Search

Organic products are less hazardous to consumer and environmental health because they contain fewer additives and fertilizers. However, some organic producers do not adhere to the organic production standards and deceive customers in an effort to increase their economic gain. Blockchain technology as a decentralized ledger can convince customers to get the benefits of organic production by making production more transparent. Using a game-theory-based model, the purpose of this paper is to examine and compare conventional and organic production in terms of economic, social, and environmental factors. A numerical example from the dairy industry is utilized to solve the model. The results indicate that organic production is more environmentally and economically sustainable than conventional production. In addition, the use of blockchain technology is not socially acceptable, but it has contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This technology increases the profitability of organic production while decreasing the profitability of conventional production. • A model is presented for the competition between conventional and organic products. • All dimensions of the sustainability are investigated in the food supply chain. • Organic production reduces greenhouse gas emissions and increases profitability. • Block chain technology increases the profitability of organic production. • Blockchain technology reduces greenhouse gas emissions and increases additives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of food additives and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are major factors that affect consumer health, which cannot be ensured, therefore, unless the food supply chain is controlled. This paper presents a bi-level optimization approach to address competition between the members of a food supply chain, including two suppliers and one manufacturer. The manufacturer seeks to determine prices, production, and investment in reducing GHG emissions to maximize profits at the upper level. A multi-period model is presented, in which the manufacturer seeks to reduce production costs by maintaining inventory and, of course, accepting the risk of waste. At the lower level, the suppliers compete to determine the price of raw materials and the amount of additives to maximize their profits. Two linear approximation methods are proposed to linearize the nonlinear model. According to the results, the lowest relative gaps obtained from solving the model for two numerical examples using the second linear approximation method are lower than those obtained by the first method. A sensitivity analysis of the effective parameters demonstrates that an increase in the dependence of demand on price leads to a 30% decrease in the profit of the entire supply chain. The manufacturer faces an average 3% drop in demand with an increase of 4%–7% in the rate of production waste. An 18% increase in the cost of GHG emission reduction leads to a 5% decrease in total supply chain profit. Hence, the increase in the cost of reducing GHG emissions is not economical and environment-friendly for the supply chain members. A budget increase is appropriate in terms of the economic and environmental goals, but its impact on the manufacturer's decision variables varies by period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Additives are added to raw materials and products with purposes such as reduction of costs, improvement of physical appearance and taste, and enhancement of shelf life. Overuse of additives causes health problems for consumers and hence supply chain members must consider social consequences besides the economic goals in the specification of the amount of additives. Furthermore, the production and delivery operations in the food supply chain constitute one of the leading causes of energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The reduction of GHG emissions increases cost, and a balance, therefore, needs to be established between economic and environmental goals. In this study, three pricing models are presented for a supply chain, including two suppliers and one manufacturer. Consumer health and the reduction of GHG emissions are investigated as the social and environmental objectives, respectively, besides the supply chain members' profit. While a centralized structure is considered in the first model, the second and third models have decentralized structures. Unlike in the second model, where all the supply chain members compete with each other, an alliance is considered in the third model between the first supplier and the manufacturer, competing with the other supplier. The equilibrium decisions are derived for each scenario using the game-theoretic approach. Moreover, the impact of the supply chain structure on the carbon emissions, amount of additives, and agents' profits are investigated. A number of interesting insights have been revealed from these analyses. For example, it is demonstrated that the government could set penalties for the addition of additives in specific ranges, as a result of which the supply chain members would prefer not to add to additives. A numerical analysis is carried out to present more insights into the effects of the main parameters. We found that the more customer demand depends on price, the less the manufacturer will be motivated to reduce GHG emissions. GHG emissions increase as government penalty for endangering consumer health rises. Alliances between supply chain members are economically beneficial when product demand is dependent more strictly on the reduction of GHG emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]