Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Agricultural innovation increasingly relies on sustainable financing, supply chain mechanisms and smallholder involvement. The literature on sustainable supply chain finance (SCF) remains fragmented, with limited synthesis of how financial instruments, digital technologies, and institutional arrangements support inclusive agricultural transformation (AT). This study conducts a systematic bibliometric review of 58 peer-reviewed articles published between 2015 and 2025 using negative binomial regression to examine the intellectual structure and determinants of scholarly impact in SCF research. Bibliometric mapping reveals co-authorship networks, keyword patterns, and thematic clusters. Regression analysis was used to assess the effects of collaboration intensity, journal quality, and publication age on citation performance. The findings identify three dominant trajectories: (i) the convergence of finance, risk management, and sustainability as the core of SCF research; (ii) digital financial platforms, such as blockchain, IoT, and AI, as operational enablers; and (iii) increasing inclusion of SMEs and smallholders within SCF frameworks. The regression results show that multi-author collaboration and publication in high-quartile (Q1) journals enhance scholarly impact, while international collaboration has a limited effect. This study integrates bibliometric mapping with statistical modeling to identify structural gaps in SCF research. The study highlights three underexplored areas: the weak linkage between SCF instruments and measurable agricultural innovation outcomes, insufficient socio-technical alignment of digital tools with smallholder realities, and the marginal role of policy frameworks. By synthesizing these insights, this study proposes a structured research agenda that advances SCF scholarship and guides future research at the intersection of sustainable finance, supply chain integration, and smallholder innovation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nuraisyah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: