A systematic scoping review of the sustainability of vertical farming, plant-based alternatives, food delivery services and blockchain in food systems

Technologies in the food sector are rapidly developing to address systemic sustainability challenges across food supply chains. The authors define these as food system technologies (FSTs), noting heightened investment interest and a common “sustainability halo” that emphasizes climate benefits while often neglecting other sustainability dimensions. Sustainability as framed by the SDGs spans environmental, economic and social pillars with potential synergies and trade-offs; innovations can influence all pillars and risk unintended consequences. While tools exist to study whole food systems, there is no standardized toolset or inventory of indicators to empirically assess FSTs’ sustainability performance. This multidisciplinary scoping review examines the extent, range and nature of peer-reviewed literature assessing four representative FSTs selected based on investment flows: plant-based alternatives (PBAs), vertical farming (VF), food deliveries (FD) and blockchain technology (BT). The review identifies sustainability indicators used, synthesizes comparative evidence against baseline technologies, and highlights implications for comprehensive sustainability assessments.

The paper frames four FSTs across the supply chain: plant-based alternatives (meat, dairy, seafood and egg analogues), vertical farming (multi-layer indoor systems without solar light), food deliveries (online-ordered meals and groceries), and blockchain technology (decentralized ledgers for supply-chain traceability). Prior scholarship emphasizes environmental assessments, especially via life cycle assessment (LCA), with fewer studies on public health and socio-economic outcomes. The authors note a lack of a defined, cross-pillar inventory of sustainability indicators applicable to FSTs. They summarize that environmental indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions, land, and water use are most commonly assessed, whereas social indicators (for example, nutritional adequacy, consumer acceptance) and economic ones (for example, price, energy use, profitability) are less frequently covered, and BT’s impacts are often discussed narratively rather than empirically.

The authors conducted a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were performed in Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus in September 2021, restricting to literature from 2016 onward due to rapid growth in FST publications. Study screening and duplicate removal were managed using CADIMA. An initial 5% (57 articles) consistency check across reviewers was conducted; after achieving consistency, title/abstract screening was completed by one reviewer (A.C.B.), and full-text screening by three reviewers independently (A.C.B. 80%, A.W. 10%, L.J.G. 10%), with disagreements resolved by discussion. Eligibility criteria: studies had to assess sustainability of the selected FSTs as defined in the conceptual framework; for PBAs, only products designed to mimic animal-based products were included (excluding cellular meat, insect foods, traditional fermented legumes). Non-vertical aqua/hydroponic systems and BT applied to non-food sectors were excluded. Studies were required to include quantitative assessment for at least one sustainability indicator; an exception was made for BT due to limited empirical evidence (narrative description acceptable). Included were peer-reviewed case studies and reviews with quantification; conference proceedings and non-peer-reviewed sources were excluded. English-only literature was included. Data charting (Oct–Dec 2021) captured study design, location, sustainability indicators, methods, LCA assumptions, and comparative results. Because meta-analysis was infeasible due to heterogeneity, the authors developed a coding scheme to classify sustainability performance agreement across studies that compared an FST to its baseline: PBAs vs animal-based products; VF vs open-field and greenhouses; FD vs individual grocery retail trips or restaurant dining. A traffic-light coding was used to denote higher (better), similar, or lower performance, and results were stratified by system boundary and functional unit when applicable. Data and code were made publicly available.

- Corpus: Initial search retrieved 1,493 records; 79 studies met inclusion criteria. By FST: PBAs (n=37), VF (n=16), BT (n=14), FD (n=11). Geographically, PBAs focused on Europe and North America; VF on Europe; FD on Asia; BT often global or Asia-focused. - Methods landscape: Predominant use of LCA for environmental impacts (n=26), consumer behavior studies (n=11), nutritional analyses (n=10), and economic modeling (n=7). Reviews (n=13) were concentrated on BT. - Indicators: Environmental indicators dominated across FSTs. PBAs frequently assessed GHGe (n=16), land use (n=11), water use (n=12), eutrophication (n=12), acidification (n=8), ecotoxicity (n=10), and sometimes carbon opportunity cost. Social indicators included nutritional adequacy (n=14) and consumer acceptance (n=11). Economic indicators included energy use (n=7), price (n=2), willingness to buy/pay. - PBAs vs animal products: Consistent evidence of lower environmental impacts (lower GHGe, water and land use; lower ecotoxicity, acidification, and eutrophication), with exceptions (for example, higher water intensity for almond milk in some system boundaries; higher energy demand for some plant-based dairy alternatives). Nutritional performance showed no clear consensus: protein content varied by base commodity; sodium often higher in PBAs (e.g., coconut-oil-based cheeses); saturated fat generally lower except for coconut-oil-based products. Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay were lower than for conventional products; PBAs tended to be higher in cost. - Vertical farming vs baselines: VF outperformed open-field and greenhouses on land and water use; one study modeled up to 95% less water than greenhouses for lettuce via recycling. GHGe higher than open-field but lower than greenhouses. Energy inputs higher than both open-field and greenhouses. Environmental impacts depend strongly on energy source, substrate, and packaging. Economically, higher yields than greenhouses can lead to slightly higher revenues in some contexts. - Food deliveries vs baselines: Grocery delivery had lower GHGe and energy use compared with individual car-based retail trips, but not compared with walking, cycling, or public transport. Meal delivery performed worse than home cooking or on-premise dining due mainly to plastic packaging waste; walking to a restaurant instead of ordering delivery could reduce GHGe by about 68% per meal. - Blockchain technology: Literature describes potential benefits across social (food safety, reduced waste, trust, equity), economic (cost and process efficiencies, profitability), and environmental domains (monitoring impacts, reduced inputs via traceability, combating IUU fishing), but lacks empirical assessments quantifying sustainability outcomes. Reported limitations include high initial costs, data security, smart contract vulnerabilities, limited data accessibility, high validation energy use, and regulatory challenges.

Findings indicate that evidence is heavily skewed toward environmental assessments, with socio-economic dimensions underrepresented. PBAs generally reduce environmental impacts relative to animal counterparts, but nutritional results are mixed and often show higher sodium; consumer acceptance and affordability remain challenges. VF can significantly reduce land and water use but is energy intensive; its environmental performance is highly contingent on energy mix, materials, and regional conditions, suggesting the greatest benefits in low-light or water-scarce regions and where renewable energy is available. FD’s environmental performance depends strongly on the counterfactual travel mode; broader public health and social impacts (for example, implications of packaging exposure and dietary shifts) remain underexplored. BT shows promise for traceability, safety, waste reduction, and fisheries management but lacks empirical validation of sustainability benefits. Methodological factors (system boundaries, functional units) materially influence results and complicate generalization; regional and cultural contexts also shape outcomes (for example, energy grids, consumer acceptance). Overall, a multi-indicator, cross-pillar assessment framework is needed to guide investments and policy, alongside targeted empirical studies to address identified gaps.

The review synthesizes empirical evidence on four FSTs, finding substantial evidence for PBAs’ environmental benefits, moderate and context-dependent evidence for VF and FD, and no empirical validation for BT’s sustainability performance to date. While these technologies may contribute to a more sustainable and healthy food system, unintended trade-offs are possible. The authors call for rigorous, quantitative, multi-indicator sustainability assessments that encompass environmental, social, and economic dimensions, the development of a standardized indicator inventory and assessment framework, and targeted empirical studies—particularly for seafood PBAs, socio-economic impacts of VF, broader public health and environmental impacts of FD beyond GHGe, and causal evaluations of BT’s sustainability claims.

- Scope and sources: Only peer-reviewed, English-language literature was included; grey literature, conference proceedings, and non-English studies were excluded. - Heterogeneity: Diverse designs, indicators, system boundaries, and functional units precluded meta-analysis and complicate generalization. - Comparators: Sustainability performance was compared to baseline technologies but not across FSTs themselves; individual product performance can vary by raw materials and processes. - Classification: The traffic-light scheme is conceptual and subjective, not a measure of evidentiary strength. No formal risk of bias assessment was conducted, consistent with scoping review norms. - Evidence gaps: Limited empirical studies for BT; sparse assessments of seafood PBAs; few socio-economic analyses for VF; limited public health and socio-economic evaluations for FD.