also presents some theoretical contributions. The proposed research 731 model extends the literature by exploring the relationship between environmental 732 collaboration, regulatory and customer pressures, and environmental performance. To the 733 best of our knowledge, no prior research has investigated these constructs in a research 734 model like the one proposed in this study. It also contributes to the RV theory by assessing 735 the effects collaborative relationships have on environmental performance. The RV theory 736 considers environmental collaboration to reflect strategic mutual environmental 737 interdependence between supply chain partners, considering environmental supplier 738 collaboration as an inter-organizational capability (Aboelmaged, 2018). This study’s 739 outcomes reinforce RV since competitive advantage will be achieved when an organization 740 is able to transform environmental actions into an environmental alignment with internal 741 and external stakeholders. Moreover, resources provided by relationships with suppliers 742 can directly contribute to developing firms’ competitive advantage (Andersén, 2021) by 743 increasing their environmental performance. 744 This study also contributes to the NRBV theory, corroborating that managing 745 sustainable initiatives supported by collaboration leads to a competitive advantage obtained 746 through environmental performance. This study incorporates collaboration as a relational 747 element that positively affects environmental performance in five dimensions. In fact, 748 researchers stated that differentiating the effects and contribution sustainability practices 749 have on companies’ competitive advantage is essential (Ahmadi-Gh & Bello-Pintado, 750 2022). NRBV is grounded on some strategic capabilities: pollution prevention, product 751 stewardship, and sustainable development, which has been more recently split into clean 752 technology and the base of the pyramid (BoP) (Hart & Dowell, 2011). Pollution prevention 753 is focused on the control and minimization of waste. Product stewardship takes stakeholder 754 engagement in the entire firm’s production chain into account. Sustainable development is 755 related to the long-term commitment to market development and investment (Hart, 1995; 756 Mishra et al., 2019). Clean technology strategies are related to developing competitive 757 advantages for a future position to face the current disruptive changes. BoP is focused on 758 meeting the unmet needs of people experiencing poverty. While pollution prevention and 759 product stewardship focus on incremental improvements for greater environmental 760 efficiencies to today’s products and processes, sustainable development is focused on 761 future technologies and markets (Hart, 1995; Hart & Dowell, 2011). 762 In this study, NRBV is considered an appropriate theoretical lens to explain the 763 engagement of the whole supply chain in collaborative relationships with environmental 764 purposes since it considers stakeholder collaboration as a primary condition for proactive 765 environmental management (Alt et al., 2015). Research on NRBV has shown the 766 importance of considering resources not fully controlled by the focal firm, which can 767 20 directly contribute to a competitive advantage (Andersén, 2021). NRBV is extended since 768 this study incorporates environmental collaboration as a relational asset to address the 769 strategic capabilities of NRBV theory. We observed that environmental collaboration leads 770 to the development of resources that are rare, inimitable, valuable, and non-substitutable in 771 five different dimensions of environmental performance, especially considering the 772 capabilities of pollution prevention and product stewardship present in NRBV. 773 774 6. Conclusions 775 776 The objective of this research was to assess the effects environmental collaboration 777 has on the environmental performance of agri-food companies, especially when mediated 778 by regulatory and customer pressures. This study found a positive and significant impact 779 on five dimensions of environmental performance: GHG emissions management, energy 780 efficiency management, food waste reduction management, food safety management, and 781 water footprint management. A higher effect was observed in water footprint management, 782 which shows that environmental collaboration has a great potential to improve firms’ 783 performance in this area. 784 785 6.1. Limitations and suggestions for future studies 786 This study presents some limitations that are typical of quantitative research. First, 787 this study relied only on a quantitative method to collect data and analyze the research 788 model. Future research should use qualitative methods such as focus groups and interviews 789 to provide a deep understanding of the model’s relationships and support the understanding 790 of how collaborative relationships are developed and which collaborative practices 791 influence the most firms’ environmental performance. Second, this study only focused on 792 Chilean agricultural companies. Although we understand that the country’s current 793 economic situation is similar to other emerging economies and, consequently, our findings 794 could be extended to these countries, the analysis of this research model in developed 795 countries could yield exciting findings. Third, this study used a cross-sectional survey 796 questionnaire to assess the proposed research model. Longitudinal studies could assess the 797 effects that collaborative initiatives have on environmental performance over time. 798 Besides exploring these limitations, future research should also explore the role 799 digital and Industry 4.0 technologies have on environmental performance through 800 collaboration. In this way, we could understand how agricultural firms have been using 801 technologies to foster collaborative relationships and how they have been influenced by 802 technology. We understand it is also fundamental to investigate barriers and enablers of 803 environmentally focused collaboration in AFSCs. It is known that collaborations fail due 804 to different reasons, such as incompatible corporate culture and lack of trust, lack of or 805 inadequate integration of information systems, among others. Comprehending the barriers 806 that hamper collaborations in AFSCs might help companies surpass these obstacles. 807 We also propose that future studies explore the benefits of WF management beyond 808 environmental performance in AFSCs. Since water risks like droughts can cause more 809 significant losses to agri-food companies (Zhou et al., 2018), the adoption of WF 810 management initiatives could bring benefits to organizations besides the outcomes related 811 to firms’ environmental performance. It is known that a lack of coordinated initiatives with 812 21 supply chain partners to face pressures exerted by external stakeholders has a negative 813 effect on the reputation of the firm and its supply chain (Czinkota et al., 2014). It has also 814 been observed that supplier collaboration based on environmental factors positively 815 benefits firms’ reputation (Quintana-García et al., 2021). So, due to the pressures exerted 816 by customers regarding the adoption of green practices, we propose that future studies 817 explore the effects of WF management on agricultural firms’ reputations. 818 819 Acknowledgments 820 The second author wishes to acknowledge the funding provided by the Universidad 821 Autónoma de Chile (Chile) and the funding provided by the Following institutions: 1) the 822 Andalusian Regional Government (project SEJ-132), 2) the “Cátedra de Economía de la 823 Energía y del Medio Ambiente” sponsored by Red Eléctrica de España at the University of 824 Seville,”, and 3) from Departamento de Análisis Económico y Economía Política 825 (Department of Economic Analysis and Political Economy) (Universidad de Sevilla) at the 826 University of Seville. 827 828 Funding: This research was funded by ANID FONDECYT POSTDOCTORADO N° 829 3210113. 830 831 Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available 832 on request from the corresponding author, [MWB]. The data are not publicly available to 833 avoid compromising the privacy of research participants. 834 835 836 837 22 References 838 Aboelmaged, M. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of eco-innovation, environmental 839 orientation and supplier collaboration on hotel performance: An empirical study. 840 Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 537–549. 841 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.192 842 Ahmadi-Gh, Z., & Bello-Pintado, A. (2022). Why is manufacturing not more sustainable? 843 The effects of different sustainability practices on sustainability outcomes and 844 competitive advantage. Journal of Cleaner Production, 337, 130392. 845 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130392 846 Aivazidou, E., Tsolakis, N., Iakovou, E., & Vlachos, D. (2016). The emerging role of water 847 footprint in supply chain management: A critical literature synthesis and a hierarchical 848 decision-making framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137(20 November), 849 1018–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.210 850 Aivazidou, E., Tsolakis, N., Vlachos, D., & Iakovou, E. (2015). Water footprint 851 management policies for agrifood supply chains: A critical taxonomy and a system 852 dynamics modelling approach. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 43(August 2016), 853 115–120. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1543020 854 Allaoui, H. (2015). Sustainability assessment of food chain logistics. International Journal 855 of Logistics Research and Applications, 18(2), 101–117. 856 https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1015508 857 Alt, E., Díez-de-Castro, E. P., & Lloréns-Montes, F. J. (2015). Linking Employee 858 Stakeholders to Environmental Performance: The Role of Proactive Environmental 859 Strategies and Shared Vision. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 167–181. 860 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2095-x 861 Amer, E. (2023). Internationalization , institutional pressures in foreign markets , and 862 environmental sustainability. Journal of International Management, 29(1), 100974. 863 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2022.100974 864 Andersén, J. (2021). A relational natural-resource-based view on product innovation: The 865 influence of green product innovation and green suppliers on differentiation advantage 866 in small manufacturing firms. Technovation, 104(December 2020). 867 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102254 868 Annosi, M. C., Brunetta, F., Bimbo, F., & Kostoula, M. (2021). Digitalization within food 869 supply chains to prevent food waste. Drivers, barriers and collaboration practices. 870 Industrial Marketing Management, 93(January), 208–220. 871 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.01.005 872 Asamoah, D., Agyei-owusu, B., Andoh-baidoo, F. K., & Ayaburi, E. (2020). Inter- 873 organizational systems use and supply chain performance: Mediating role of supply 874 chain management capabilities. International Journal of Information Management, 875 December 2019, 102195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102195 876 Baah, C., Opoku-Agyeman, D., Acquah, I. S. K., Agyabeng-Mensah, Y., Afum, E., Faibil, 877 23 D., & Abdoulaye, F. A. M. (2021). Examining the correlations between stakeholder 878 pressures, green production practices, firm reputation, environmental and financial 879 performance: Evidence from manufacturing SMEs. Sustainable Production and 880 Consumption, 27, 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.10.015 881 Badraoui, I., Vorst, J. G. A. J. Van Der, & Boulaksil, Y. (2020). Horizontal logistics 882 collaboration: an exploratory study in Morocco’s agri-food supply chains. 883 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 23(1), 85–102. 884 https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2019.1604646 885 Bae, H., & Grant, D. B. (2018). Investigating effects of organisational culture and learning 886 on environmental collaboration and performance of Korean exporting firms. 887 International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 21(6), 614–630. 888 https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2018.1470232 889 Baldoni, E., Coderoni, S., & Esposti, R. (2018). The complex farm-level relationship 890 between environmental performance and productivity: The case of carbon footprint of 891 Lombardy farms. Environmental Science and Policy, 89(July), 73–82. 892 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.07.010 893 Bamgbade, J. A., Kamaruddeen, A. M., & Nawi, M. N. M. (2017). Malaysian construction 894 firms’ social sustainability via organizational innovativeness and government support: 895 The mediating role of market culture. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 114–124. 896 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.187 897 Barbosa, M.W., Ladeira, M. B., de Oliveira, M. P. V., de Oliveira, V. M., & de Sousa, P. R. 898 (2022). The effects of internationalization orientation in the sustainable performance 899 of the agri-food industry through environmental collaboration: An emerging economy 900 perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 31, 407–418. 901 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.03.013 902 Barbosa, Marcelo Werneck, & Cansino, J. M. (2022). A Water Footprint Management 903 Construct in Agri-Food Supply Chains: A Content Validity Analysis. Sustainability 904 (Switzerland), 14(9), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094928 905 Belhadi, A., Kamble, S. S., Zkik, K., Cherrafi, A., & Touriki, F. E. (2020). The integrated 906 effect of Big Data Analytics, Lean Six Sigma and Green Manufacturing on the 907 environmental performance of manufacturing companies: The case of North Africa. 908 Journal of Cleaner Production, 252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119903 909 Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report an 910 impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and 911 explanatory IS research. Information and Management, 57(2), 103168. 912 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003 913 Berdegué, J. A., Ramírez, E., Reardon, T., & Escobar, G. (2001). Rural nonfarm 914 employment and incomes in Chile. World Development, 29(3), 411–425. 915 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00102-9 916 Bhattacharya, A., & Fayezi, S. (2021). Ameliorating food loss and waste in the supply 917 chain through multi-stakeholder collaboration. Industrial Marketing Management, 918 24 93(January), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.01.009 919 Borg, J., & von Knorring, H. (2019). Inter-organizational collaboration for energy 920 efficiency in the maritime sector: the case of a database project. Energy Efficiency, 921 12(8), 2201–2213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-019-09822-x 922 Borg, J., & Yström, A. (2020). Collaborating for energy efficiency in Swedish shipping 923 industry: interrelating practice and challenges. Environment, Development and 924 Sustainability, 22(5), 4289–4310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00384-7 925 Bustos, C. A., & Moors, E. H. M. (2018). Reducing post-harvest food losses through 926 innovative collaboration: Insights from the Colombian and Mexican avocado supply 927 chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 1020–1034. 928 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.187 929 Caldeira, C., De Laurentiis, V., Corrado, S., van Holsteijn, F., & Sala, S. (2019). 930 Quantification of food waste per product group along the food supply chain in the 931 European Union: a mass flow analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 932 149(June), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.011 933 Cansino, J. M., Pablo-Romero, M. del P., Román, R., & Yñiguez, R. (2010). Tax incentives 934 to promote green electricity: An overview of EU-27 countries. Energy Policy, 38(10), 935 6000–6008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.055 936 Cansino, J. M., Sánchez-Braza, A., & Rodríguez-Arévalo, M. L. (2015). Driving forces of 937 Spain’s CO2 emissions: A LMDI decomposition approach. Renewable and 938 Sustainable Energy Reviews, 48, 749–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.011 939 Cao, M., Vonderembse, M. A., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Supply chain collaboration : 940 conceptualisation and instrument development. International Journal of Production 941 Research, 48(22), 6613–6635. 942 Chauhan, C., Kaur, P., Arrawatia, R., Ractham, P., & Dhir, A. (2022). Supply chain 943 collaboration and sustainable development goals (SDGs). Teamwork makes achieving 944 SDGs dream work. Journal of Business Research, 147(June 2021), 290–307. 945 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.044 946 Chen, J., & Liu, L. (2019). Customer participation, and green product innovation in SMEs: 947 The mediating role of opportunity recognition and exploitation. Journal of Business 948 Research, May, 0–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.033 949 Chile, M. de A. de. (2013). Plan de adaptación al cambio climático del sector 950 silvoagropecuário. 951 Chile, M. de A. de. (2017). Programa nacional de consumo y producción sustentables. 952 Ciccullo, F., Cagliano, R., Bartezzaghi, G., & Perego, A. (2021). Implementing the circular 953 economy paradigm in the agri-food supply chain: The role of food waste prevention 954 technologies. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 164, 105114. 955 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105114 956 Cucchiella, F., Gastaldi, M., & Miliacca, M. (2017). The management of greenhouse gas 957 25 emissions and its effects on firm performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 958 1387–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.170 959 Czinkota, M., Kaufmann, H. R., & Basile, G. (2014). The relationship between legitimacy, 960 reputation, sustainability and branding for companies and their supply chains. 961 Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 91–101. 962 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.10.005 963 da Rosa, F. S., Lunkes, R. J., & Brizzola, M. M. B. (2019). Exploring the relationship 964 between internal pressures, greenhouse gas management and performance of Brazilian 965 companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 567–575. 966 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.042 967 Dania, W. A. P., Xing, K., & Amer, Y. (2018). Collaboration behavioural factors for 968 sustainable agri-food supply chains: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner 969 Production, 186, 851–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.148 970 Daugherty, P. J., Richey, R. G., Roath, A. S., Min, S., Chen, H., Arndt, A. D., & Genchev, 971 S. E. (2006). Is collaboration paying off for firms? Business Horizons, 49(1), 61–70. 972 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2005.06.002 973 Davis-Sramek, B., Hopkins, C. D., Richey, R. G., & Morgan, T. R. (2022). Leveraging 974 supplier relationships for sustainable supply chain management: insights from social 975 exchange theory. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 976 25(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2020.1797654 977 Despoudi, S. (2021). Challenges in reducing food losses at producers’ level: the case of 978 Greek agricultural supply chain producers. Industrial Marketing Management, 979 93(August), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.09.022 980 Despoudi, S., Papaioannou, G., Saridakis, G., & Dani, S. (2018). Does collaboration pay in 981 agricultural supply chain? An empirical approach. International Journal of Production 982 Research, 56(13), 4396–4417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1440654 983 Diaz-Ruiz, R., Costa-Font, M., López-i-Gelats, F., & Gil, J. M. (2019). Food waste 984 prevention along the food supply chain: A multi-actor approach to identify effective 985 solutions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 149(May), 249–260. 986 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.031 987 Ding, M. J., Jie, F., Parton, K. A., & Matanda, M. J. (2014). Relationships between quality 988 of information sharing and supply chain food quality in theAustralian beef processing 989 industry. International Journal of Logistics Management, 25(1), 85–108. 990 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-07-2012-0057 991 Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of 992 interorganizational competitive strategy. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 993 660–679. https://doi.org/10.2307/259056 994 Dzudzor, M. I., & Gerber, N. (2023). Urban households’ food safety knowledge and 995 behaviour: Choice of food markets and cooking practices. Journal of Agriculture and 996 Food Research, 14(February), 100728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100728 997 32 Vanham, D., & Bidoglio, G. (2013). A review on the indicator water footprint for the 1238 EU28. Ecological Indicators, 26(2013), 61–75. 1239 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.021 1240 Vinicio, L., Solano, L., Brümmer, B., Engler, A., & Otter, V. (2019). Effects of intra- and 1241 inter-regional geographic diversification and product diversification on export 1242 performance: Evidence from the Chilean fresh fruit export sector. Food Policy, 86. 1243 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101730 1244 Wang, Z., Wang, Q., Zhang, S., & Zhao, X. (2018). Effects of customer and cost drivers on 1245 green supply chain management practices and environmental performance. Journal of 1246 Cleaner Production, 189, 673–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.071 1247 Wren, B. (2022). Sustainable supply chain management in the fast fashion Industry: A 1248 comparative study of current efforts and best practices to address the climate crisis. 1249 Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 4(February), 100032. 1250 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2022.100032 1251 Xu, H., Berres, A., Liu, Y., Allen-Dumas, M. R., & Sanyal, J. (2022). An overview of 1252 visualization and visual analytics applications in water resources management. 1253 Environmental Modelling and Software, 153(February), 105396. 1254 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105396 1255 Yan, Q., Yin, J., Baležentis, T., Makutėnienė, D., & Štreimikienė, D. (2017). Energy- 1256 related GHG emission in agriculture of the European countries: An application of the 1257 Generalized Divisia Index. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 686–694. 1258 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.010 1259 Yenipazarli, A. (2019). Incentives for environmental research and development: Consumer 1260 preferences, competitive pressure and emissions taxation. European Journal of 1261 Operational Research, 276(2), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.037 1262 Zakari, A., Khan, I., Tan, D., Alvarado, R., & Dagar, V. (2022). Energy efficiency and 1263 sustainable development goals (SDGs). Energy, 239, 122365. 1264 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122365 1265 Zambrano, F., Vrieling, A., Nelson, A., Meroni, M., & Tadesse, T. (2018). Prediction of 1266 drought-induced reduction of agricultural productivity in Chile from MODIS, rainfall 1267 estimates, and climate oscillation indices. Remote Sensing of Environment, 1268 219(September), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.10.006 1269 Zhang, B., Du, Z., & Wang, Z. (2018). Carbon reduction from sustainable consumption of 1270 waste resources: An optimal model for collaboration in an industrial symbiotic 1271 network. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 821–828. 1272 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.135 1273 Zhou, Z., Liu, L., Zeng, H., & Chen, X. (2018). Does water disclosure cause a rise in 1274 corporate risk-taking?—Evidence from Chinese high water-risk industries. Journal of 1275 Cleaner Production, 195, 1313–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.001 1276 1277 33 Appendix A – Loadings, AVE, and descriptive data Items Item description Loadings AVE Mean Std. Dev. Customer pressure CUS1 Our customers prefer environmentally friendly products. 0.774 0.718 4.20 0.96 CUS2 Our customers continuously pay attention to our firm's environmental behavior. 0.852 3.68 1.02 CUS3 Our customers seek companies that have environmentally responsible suppliers. 0.881 3.76 1.06 CUS4 Our customers are increasingly aware of environmental issues. 0.860 4.17 0.84 CUS5 Our customers believe that environmental protection is important. 0.863 4.19 0.85 Regulatory pressure REG1 Our company is concerned about legal risks. 0.695 0.583 4.39 0.77 REG2 Our company is concerned about government supervision. 0.752 4.25 0.87 REG3 Our company feels the pressure of regulatory compliance to GHG emissions 0.793 3.67 1.06 REG4 Our company feels the pressure of regulatory compliance to oil and other hazardous materials spills 0.817 4.03 0.98 REG5 Our company feels the pressure of regulatory compliance to engine standards upgrades. 0.754 3.72 0.98 Environme ntal collaborati on COL1 Our company cooperates with its suppliers to achieve environmental objectives. 0.767 0.729 3.63 0.98 COL2 Our company provides its suppliers with design specification that include environmental requirements for purchased items. 0.793 3.33 0.98 COL3 Our company encourages its suppliers to develop new source reduction strategies. 0.876 3.11 1.08 COL4 Our company cooperates with its suppliers to improve their waste reduction initiatives. 0.902 3.25 1.02 COL5 Our company works with its suppliers for cleaner production. 0.877 3.48 1.05 COL6 Our company collaborates with its suppliers to acquire materials, parts and/or services that support its environmental goals. 0.895 3.37 1.07 Food quality FQA1 Our company uses clean (uncontaminated) water for crop irrigation. 0.804 0.538 4.19 0.95 FQA2 Pesticides are always used at the rates indicated on the labels or recommended by the manufacturer. 0.804 4.42 0.84 34 FQA3 Our company complies with pre-harvest storage periods to minimize specific pesticide residues in harvested products. 0.796 4.41 0.91 FQA4 Manure and compost are incorporated into the soil before planting fruits/vegetables to prevent nutrient loss, whenever recommended. 0.548 3.81 0.94 FQA5 Biopesticides and/or organic fertilizers are used instead of chemicals. 0.601 3.73 1.00 FQA6 Our company controls compliance with the legal limits of pollutants from the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers and water sources from the perspective of human health. 0.819 4.25 0.96 FQA7 Pesticides are only applied upon evidence of infestation by insects 0.709 3.87 1.13 Energy efficiency manageme nt ENE1 Our managers invest in energy-efficient technologies 0.896 0.782 3.77 1.03 ENE2 Our organization prefers energy saving processes 0.888 4.01 0.97 ENE3 We update our process continuously for energy efficiency 0.868 3.52 1.06 Water footprint manageme nt WAT1 Our company promotes and adopts national and global standards for water footprint accounting, traceability, and assessment. 0.796 0.542 3.40 1.13 WAT2 Our company promotes the measurement of the water footprint throughout the supply chain, cooperating with partners to be able to generate records of the volume of water used in manufactured products. 0.781 3.30 1.07 WAT3 Our company implements processes that mitigate the risk of contamination, avoiding or minimizing the use of substances (metals, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) in products that may be polluting for water. 0.777 3.98 0.98 WAT4 Our company establishes water auditing and control systems 0.731 3.68 1.02 WAT5 Our company invests in water-efficient technologies. 0.639 4.15 0.94 WAT6 Our company reuses and recycles wastewater. 0.615 3.10 1.21 WAT7 Our company identifies the local risks of its impact on the water supply. 0.787 3.62 1.09 35 GHG Emissions manageme nt GHG1 Our company establishes economic incentives (variable remuneration, differentiated salary adjustments, bonuses, premiums, etc.) associated with performance targets in GHG emissions management. 0.728 0.733 2.57 1.10 GHG2 Our company measures and reports GHG emissions. 0.884 2.78 1.28 GHG3 Our company seeks opportunities to reduce GHG emissions. 0.852 3.25 1.18 GHG4 Our company incorporates GHG emissions into the process of systematically evaluating the environmental aspects and impacts of its activities. 0.894 2.92 1.12 GHG5 Our company follows specific processes and procedures for the management of GHG emissions 0.909 3.04 1.14 Food waste reduction manageme nt FWA1 Our company has improved the planning of agricultural activities to avoid surpluses. 0.600 0.573 3.89 0.88 FWA2 Our company shares production projection data at the cooperative level. 0.619 3.32 1.09 FWA3 Our company seeks alternative sales channels for harvest surpluses that do not meet the standard required by the main business. 0.539 3.52 1.08 FWA4 Our company applies voluntary actions to reduce avoidable food waste in the food industry. 0.762 3.60 1.03 FWA5 Our company redistributes food that is fit for consumption, but not for sale, to soup kitchens or social entities using the company's own transport. 0.666 2.73 1.16 FWA6 Our company develops a donation program to minimize biowaste. 0.731 2.64 1.10 FWA7 Our company shares primary production data with other agents in the chain (partners and clients) so that they are increasingly flexible in product size standards, in order to avoid wasting food that does not meet these standards. 0.769 3.07 1.14 FWA8 Our company has developed a food waste reduction plan. 0.773 2.95 1.11