Sustainability 15 08859

sustainability
Article
The Impact of COVID-19 on Supply Chain in UAE Food Sector
Yousef Abu Nahleh * , Budur Al Ali, Hind Al Ali, Shouq Alzarooni, Shaikha Almulla and Fatima Alteneiji
Industrial Engineering Technology, Higher Colleges of Technology, Sharjah 7947, United Arab Emirates;
h00418033@hct.ac.ae (B.A.A.); h00417696@hct.ac.ae (H.A.A.); h00417640@hct.ac.ae (S.A.);
h00417695@hct.ac.ae (S.A.); h00417513@hct.ac.ae (F.A.)
* Correspondence: yabunahleh@hct.ac.ae
Abstract: The COVID-19 outbreak has significantly impacted supply chains and has caused several
supply chain disruptions in almost all industries worldwide. Moreover, increased transportation
costs, labor shortages, and insufficient storage facilities have all led to food loss during the pandemic,
and this disruption has affected the logistics in the food value chain. As a result, we examine
the food supply chain, which is one of the key industries COVID-19 has detrimentally affected,
impacting, indeed, on the entire business process from the supplier all the way to the customer.
Retail businesses are thus facing supply issues, which affect consumer behavior by creating stress
regarding the availability of food. This has a negative impact on the amount of food that is available
as well as its quality, freshness, safety, access to markets, and affordability. This study examines the
impact of COVID-19 on the United Arab Emirates food distribution systems and how consumer
behavior changed in reaction to interruptions in the food supply chain and the food security problem.
Hypothesis testing was used in the study’s quantitative methodology to assess consumer behavior,
and participants who were consumers were given a descriptive questionnaire to ascertain whether
the availability and security of food had been impacted. The study used JASP 0.17.2 software to
develop a model of food consumption behavior and to reveal pertinent connections between each
construct. Results show that consumer food stress and consumption behavior are directly impacted
by food access, food quality and safety, and food pricing. Furthermore, food stress has an impact
on how consumers behave when it comes to consumption. Food stress, however, is not significantly
influenced by food supply.
Citation: Abu Nahleh, Y.; Al Ali, B.; Keywords: COVID-19; supply chain; UAE; consumer panic; structural equation modelling (SEM);
Al Ali, H.; Alzarooni, S.; Almulla, S.; JASP software
Alteneiji, F. The Impact of COVID-19
on Supply Chain in UAE Food Sector.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8859. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su15118859 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Riccardo Testa The coronavirus/SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), officially recognized by the World Health
Organization on 11 February 2020, rapidly spread around the world with significant social
Received: 2 May 2023 and economic repercussions. The pandemic has caused a catastrophic loss of life on a
Revised: 22 May 2023
global scale and presents an unprecedented threat to food systems, public health, and
Accepted: 26 May 2023
the workplace. Governments throughout the world have used using non-pharmaceutical
Published: 31 May 2023
measures like social distancing regulations and civic lockdowns to restrict the spread of
the virus because there was no vaccine or viable treatment to stop the disease’s spread.
Economic activities have been significantly harmed by the impact of preventing people
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
from being able to work, gather, and socialize, particularly in the service and food sectors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Therefore, the COVID-19 outbreak has significantly impacted supply chains and has
This article is an open access article caused several supply chain disruptions in almost all industries worldwide. Moreover,
distributed under the terms and increased transportation costs, labor shortages, and insufficient storage facilities all led
conditions of the Creative Commons to food loss during the pandemic, and this disruption has affected the logistics in the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// food value chains, including transportation, warehousing, procurement, packaging, and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ inventory management. Retail businesses are thus facing supply issues, which affect
4.0/). consumer behavior by causing uncertainties and stresses about food. This has a negative
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8859. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118859 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 8859 2 of 21
impact on the amount of food that is available as well as its quality, freshness, safety,
access to markets, and affordability. The pandemic’s enormous demands created significant
logistical difficulties for both governments and individuals.
The COVID-19 pandemic, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO),
has had a substantial impact on both supply and demand in the short food supply chains
(SFSCs). Additionally, it has caused an impact on the dairy products industries, a significant
sector of the world economy, in large part because of the protective measures implemented
at the local or regional level.
The UAE is particularly vulnerable to the effects of the epidemic on other nations due
to its reliance on imported food and its open economy, which makes it exposed to unstable
international markets. Additionally, there has been a significant shift in the global food
demand’s composition. Not only was there a collapse in demand from restaurants, hotels,
and catering services as well as the closure of some open markets [1], but there was also a
surge in consumer demand faced by supermarkets, neighbourhood grocers, and grocery-
related e-commerce channels [2,3]. Therefore, this study intends to investigate how changes
in the food supply chain and the food security issue during COVID-19 affected consumer
behavior through a quantitative survey. This research will determine the influence of
COVID-19 on the global food supply chain, the operations of the food supply chain in the
UAE, and how to evaluate it, and it will identify methods for minimizing the pandemic’s
impact on UAE businesses.
This article has several interlinked goals. We will highlight the existing gap in the
literature regarding the explicit connection between consumer behavior and the supply
chain, specifically focusing on the UAE food sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, and
emphasizing that the current literature lacks in-depth exploration and understanding of
how consumer behavior influences supply chain dynamics and operations. The objective of
this study is to examine the impact of consumer behavior on the supply chain in the UAE
food sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this research aims to contribute to filling
the existing research gap and provide valuable insights into this important relationship.
This research will contribute to the existing body of knowledge by identifying key consumer
behavior factors, such as changing preferences, purchasing patterns, and online shopping
behaviors that have had a direct impact on supply chain operations during COVID-19.
This article presents an examination of the impact of consumer behavior on the supply
chain in the UAE food sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. The organization of this
paper is broken up into sections after this one. In Section 2, we provide a theoretical
background, followed by reviewing relevant literature on consumer behavior and supply
chain management and contextualizing our study in Section 3. Section 4 outlines our
methodology, detailing our research design, data collection methods, and analysis tech-
niques. Section 5 presents our findings and analysis, offering insights into the specific ways
consumer behavior has influenced the supply chain in the UAE food sector. Section 6 relates
our findings to existing literature and presents the managerial implications of our findings.
Finally, in Section 7, we summarize our key findings, contributions, and recommendations
for supply chain managers. Overall, the paper aims to present a coherent and insightful
exploration of the relationship between consumer behavior and the supply chain during
the COVID-19 pandemic in the UAE food sector.
2. Background
The COVID-19 pandemic, since its emergence globally, has affected several divisions
in industries. The food industry is one of the most vulnerable sectors in the economy
of any country. In the United Arab Emirates, the food industry supply chain has seen
tremendous change over the past few decades, as the government continues to invest in
agriculture to minimize the nation’s dependency on imported supplies. The transit of
food across borders had a substantial impact via the outbreaks of COVID-19 on a global
level. However, due to the lack of demand, the closure of food production facilities, and
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21
However, due to the lack of demand, the closure of food production facilities, and finan-
financial constraints,
cial constraints, business
business operations
operations and theandsupply
the supply of various
of various food food products
products have have
been
been temporarily
temporarily suspended.
suspended.
The food supply chain is a dynamic dynamic sector that reliesrelies on
on anan efficient
efficient and
and effective
effective
supply
supply chain to function properly. It is a process that involves various phases that food
chain to function properly. It is a process that involves various phases that food
products
products gogo through
throughduring
duringthethemovement
movement from
from supplier
supplier to consumer
to consumer andand finally
finally to
to cus-
customer. Every phase in the supply chain requires natural resources
tomer. Every phase in the supply chain requires natural resources or humans. The supply or humans. The
supply chain processes
chain processes are linked
are linked together,
together, and whenand when one stage
one stage in theinprocess
the process is affected,
is affected, the
the whole
whole supply
supply chain
chain willwill be affected.
be affected. The processes
The processes involve
involve production,
production, handling
handling and
and stor-
storage, processing
age, processing andand packaging,
packaging, distribution,
distribution, retailing,
retailing, andand consumption.
consumption.
In
In the food supply chain, the food moves from the supplierto
the food supply chain, the food moves from the supplier toproducer
producer(farmer/food
(farmer/food
manufacturer) to the final consumer during the processes shown
manufacturer) to the final consumer during the processes shown in Figure in Figure 1 below,
1 below,andand
the
money paid by the consumer then moves from the consumer to the
the money paid by the consumer then moves from the consumer to the producer in a producer in a reversed
process
reversed[4]:
process [4]:
Supplier Processor Distributor Retailer Consumer
Movement of food
Movement of money
Figure 1. Food
Figure 1. Food Supply
Supply Chain
Chain Process.
Process.
The movement of both food and money is facilitated by push/pull dynamics. In the
The movement of both food and money is facilitated by push/pull dynamics. In the
food supply chain, the food is pushed or supplied by producers and processors, and is also
food supply chain, the food is pushed or supplied by producers and processors, and is
pulled or demanded by consumers. Processors and producers also pull the money, while
also pulled or demanded by consumers. Processors and producers also pull the money,
the consumer pushes money to facilitate its flow from the consumer to the producer.
while the consumer pushes money to facilitate its flow from the consumer to the producer.
3. Literature Review
3. Literature Review
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound and multifaceted impact on the global
food The
supplyCOVID-19 pandemic
chain, leading has had a profound
to disruptions, logistical and multifaceted
challenges, andimpact
shifts on the global
in consumer
food supply chain, leading to disruptions, logistical challenges,
behavior. While there is existing literature on the overall impact of the pandemic on foodand shifts in consumer
behavior.and
systems While therechains,
supply is existing
thereliterature on the
is a scientific overall regarding
vacuum impact of the the pandemic on food
specific strategies
systems and supply chains, there is a scientific vacuum regarding
and solutions to minimize the pandemic’s impact on UAE businesses operating in the food the specific strategies
and solutions
supply to minimize
chain sector. the pandemic’s
A comprehensive literatureimpact
reviewonisUAE businesses
required to identifyoperating in the
this scientific
foodand
gap supply chain sector.
contribute A comprehensive
to the understanding literaturemeasures
of effective review isthat required
can betoimplemented
identify this
scientific
to mitigate gap
theand contribute
challenges facedto by
theUAE
understanding
companies.ofByeffectiveaddressing measures that cangap,
this research be im-
the
plemented
study aims toto provide
mitigatevaluable
the challenges
insights faced by UAE companies.
and recommendations By addressing
for improving this re-
the resilience
search
and gap, the study
sustainability of aims to provide
the UAE’s foodvaluable
supply insights
chain inandthe recommendations for improv-
face of future disruptions or
ing the resilience
similar crises. and sustainability of the UAE’s food supply chain in the face of future
disruptions or similar crises.
Impacts of COVID-19 on the Food Supply Chain
Impacts of COVID-19 on the Food Supply Chain
The food supply chain is comprised of all the stages that food products go through
duringThe food
their supply chain
movement is comprised
from producer of all theand
to customers stages that foodHowever,
consumers. productsthere
go through
are few
during their movement from producer to customers and consumers.
occurrences and instances that could disrupt the food chain and cause complications However, there are
down
few occurrences and instances that could disrupt the food chain and
the line. Because of the recent challenges in the food supply chain, there is now considerable cause complications
down the
concern line.food
about Because of the recent
production, challenges
processing, in the and
distribution, fooddemand.
supply chain,
COVID-19thereresulted
is now
considerable concern about food production, processing,
in the movement restrictions of workers, changes in demand of consumers, closure of distribution, and demand.
COVID-19
food resulted
production in the movement
facilities, restricted foodrestrictions of workers,
trade policies, and changes
financialin demand in
pressures of food
con-
sumers,chain.
supply closureHowever,
of food production facilities,that
the main impacts restricted
we will foodbe trade policies,
focusing on areand(1)financial
lack of
pressures in food(2)
communication, supply chain.
the panic However, the
of consumers main impacts
regarding that we
the shortage ofwill be focusing
labour, and (3) theon
are (1) lack of communication,
shortage of raw materials. (2) the panic of consumers regarding the shortage of labour,
and (3) the shortage of raw materials.
3.1. Lack of Communication

The supply chain during the COVID-19 crisis has faced critical challenges in the
communication lines with business-related stakeholders [5]. The stakeholders share their
assets and capabilities to minimize uncertainty, share cost, and risk, and they satisfy
customers by serving them. The relevant information is required by the supply chain
members to make informed and appropriate decisions [6].
During the lockdowns introduced almost universally by governments around the
world, various markets have recorded a significant increase of the demand for food. The
food supply chain system experienced a panic response globally, it seems, because of the
unprecedented uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures introduced to
combat it. As a result, and related to the high demand of customers, suppliers should man-
age and produce extra products to satisfy customers, but because the pandemic happened
suddenly, and because of the panic buying when the lockdowns started, the suppliers dis
not have a plan for communicating to consumers or for how to produce and access food.
The absence of communication between the company suppliers and the customer can result
in unsatisfied customers and insufficient quantities for the orders that are demanded. The
process of the supply chain can thereby be affected via the strategy implementation and
the decision-making process. Based on [7], poor communication between the company and
the transportation drivers is an additional internal uncertainty and risk, and the resulting
inefficiency can contribute to delayed deliveries and increase costs.
Furthermore, based on the studies in the Valguarnera Industry regarding commu-
nication outside the consortium, the exchange of information between the suppliers and
enterprises was weak because of the geographical distances, which was severely exacer-
bated by the lockdown of the borders between the countries and the difficulty of getting
even good across them, at least at first. As a result, the research analysis found that a lack of
awareness of new technologies is an issue that can lead to inefficient production processes
outside the consortium and delays in receiving data [8].
3.1.1. Coordination between Stakeholders

The food chain must obtain support by communicating with all stakeholders involved
in the supply chain, irrespective of the physical location [9], although inconsistent commu-
nication due to the low capacity of wireless connections can make it challenging to obtain
data for planning and also for managing instability with external and internal stakeholders.
To reduce risks and build a more resilient food system, there has to be more cooperation
between the parties involved in the food supply chain—a concept of interactions between
supply chain partners to achieve objectives by working together to complete duties. This
emphasizes the importance of horizontal collaboration in the food supply chain and the
use of IT technologies, which could enhance supply chain coordination [10].
3.1.2. Coordination between Stakeholders

Sharing information is essential for preserving coordination among the FSC stakehold-
ers. Additionally, information strategies that differ in the types of connections between
supply chain stakeholders can influence how much information is shared. However, during
the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant lockdown, the lack of awareness of how to use
technologies and digital communication was the main issue that caused a bottleneck in the
supply chain process, since, in this process, each chain is linked to the other, and all have to
share information on the levels of stock, trend sales, and trend demands, which leads to an
increase in communication and collaboration by implementing effective strategies due to a
well-informed decision-making process [8].
In the modern era, businesses collect data about the activities occurring along the food
supply chain utilizing technology-based traceable systems [10].
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
3.2. Consumer Panic in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Globalization has brought about not only advantages but also risks to the supply
3.2. Consumer
chain, and one of Panic
thesein risks
the COVID-19 Pandemic
is the effect of consumer behaviour in crises, such as pan-
demics.Globalization
Panic buyinghas is abrought
human about not only
behaviour advantages
indicated but also
by a rapid risks to
increase inthe supplyvol-
purchase chain,
umeandbefore
one of orthese
during risks is thedisasters
natural effect of and
consumer behaviour
man-made crises, in
orcrises,
in view such
of aaslarge
pandemics.
price
Panic buying
increase is a human
or shortage. However, behaviour
consumersindicated by a rapid
are commonly increasetoinstock
observed purchase
up onvolume
con-
before or during natural disasters and man-made crises, or in view
sumer goods to an extent that greatly exceeds levels observed in normal times. Ref. [11]of a large price increase
or shortage.
provides However, consumers
a comprehensive explorationareofcommonly
consumerobserved
behavior,todelving
stock up onthe
into consumer goods
factors that
shape consumer decision-making processes and offer valuable insights into understand- a
to an extent that greatly exceeds levels observed in normal times. Ref. [11] provides
ingcomprehensive
consumer motivationsexploration andofbehaviors.
consumer behavior, delving into the factors that shape con-
sumer decision-making
If there processesand
is a lack of awareness andeducation
offer valuable
aboutinsights into understanding
food availability consumer
and security, this
motivations and behaviors.
can lead to anxiety, stress, and panic. This, in turn, can cause a change in consumer be-
haviourIfthat
there is a lack
triggers of awareness
a demand shock inandtheeducation
food supply about
and food
in foodavailability and security,
demand, specifically
this can lead to anxiety, stress, and panic. This, in turn, can
in supermarkets and retailers, and the number of stockouts would thereby increasecause a change in consumer
sig-
behaviour that triggers a demand shock in the food supply and
nificantly as shown in Figure 2. This is what happened during the pandemic. Indeed, in food demand, specifi-
se-
cally in supermarkets and retailers, and the number of stockouts would thereby increase
rious stock-out situations have arisen in many countries for consumer staples in 2020.
significantly as shown in Figure 2. This is what happened during the pandemic. Indeed,
Stock-outs are costly for consumers in general. Consumers’ food consumption habits have
serious stock-out situations have arisen in many countries for consumer staples in 2020.
changed as a result of less frequent grocery shopping, a bad income shock, and skyrock-
Stock-outs are costly for consumers in general. Consumers’ food consumption habits have
eting food prices. In addition, lockdowns, transportation disruptions, and panic buying
changed as a result of less frequent grocery shopping, a bad income shock, and skyrocketing
led to shortages of products in almost every sect, which made it difficult for producers to
food prices. In addition, lockdowns, transportation disruptions, and panic buying led to
reach markets and limited consumer access to the inputs where the cost of transporting
shortages of products in almost every sect, which made it difficult for producers to reach
food has gone up. This only goes to show the way in which human behaviour is impacted
markets and limited consumer access to the inputs where the cost of transporting food has
by a sense of fear or anxiety, especially during disasters or extreme situations [12].
gone up. This only goes to show the way in which human behaviour is impacted by a sense
of fear or anxiety, especially during disasters or extreme situations [12].
Figure 2. Consumers Panic Impact Flow Chart.

Figure 2. Consumers Panic Impact Flow Chart.
3.2.1. Food Availability
FoodAvailability
3.2.1. Food availability refers to the regular accessibility of food at the local level, ensuring
that individuals
Food and
availability households
refers can obtain
to the regular their essential
accessibility of food atfood itemslevel,
the local without facing
ensuring
difficulties [13]. Consumer preferences are significantly influenced by the perceived
that individuals and households can obtain their essential food items without facing dif- scarcity
or abundance
ficulties of goods,
[13]. Consumer including food
preferences [14]. Duringinfluenced
are significantly pandemics, bythe
theunavailability of food
perceived scarcity
in retail stores has a direct impact on consumer purchasing behavior and contributes
or abundance of goods, including food [14]. During pandemics, the unavailability of food
to food-related stress. Without intervention from countries or governments in the food
in retail stores has a direct impact on consumer purchasing behavior and contributes to
industry, there is a risk of severe disruptions in the food supply chain, leading to a doubling
food-related stress. Without intervention from countries or governments in the food in-
of the number of people experiencing hunger. The absence of available food in local
dustry, there is a risk of severe disruptions in the food supply chain, leading to a doubling
markets during the COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly distressing for parents of
of the number of people experiencing hunger. The absence of available food in local mar-
infants [2]. To avoid future food shortages, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
kets during the COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly distressing for parents of in-
has recommended that countries maintain resilient food supply systems [15]. However,
fants [2]. To avoid future food shortages, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
when foods are not accessible in the market, consumers are unable to make purchases,
has recommended that countries maintain resilient food supply systems [15]. However,
which directly impacts their buying behavior [16].
when foods are not accessible in the market, consumers are unable to make purchases,
The product availability perceptions and shortages can have a big influence on cus-
which directly impacts their buying behavior [16].
tomer preferences. Consumer purchasing patterns and stress levels during the epidemic are
affected by the availability of food in retail outlets, resulting in an increase in the number
of customers in ordering goods, and causing food shortages and the unavailability of many
essential products. Lockdowns brought may, indeed, quadruple the number of hungry
individuals [17].
The only alternative left for people to buy food products during the CVOID-19 pan-
demic was supermarkets and online services with home delivery. However, even here,
there were major problems in obtaining products. The problem of understocking was
also widespread at this time, and finding necessary products in the market was another
challenge. In times of shortage, retailers raised prices as they saw fit, and access became
expensive. The biggest problem for supermarkets was imported products, and shelves
were left empty due to border closures [18].
3.2.2. Food Stress

Due to the lockdowns, which generate panic in food purchases, the majority of nations
experienced a shortage of goods and services. Regional stores do not carry food, and the
cost of basic items increased by 300%. Customers will therefore be concerned about buying
and eating food. Therefore, stress played a crucial part in the increased food consumption
that occurred during the COVID-19 epidemic. Consumer food stress is increased by the
disruption of the food supply chain, indeed, and by lack of access to food, rising food
prices, and unemployment [17].
3.2.3. Food Insecurity

Direct food stress brought on by food insecurity has a detrimental effect on consumer
spending behaviour and access to affordable and nutritious food. During the COVID-19
pandemic, more than 1 billion people suffered from nutritional deficiencies, which is an
increasing global issue due to food insecurity, and, therefore, these problems can have
detrimental effects on public health, including diabetes, heart disease, depression, etc. As a
result, there are now more people who are food insecure than there were a few years ago.
A total of 8.9% of the world’s population (690 million) suffered from malnutrition in 2019,
and this is one of the reasons that food prices have risen since February 2020, increasing by
more than 10% in Belarus, Bolivia, Ghana, and Myanmar, and more than 20% in Guyana,
Sudan, and Zambia [19].
3.2.4. Food Quality and Safety

Consumer purchase intentions and consumption behavior are significantly impacted
by the quality and safety of food [20–24]. Consumers have a preference for purchasing
high-quality products, and food quality and safety encompass various criteria, such as taste,
naturalness, freshness, safety, production methods, healthiness, control, sensory appeal,
shelf life, and overall condition [25]. Describing food quality and safety can be challenging
as they are considered as credibility attributes, which are characteristics that consumers
cannot directly verify. Consumer judgments of quality and safety rely on comparisons
with other products, considering intrinsic factors (e.g., product aesthetics) and extrinsic
factors (e.g., quality labels) [26]. Food choices continuously involve decisions related to
food quality and safety, which, in turn, influence consumer purchasing behavior [24]. It is
important to note here that [27] has clarified that coronaviruses are not transmitted through
food, as demonstrated by previous coronavirus outbreaks like MERS and SARS. However,
it is still recommended to follow proper hygiene practices, such as thorough handwashing
or sanitizing after handling food packages in order to minimize the risk of contact with
coronavirus-contaminated food [28].
The most important aspects of consumer purchase decisions that significantly affect
consuming behaviour are food quality and safety. Customers like to buy high-quality
goods. Food quality and safety refers to a number of food standards, including good flavor,
freshness, safety, appropriate production processes, and healthiness. In Bangladesh, an
outbreak that resulted in a decline in food quality and safety was caused by a number of
businessmen mixing infected food. People are consequently concerned about food, and
their shopping patterns are quickly changing [17].
3.2.5. Demand Shock

At the beginning of the lockdown, panic buying has led to a food shortage, shocking
the supply chain’s rhythm. For instance, the initial lockdown period in South Africa was
imposed for a period of 21 days to stop the spread of COVID-19 infections [9]. People
stocked their pantries with necessities as a result of the uncertainty and panic that the
lockdown period caused. It has been observed that the biggest obstacle was not a shortage
of food but rather a consumer’s ability to access that food, a factor that is primarily
determined by economic and social variables.
With spikes and demand shocks at the start of the lockdown, numerous markets ob-
served a considerable rise in the demand for food, household goods, and home electronics.
In the United States, a study on food demand was conducted. The food demand in the
United States from March to May 2020, with an initial shock in March and stabilization
from April 2020 onwards [29]. Uncertainty brought on by the shutdown of distribution
routes was the cause of the initial shock period. The shock in the food supply chain may
have been caused by a panic response rather than by actual threats of food scarcity.
Consumer demand for food products initially increased as a result of stockpiling
behaviour, which also caused demand for basic goods to increase. For instance, in the
protein industry, manufacturers increased production in response to this spike. The loss
of nearly all food services as well as a shift in consumer behaviour towards preventative
saving had a negative impact on demand as economic activity slowed, which was a result
of changes in consumer behaviour brought on by the pandemic, and which was also a result
of active government initiatives (i.e, full or partial lockdowns) [30]. However, on the supply
side, the severe negative shock was reflected through plant slowdowns and shutdowns as
COVID-19 kept workers at home due to illness, quarantine, or risk avoidance. Additionally,
COVID-19 encouraged restrictions on processing due to social distancing measures and
additional health, safety, and sanitation measures, which further constricted supply.
Short-term stockouts have been caused by consumer stockpiling and panic buying.
Large scale supermarkets often operate on a just-in-time delivery system [12]. A constant
supply of items is maintained on the shelves of grocery stores due to sophisticated inventory
management and planning procedures that take into consideration typical supply-and-
demand trends. The system is functional and efficient in normal conditions, it should be
said, but the demand shock’s unexpected nature put it under a significant amount of strain.
3.3. Labor Shortages in COVID-19

Labor shortages are one of the potential factors that could cause supply-side disrup-
tions in the food supply chains. It is important to consider the possibility of labor shortages
in the networks of downstream food processing and distribution as a result of the illness,
isolation, or limitations on movement suffered by workers [31].
The COVID-19 epidemic has caused massive shortages in the labor supply, and it
has affected several countries and, also, a diverse range of industries, especially ones
that require a large amount of human interaction, such as hospitality and food as well as
manufacturing. The increased labor shortages post COVID-19 may be partially a result of
structural changes, particularly preferences changes as some workers may no longer accept
low pay and unfavorable working circumstances.
Recent surveys, conducted in [32–35], have provided evidence linking long-COVID
to individuals leaving the labor force. These surveys revealed that around 20% of their
respective respondents were not employed due to health issues associated with COVID-19.
By combining these survey findings with COVID-19 case rates and the prevalence of
long-COVID symptoms, researchers have estimated a loss of approximately 1.5 million
workers from the labor force [36–38]. However, it is important to note that the existing
survey evidence has certain limitations, such as the absence of control groups, reliance on
self-reported reasons for non-employment attributed to long-COVID, and, in some cases,
samples that may not be representative. Furthermore, while [38] discovered that COVID-19
negatively impacts worker performance in the context of professional soccer, these findings
are in just one profession/field and may, of course, not be universally applicable.
Logistics became another major problem during the pandemic as harvested products
were not reaching to the market. Researchers have explained that in the UAE, cargo drivers
and their assistants took regular COVID-19 tests to make sure that they were virus free.
This obviously took time in terms of administration of the tests and obtaining the results,
and this caused delays.
Whenever a driver tested positive, they had to keep themselves in quarantine, of
course, hence companies had to find replacements in a short timespan as the perishable
products could not be kept for long periods of time, and so the situation was quite challeng-
ing. Since most of the labor in the UAE came from other countries, processing of documents
of new entrants also became an issue as the borders were closed. Some officials were also
afraid of contracting disease and employed unusual strategies, which caused further strains
in the movement of goods. As a result, the shortage of labor in the UAE caused delayed
logistics, which impacted the whole supply chain.
COVID-19 Illnesses and Work Absences

It has been demonstrated that absences due to illness result in consistent reductions
in the labor force. According to studies, workers who miss a full week of work due
to suspected COVID-19 diseases are 7% less likely to be employed 1 year after their
absence than workers who did not leave work due to illness. COVID-19 diseases force
older employees into retirement, which is one reason why there was a decrease in the
labor supply.
Along with producers, distributors, and consumers, the supply chain also has an
impact on labor-intensive food processing facilities. Many workers were determined not to
be COVID-19 positive and who were thus unwilling to go to work because they believed
that they would get sick there at the time of the epidemic, and, therefore, many firms
temporarily stopped, postponed, or decreased production. Due to these factors, it was
estimated that by the end of April, the output capacity of facilities producing pork, to take
just one example, had fallen by around 25% [39].
In the United States, there were 93 farms and production facilities affected by COVID-19
infections, as well as at least 462 meat packaging and 257 food-processing industries. At least
232 workers died and at least 54,036 workers were found to have been COVID-19 positive.
In Brazil, 2400 workers of meat processing plants in 24 slaughterhouses across 18 towns
were found to be COVID-19 positive. In Ghana, 534 workers of a firm that processed fish
tested positive for the virus. More than 100 cases were reported at slaughterhouses in France,
and 1553 cases of COVID-19 were discovered at meat-processing facilities in Germany [39].
Health-related absence rates have increased faster during the epidemic among workers
in occupations with potentially higher rates of COVID-19 exposure. The monthly counts
of excess absences due to illness and COVID-19 cases during the CPS reference week
are shown in Panel A in millions [40]. Excess health-related absences are calculated by
deducting actual health-related absences from the seasonal (monthly) trend number of
absences, which is predicted from January 2010 through to February 2020. Before the
pandemic, health-related absences were growing with age, but the pandemic increase was
substantially attributed to younger workers [40].
The link between health-related absenteeism and occupation-level indicators of COVID-19
exposure risk before and during the epidemic [40].
3.4. Shortages of Raw Materials

The imbalance in the supply of raw materials, which impacts the worldwide market
in all economic sectors that depend on these resources for their production processes, is
one of the main problems caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The worldwide lack of raw materials has caused supply bottlenecks in all industries
and the movement of the materials has come to a standstill. The reasons for this are, on the
one hand, rising demand due to the pandemic-related economic slowdown and, on the
other hand, that raw material suppliers have further reduced their production capacities.
Moreover, other elements of business are suffering as a result of the disruption to the flow
of materials and goods, including a sudden end to incoming financial flows and a shift in
the workforce’s skill distribution. Every supply chain was interrupted by the obstruction
of material and people’s movement [41].
3.4.1. The Labor Dilemma

One of the main reasons for the raw material shortages is labor-related problems
brought on by the pandemic, such as absenteeism, rising unionization, and the difficulties
filling unfilled positions, all of which continue to restrict the industrial sector’s potential
for expansion [12]. For example, a labor shortage at JBS, the world’s largest meat supplier,
is affecting operations in every developed country, limiting production increases and
rising costs.
3.4.2. Raw Material Scarcity

Due to the gradual lifting of the continuing nationwide lockdown, the country’s
industries are experiencing raw material scarcity. Indian industry, for example, struggles to
import materials for which locally manufactured substitutes are very difficult to obtain due
to limited capacity at India’s major ports for both sea and air freight [41].
An insufficient supply of raw materials signifies that manufacturers have to start
working with different suppliers. For example, this means different types of raw materials
with different consistencies, quality, etc. This will increase the variance of raw materials
used in production and affect production and throughput [42,43].
3.4.3. Movement Restriction

Distribution of basic goods suffers from restrictions between cities, provinces, re-
gions, and nations [39]. High-value products require a lot more labor to produce than
everyday necessities.
The difficulties brought on by consumer demand shifts and transportation restrictions
(such as national or international border closures) are significant. Due to the limitations,
consumers prepare their own meals at home instead of dining out. Additionally, customers
are reluctant to visit marketplaces and supermarkets, since they risk contracting COVID-19
in such establishments [39].
4. Methodology
This case study aims to identify the impacts of COVID-19 on the food supply chain in
the UAE in order to understand how the food supply chain has been affected. To address
this objective, a comparison strategy will be used to compare the impacts before and during
the pandemic. Moreover, we will be collecting historical data about the food demand and
supply before and during the outbreak. To evaluate consumers’ behavior, two approaches
will be applied. The first approach involves constructing a questionnaire to test if food
availability and security was affected, and the second involves applying hypothesis testing
for measuring the behaviour of consumers as shown in Figure 3.
4.1. Questionnaire Development

This questionnaire will examine the food consumption behaviour of consumers in the
UAE using quantitative models. The questionnaire structure is divided into six sections,
which are consumer behavior (three questions), food stress (two questions), food price
(two questions), food availability (three questions), food quality and safety (three questions),
and food insecurity (two questions). After collecting the results from the consumers and
customers, we will analyze the responses.
Sustainability 2023,15,
Sustainability2023, 15,8859
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
10 21
Figure 3. Proposed Framework.

Figure 3. Proposed Framework.
4.1. Questionnaire
4.1.1. Development
Data Collection and the Sample
This
A questionnaire will
self-administered examine the
questionnaire was food consumption
developed behaviour
to collect of consumers
the survey data used to in
the UAEthe
measure using
six quantitative
variables onmodels.
consumer Thebuying
questionnaire
behavior,structure
which are is divided
consumer into six sec-
behavior,
tions,anxiety,
food which food
are consumer
price, food behavior (three
availability, questions),
food food
quality and stressand
safety, (two questions),
food insecurity.food
To
price (two
design questions), food availability
the measurement-related question, (three questions),
a 5-point food was
Likert scale quality and safety
applied: (three
1 = strongly
questions),
disagree, 2 =and food insecurity
disagree, 3 = neutral,(two
4 =questions).
agree, andAfter collecting
5 = strongly the The
agree. results fromwas
survey the sent
con-
to 200 people,
sumers and out ofwe
and customers, 200will
respondents,
analyze the172 completed the questionnaire. The response
responses.
consisted of 86.6% females and 13.4% males. In terms of the age group, the majority were
4.1.1. Data
18–25 Collection
(42.4%); and 26–45
those aged the Sample
accounted for 36.6%; those aged 46 and above were 18%;
and those under 18 constituted
A self-administered questionnaire2.9% of the
wasrespondents.
developed toThe majority
collect of thedata
the survey peopleusedthat
to
responded
measure the hadsixavariables
bachelor’s ondegree (57.6%).
consumer buyingBased on the survey
behavior, which are results, the food
consumer sector
behavior,
that
foodpeople
anxiety,think
foodwas most
price, foodaffected was the
availability, meat,
food poultry,
quality and seafood
and safety, and foodone, with 40.1%.
insecurity. To
The survey was divided into six variables with 13 structured questions.
design the measurement-related question, a 5-point Likert scale was applied: 1 = stronglyThe main aim of
the survey2was
disagree, to analyze
= disagree, 3 =the effects4 of
neutral, the COVID-19
= agree, pandemic
and 5 = strongly on the
agree. food
The supply
survey waschain
sent
and to analyze the relationship between anxiety and purchasing behaviors.
to 200 people, and out of 200 respondents, 172 completed the questionnaire. The response
consisted of 86.6% females and 13.4% males. In terms of the age group, the majority were
4.1.2. Data Analysis
18–25 (42.4%); those aged 26–45 accounted for 36.6%; those aged 46 and above were 18%;
and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is a multivariate statistical analysis technique for
those under 18 constituted 2.9% of the respondents. The majority of the people that
studying structural relationships. Analysis of the structural relationship between measured
responded had a bachelor’s degree (57.6%). Based on the survey results, the food sector
variables and latent constructs is performed using this method, which combines multiple
that people think was most affected was the meat, poultry, and seafood one, with 40.1%.
regression analysis and factor analysis. In this research, this tool will be used to analyse the
The survey was divided into six variables with 13 structured questions. The main aim of
collected data from the consumer behaviour questionnaire by collecting all the information
the survey was to analyze the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the food supply chain
and to analyze the relationship between anxiety and purchasing behaviors.
and determining the percentage of each question. As a result, we will be able to identify
the variables that influence the food supply chain during COVID-19 in the UAE.
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) can be justified as a suitable research approach
for studying the impact of COVID-19 on the supply chain in the UAE food sector due to
many reasons. SEM allows for the examination of complex relationships among multiple
variables simultaneously. In the context of the UAE food sector and the impact of COVID-
19, there are likely to be various interrelated factors, such as supply disruptions, changes in
consumer demand, operational challenges, and financial implications. SEM can capture
these complex relationships and provide a holistic understanding of how these factors
interact and influence the supply chain.
SEM provides a framework for testing and validating theoretical models. By specify-
ing a theoretical framework that represents the relationships between different constructs
or variables, researchers can empirically test the proposed relationships and assess their
significance. This approach enables the validation or refinement of existing theories and
the development of new ones based on empirical evidence. SEM also allows researchers to
validate and refine measurement instruments used to assess constructs of interest. In the
context of studying the impact of COVID-19 on the supply chain in the UAE food sector,
this can involve assessing the reliability and validity of measurement scales used to capture
variables, such as supply disruptions, changes in consumer behavior, or operational perfor-
mance. Validating these measurement instruments ensures the accuracy and reliability of
the data collected.
4.2. Hypothesis Testing

This study proposes a new framework and hypotheses, as shown in Table 1 and
Figure 4, that are based on the existing literature. Food prices and food stress are the
mediating variables, and consumer consumption behavior is the dependent variable. This
conceptual model can be used to evaluate how current consumer habits are affecting food
security in the wake of the pandemic [17].
Table 1. Hypothesis.
Hypothesis Relationship
H1 Consumer Behaviour → Purchase Decision
H2 Consumer Behaviour → Storing Food
H3 Consumer Behaviour → Reduce Food Wastage
H4 Food Availability → not available in grocery shops and local shops
H5 Food Availability → Availability of Food for Customer Satisfaction
H6 Food Anxiety → Food Runs Out
H7 Food Insecurity → Feel Secured Regarding Food
H8 Food Insecurity → Meeting Daily Nutritional Needs
H9 Food Price → Increasing in Food Price
H10 Food Price → Affording Food Buying
H11 Food Quality & Safety → Food Quality
H12 Food Quality & Safety → Food Supplier
H13 Food Quality & Safety → Low Food Quality with Contamination
H14 Food Stress → Food Anxiety
H15 Food Stress → Food Price
H16 Food Stress → Food Availability
H17 Food Stress → Food Quality & Safety
ustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW

H15 Food Stress → Food Price
H16 Food Stress → Food Availability
Table 1. Cont.
H17 Food Stress → Food Quality & Safety
Hypothesis Relationship
H18 Food Stress → Food Insecurity
H18 Food Stress → Food Insecurity
H19 H19
Food Stress → Consumer Behaviour
Food Stress → Consumer Behaviour
Figure 4. Proposed Conceptual Research Framework.

Figure 4. Proposed Conceptual Research Framework.
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Model Fit
5. Results and Discussion
Table 2 demonstrates that Model 1, with 172 observations, has an AIC (Akaike Infor-
5.1. Model
mation Fit of 6897.376, which indicates the measure of goodness-of-fit of a model that
Criteria)
balances the fit of the model with the number of parameters. Moreover, the BIC (Bayesian
Table 2 demonstrates that Model 1, with 172 observations, has an AIC (A
Information Criteria) of Model 1 is 7035.866, which is similar to AIC but places a stronger
mation Criteria)
penalty on the number ofof6897.376,
parameters which indicates
in the model. However, the measure
these of goodness-of-fi
two measurement crite-
2 ) has a value
that balances the fit of the model with the number of parameters. Moreo
ria indicate a better fit model when they have a lower value. The chi-square (χ
of 121.730 with 60 degrees of freedom (df) and a p-value of 0.001 with a sample size of 172,
(Bayesian Information Criteria) of Model 1 is 7035.866, which is similar to AI
suggesting that the effect being measured is statistically significant at the 0.05 significance
a level.
stronger penalty
Therefore, on the
the p-value of number of parameters
0.001 provides in the
evidence against model.
the null However,
hypothesis and thes
urement criteria
supports the indicate
alternative a better
hypothesis, fit model
suggesting when
that there is athey have abetween
relationship lower thevalue. Th
predictor and the outcome variables.
(χ ) has a value of 121.730 with 60 degrees of freedom (df) and a p-value of
2
sample size of 172, suggesting that the effect being measured is statistically
the 0.05 significance level. Therefore, the p-value of 0.001 provides evidenc
null hypothesis and supports the alternative hypothesis, suggesting that th
tionship between the predictor and the outcome variables.
Table 2. Model Fit.
Baseline Test Difference Test

AIC BIC n χ2 df p ∆χ2 ∆df p
Model 1 6897.376 7035.866 172 121.730 60 <0.001 121.730 60 <0.001
5.2. Additional Fit Measures

Table 3 displays several fit indices for Model 1. Each index’s value represents how
accurately the model fits the data, the goodness-of-fit indices, and indicates the degree to
which the model fits the data better than a null model. To start with, the first index, which
is the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), examines the discrepancy between the data and the
proposed model in order to analyze the model fit, and the range of CFI values is 0 to 1,
with higher values reflecting the better fit. The value of (CFI) for Model 1 is 0.835, which
indicates a fair fit. Furthermore, the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) and the Bentler–Bonett
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) are both 0.785, which also indicates a fair fit and the Bentler–
Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI) is 0.730, which also indicates a fair fit. Additionally, the
parsimony fit indices (PNFI and RFI) measure how well the model fits the data while using
the fewest possible parameters. The greater the value, the better the fit, while keeping the
number of parameters to a minimum. The Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) is 0.562,
which indicates a poor fit, and Bollen’s Relative Fit Index (RFI), which is 0.650, indicates a
fair fit. Moreover, IFI and RNI, often known as incremental fit indices, measure how much
better a model fits the data compared to a null model. A greater value denotes a better
model fit improvement. Bollen’s Incremental Fit Index (IFI), which is 0.842, indicates a fair
fit. Lastly, the Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI) is 0.835, which indicates a fair fit.
Table 3. Fit Indices.
Index Value
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.835
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.785
Bentler-Bonett Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI) 0.785
Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.730
Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) 0.562
Bollen’s Relative Fit Index (RFI) 0.650
Bollen’s Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 0.842
Relative Noncentrality Index (RNI) 0.835
Table 4 demonstrates other fit measures. The first metric is Root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA), and it measures the overall fit of the model. Values close to 0
indicate a good fit, and values close to 1 indicate a poor fit. Therefore, based on the result
value, which is 0.077, the model fits the data well. The second metric is RMSEA 90% CI
lower bound with a value of 0.057, and a value between 0.05 and 0.08 is acceptable. RMSEA
90% CI upper bound has a value of 0.097, meanwhile, which is poor. The RMSEA p-value
is known as the probability that RMSEA is less than or equal to 0.05. If a p-value is greater
than 0.05, the RMSEA value does not indicate a model rejection. Therefore, the p-value
above is 0.014, which is less than 0.05, suggesting that the model does not fit the data well.
The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) has a value of 0.076, and values
close to 0 indicate a good fit whereas values close to 1 indicate a poor fit, which means, in
this case, that a good fit is indicated. Hoelter’s critical N (α = 0.05) has a value of 112.740
and Hoelter’s critical N (α = 0.01) has a value of 125.877, and they are used to determine the
minimum sample size needed to achieve a specified level of fit. The Goodness of Fit Index
(GFI) and the McDonald Fit Index (MFI) are both measures of the overall fit of the model.
High values of GFI and MFI indicate a good fit. A value of GFI greater than 0.9 means a
satisfactory fit. Thus, the value of the GFI of the model above is 0.992, which indicates a
satisfactory fit. The Expected Cross Validation Index (ECVI) has a value of 1.219, which is a
low value, and lower values of ECVI indicate a better generalizability. Based on the above
criteria, the model fits are acceptable.
Table 4. Other Fit Measures.
Metric Value
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.077
RMSEA 90% CI lower bound 0.057
RMSEA 90% CI upper bound 0.097
RMSEA p-value 0.014
Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) 0.076
Hoelter’s critical N (α = 0.05) 112.740
Hoelter’s critical N (α = 0.01) 125.877
Goodness of fit index (GFI) 0.992
McDonald fit index (MFI) 0.836
Expected cross validation index (ECVI) 1.219
The R-squared values for each predictor variable are given in Table 5. They show how
much of the variance in the dependent variable is accounted for by each predictor. While
an R-squared number close to 0 indicates that the predictor variable explains relatively little
variance, an R-squared value close to 1 indicates that the predictor variable accounts for a
significant amount of the variance in the dependent variable. In this case, the R-squared
value for “Food Quality & Safety” is 0.720, which means that 72.0% of the variation in
“Food Quality & Safety” can be explained by the independent variables. Moreover, the
highest R-squared value for a single independent variable is 1.000 for “x4”, which indicates
that this variable is a perfect predictor of the dependent variable.
Table 5. R-Squared.
R2
x1: Purchase Decision 0.305
x2: Storing Food 0.338
x3: Reduce Food Wastage 0.098
x4: Food Runs Out 1.000
x5: Increasing in Food Price 0.325
x6: Affording Food Buying 0.319
x7: Food is not available in grocery shops and local shops 0.548
x8: Availability of Food for Customer Satisfaction 0.612
x9: Food Quality 0.670
x10: Food Supplier 0.133
x11: Low Food Quality with Contamination 0.343
x12: Feel Secured Regarding Food 0.466
x13: Meeting Daily Nutritional Needs 0.551
Consumer Behaviour 0.365
Food Anxiety 0.084
Food Price 0.206
Food Availability 0.378
Food Quality & Safety 0.720
Food Insecurity 0.377
5.3. Parameter Estimates

Table 6 illustrates the factor loading for each latent variable (Consumer Behaviour,
Food Availability, Food Anxiety, Food Insecurity, Food Price, and Food Quality and Safety)
and their corresponding indicators (x1–x13). Therefore, it shows the correlation between the
latent variables and the indicator variables. The p-value indicates the statistical significance
of the factor loading, and a low p-value demonstrates a strong relationship between the
latent and indicator variables. The p-value for each latent and its indicator variable has a
significant relationship because the p-value is less than 0.05, which shows that there is a
strong correlation between all the latent variables and the indicator variables, and that they
are linked to each other.
Table 6. Factor Loadings.
Latent Indicator Estimate Std. Error z-Value p Lower Upper

Consumer Behaviour x1 1 0 1 1
x2 1.218 0.348 3.502 <0.001 0.536 1.9
x3 0.565 0.21 2.697 0.007 0.155 0.976
Food Availability x7 1 0 1 1
x8 1.071 0.198 5.4 <0.001 0.682 1.459
Food Anxiety x4 1 0 1 1
Food Insecurity x12 1 0 1 1
x13 0.993 0.213 4.666 <0.001 0.576 1.41
Food Price x5 1 0 1 1
x6 1.141 0.475 2.4 0.016 0.209 2.073
Food Quality and Safety x9 1 0 1 1
x10 −0.415 0.104 −3.976 <0.001 −0.619 −0.21
x11 0.69 0.121 5.721 <0.001 0.453 0.926
Food Stress Food Anxiety 1 0 1 1
Food Price 0.72 0.332 2.165 0.03 0.068 1.371
Food Availability 1.397 0.503 2.774 0.006 0.41 2.384
Food Quality & Safety 2.105 0.707 2.978 0.003 0.72 3.49
Food Insecurity −1.201 0.445 −2.699 0.007 −2.073 −0.329
Consumer Behaviour 0.982 0.389 2.52 0.012 0.218 1.745
The factor variances for each latent variable are shown in Table 7 (Consumer Behaviour,
Food Anxiety, Food Price, Food Availability, Food Quality and Safety, Food Insecurity, and
Food Stress). Given that all other independent variables remain constant, the estimated
change in the dependent variable is shown in the estimate column for each unit increase in
the related independent variable, where all the values are below 0 and the Food Anxiety
2 is higher than 0, being 1.727. The standard error of the estimate for each coefficient is
shown in the Std. Error column, and can be used to determine the confidence interval for
each estimate. A range of values that probably includes the true population value of the
coefficient is provided by the confidence interval.
Table 7. Factor Variances.
95% Confidence Interval

Variable Estimate Std. Error z-Value p Lower Upper
Consumer Behaviour 0.265 0.119 2.226 0.026 0.032 0.499
Food Anxiety 1.727 0.194 8.893 <0.001 1.346 2.108
Food Price 0.315 0.162 1.945 0.052 −0.002 0.632
Food Availability 0.507 0.144 3.528 <0.001 0.225 0.789
Food Quality and Safety 0.272 0.169 1.615 0.106 −0.058 0.603
Food Insecurity 0.377 0.121 3.126 0.002 0.141 0.613
Food Stress 0.158 0.098 1.608 0.108 −0.035 0.351
The z-value column displays each estimate’s standard score, or z-score, which calcu-
lates how many standard deviations the estimate deviates from the estimated population’s
mean. Each coefficient’s significance is evaluated using the z-value by comparing it to
a normal distribution of known values. This indicates that the estimate is considerably
different from 0, and that the associated independent variable likely to have an impact on
the dependent variable is a large positive or negative z-value (for example, larger than 2).
Food Anxiety has a larger z-value of 8.893, and has a greater impact on the dependent
variable. Food Availability 4 and Food Insecurity are the next other latent variables, with
z-values of 3.528 and 3.126, respectively.
The likelihood of witnessing a z-value as large as the computed one is shown in the
p-value column, assuming that the relevant independent variable has no impact on the
dependent variable. This indicates that the estimate is significant and that the associated
independent variable likely to have an impact on the dependent variable is a low p-value
(e.g., less than 0.05). Consumer Behaviour is 0.026, Food Anxiety is 0.001, Food Availability
4 is 0.001, and Food Insecurity is 0.002, among the latent variables with p-values less than
0.05. The lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence range for each estimate are shown
in the lower and upper columns, respectively. At a 95% confidence level, these intervals
offer a range of values that are most likely to include the true population value of the
coefficient. Based on the statistic, the p-value of Food Quality and Safety and Food Stress is
not accepted because it is greater than 0.05.
Table 8 shows the estimate, standard error, z-value, p-value, lower bounds, and
upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval for residual variances (x1–x13). The estimate
represents the estimated residual variance for each variable. The standard error is the
standard deviation of the estimate. The z-value is a standardized estimate of the difference
between the estimate and the population parameter (mean) divided by the standard error.
The p-value is the probability that the difference between the estimate and the population
parameter is due to chance. The lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval give
the range within which we expect the true residual variance to lie, with a 95% confidence.
The p-values for all of the variables are less than 0.05, which indicates that the differences
between the estimate and the population parameter are statistically significant.
Table 8. Residual Variances.
95% Confidence Interval

Variable Estimate Std. Error z-Value p Lower Upper
x1 0.951 0.157 6.052 <0.001 0.643 1.258
x2 1.217 0.219 5.566 <0.001 0.788 1.645
x3 1.235 0.145 8.533 <0.001 0.951 1.518
x4 0 0 0 0
x5 0.822 0.188 4.371 <0.001 0.453 1.191
x6 1.105 0.247 4.48 <0.001 0.622 1.589
x7 0.672 0.156 4.297 <0.001 0.365 0.978
x8 0.593 0.171 3.467 <0.001 0.258 0.929
x9 0.479 0.148 3.225 0.001 0.188 0.769
x10 1.093 0.124 8.821 <0.001 0.85 1.336
x11 0.885 0.118 7.471 <0.001 0.653 1.117
x12 0.695 0.142 4.883 <0.001 0.416 0.973
x13 0.486 0.13 3.728 <0.001 0.23 0.741
5.4. Estimation of the Structural Model

The structural equation model is evaluated based on the importance and applicability
of the path coefficients of the VIF between constructs and the predictive relevance. For each
relationship in the dataset, path coefficients and p-values have been determined. Therefore,
the study assessed the significant relationship between the hypothesis testing where the
p value is less than 0.05, as shown in Table 9 and Figure 5.
ypothesis Relationship Decision Support
H1 Consumer Behaviour à Purchase Decision 0 Yes
H2 Consumer Behaviour à Storing Food <0.001 Yes
H3 Sustainability 2023, 15, Consumer Behaviour à Reduce Food Wastage
8859 0.007 Yes
17 of 21
H4 Food Availability à not available in grocery shops and local shops 0 Yes
H5 Food Availability à Availability of Food for Customer Satisfaction
Table 9. Hypothesis Testing.
<0.001 Yes
H6 Food Anxiety à Food Runs Out 0 Yes
H7 Hypothesis Relationship
Food Insecurity à Feel Secured Regarding Food 0 Decision Support
Yes
H8 H1 Consumer Behaviour à Purchase
Food Insecurity à Meeting Daily Nutritional Needs Decision 0 <0.001 Yes Yes
H2 Consumer Behaviour à Storing Food <0.001 Yes
H9 H3 Food PriceBehaviour
Consumer à Increasing
à Reduce inFood
Food Price
Wastage 0.007 0 Yes Yes
H10 H4 Food Availability à not available in grocery
Food Price à Affording Food Buying shops and local shops 0 0.0016 Yes Yes
H5 Food Availability à Availability of Food for Customer Satisfaction <0.001 Yes
H11 H6 Food Quality and Safety
Food Anxiety à Food
à Food Runs Out Quality 0 0 Yes Yes
H12 H7 FoodFoodQuality à Feel
Insecurityand SecuredàRegarding
Safety Food
Food Supplier 0 <0.001 Yes Yes
H8 Food Insecurity à Meeting Daily Nutritional Needs <0.001 Yes
H13 Food
H9 Quality and Safety à Low
Food Price Food inQuality
à Increasing with Contamination 0 <0.001
Food Price Yes Yes
H14 H10 Food Price
Food à Affording
Stress à Food Food Buying
Anxiety 0.0016 0 Yes Yes
H11 Food Quality and Safety à Food Quality 0 Yes
H15 H12 Food Food Stress
Quality à Food
and Safety à FoodPrice
Supplier <0.001 0.03 Yes Yes
H16 H13 Food Quality and Safety à
Food Stress à Food Availability
Low Food Quality with Contamination <0.001 0.006 Yes Yes
H14 Food Stress à Food Anxiety 0 Yes
H17 H15 Food Stress FoodàStress
Foodà Food
Quality
Price & Safety 0.03 0.003 Yes Yes
H18 H16 Food FoodStress
Stress à Food
à Food Insecurity
Availability 0.006 0.007 Yes Yes
H17 Food Stress à Food Quality & Safety 0.003 Yes
H19 H18 Food Stress à Consumer
Food Stress Behaviour
à Food Insecurity 0.007 0.012 Yes Yes
H19 Food Stress à Consumer Behaviour 0.012 Yes
Figure 5. Path Diagram.

Figure6.5.Discussion
Path Diagram.
and Recommendations
Here, we promote the development of a comprehensive theoretical framework that
6. Discussion and
incorporates Recommendations
relevant theories and concepts related to supply chain management, crisis
management, and resilience. This framework should serve as a foundation for understand-
Here, we promote the development of a comprehensive theoretical framework th
ing the impact of COVID-19 on the supply chain in the UAE food sector and guide the
incorporates relevant
analysis of theories
the empirical data. and concepts related to supply chain management, cris
management,Basedand
on theresilience. This framework
theoretical framework shouldliterature,
and the existing serve as a foundation
hypotheses for unde
should be
standing the impact
formulated of COVID-19
that represent on the supply
specific relationships chain
between theinvariables.
the UAE food
These sector and guid
hypotheses
the analysis of the empirical data.
can be derived from theories or prior empirical findings, and they should aim to explain
the underlying mechanisms and dynamics of the impact of COVID-19 on the supply chain.
The collected data should be utilized to test and validate the formulated hypotheses.
This can be done through statistical analysis using techniques such as SEM or regression
analysis. By examining the empirical evidence, the study can contribute to the valida-
tion or refinement of existing theories or propose new theoretical explanations for the
observed phenomena.
Potential mediating or moderating factors that influence the relationship between
COVID-19 and the supply chain in the UAE food sector should be explored. This can
involve investigating the role of factors such as government policies, technological advance-
ments, organizational capabilities, or market conditions. By identifying these factors, the
study can provide valuable insights into the underlying mechanisms that shape the impact
of the pandemic on the supply chain.
The theoretical findings should be translated into practical implications for supply
chain practitioners and policymakers in the UAE food sector. Actionable recommendations
based on the identified relationships and dynamics should be provided. These recommen-
dations should aim to enhance the resilience, efficiency, and sustainability of the supply
chain in the face of future disruptions.
This study has examined customer food consumption patterns in relation to the
principles of food security. The suggested conceptual framework links key components of
food security like food availability, food access, food quality and safety, and food prices to
the food consumption behaviour and food stress of consumers. Therefore, managerial and
policy implications should be used in the following ways to address the food supply crisis
and the food stress of consumers during a pandemic.
To maintain a lead time between changes in consumer demand and the suppliers’
response, a new agile strategy must be established. To prevent deleterious consumption
behaviors, the government should plan educational events about food security and intensify
education campaigns using a variety of media, including social media, newspapers, and
news channels. In order to avoid disruptions in the food supply chain, the government
must also support different systems of food production and consumption, from agriculture
to transportation management, food storage, and marketing policy to regulations that
are supportive of farmers and producers. Governments could also assist local farmers by
providing zero-interest loans to assist them in producing food during the pandemic.
During the pandemic, supply chain management should switch from traditional plan-
ning strategies to innovative organizational transformation techniques. Diverse food flows
and value networks must be ensured on a local and international level. It is important
to ensure the proper supply chain management process, which includes identifying food
processing, marketing, and distribution as essential services, guaranteeing worker safety,
and keeping open trade channels between nations. Finally, to minimize the effects of
restructuring food logistics systems, all sectors and stakeholders must collaborate to guar-
antee sustainable food production and consumption development during the outbreak of a
crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
7. Conclusions
The COVID-19 epidemic has suddenly and drastically disrupted the whole global food
supply chain, including the whole process from production to logistics to the distribution
to retail and the individual consumers. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to
analyze the collected data from the consumer behavior questionnaire by collecting all the
information and determining the percentage of each question. This enabled us to identify
the variables that have had the most influence on the food supply chain during COVID-19
pandemic in the UAE.
Through the introduction of a new approach to understanding consumer purchasing
behavior, this study has provided important findings in this research field. In the context of
the pandemic in the UAE, this study explains the effects of the psychological food stress
of the consumer and consumption behavior. The primary need of all humans is food.
Consumers have been more anxious during COVID-19 due to the noticeable shift in food
production and delivery. The impact of food availability and food insecurity on consumer
behavior was significant. Food availability and food stress, as well as food insecurity and
the price of food, were found to be strongly correlated. This suggests that if food is not
easily accessible in local stores to satisfy daily demands during COVID-19, consumers will
become more anxious.
The model fit proves that the measures fit in the model based on two measures, the
AIC of 6897.376 and the BIC of 7035.866, which indicate a good fit to the model when they
have a low value. The chi-square (χ2 ) is 121.730, with a degree of freedom (df) is 60, and
a p-value < 0.001 with a sample size of 172, which demonstrates that the measures are
statistically significant because the p-value is <0.5. There is a strong correlation between
the latent variables and the indicator variables.
Consumer behavior is significantly related to the decision of purchasing (H1), storing
food (H2), and reducing the wastage of food (H3), whereas food availability is correlated
with unavailable food in grocery shops and local shops (H4) and the availability of enough
food for customers to be satisfied (H5). Food anxiety is related to food running out for the
customer (H6). Food insecurity has a strong correlation with feeling secure regarding food
(H7) and the ability to meet daily nutritional needs (H8). In terms of food price, we found
that this has a relationship with increasing the price of food (H9), and the ability to afford
to buy food (H10). Food quality and safety are strongly related to the quality of food (H11),
the food supplier (H12), and the low quality of food with contamination (H13). Last of
all, food stress has a significant relationship to consumer behavior, food availability, food
insecurity, food anxiety, the price of food, and food quality and safety.
Author Contributions: Methodology, H.A.A., S.A. (Shouq Alzarooni), S.A. (Shaikha Almulla) and
F.A.; Software, B.A.A., H.A.A., S.A. (Shouq Alzarooni), S.A. (Shaikha Almulla) and F.A.; Data curation,
H.A.A., S.A. (Shouq Alzarooni), S.A. (Shaikha Almulla) and F.A.; Writing—original draft, B.A.A.,
H.A.A., S.A. (Shouq Alzarooni), S.A. (Shaikha Almulla) and F.A.; Supervision, Y.A.N. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data can be made available by contacting the correspondence author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Tortajada, C.; Lim, N.S.W. Food Security and COVID-19: Impacts and Resilience in Singapore. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021,
5, 367. [CrossRef]
2. OECD. COVID-19 and the Food and Agriculture Sector: Issues and Policy Responses. 2020. Available online: http://www.oecd.
org/coronavirus/policy-responses/covid-19-and-the-food-and-agriculture-sector-issues-and-policy-responses-a23f764b/
(accessed on 1 April 2023).
3. Coluccia, B.; Agnusdei, G.P.; Miglietta, P.P.; De Leo, F. Effects of COVID-19 on the Italian agri-food supply and value chains. Food
Control 2021, 123, 107839. [CrossRef]
4. Harvard. Lesson 4: What is the Food Supply Chain? Available online: https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/chge/files/lesson_4_1.pdf
(accessed on 1 April 2023).
5. Shirbhayye, C. Supply chain crisis management—Importance of communication. In Sourcing and Supply Chain. 2020. Available
online: https://sourcingandsupplychain.com/supply-chain-crisis-management-importance-of-communication/ (accessed on
17 October 2022).
6. Haleem, A.; Sufiyan, M. Defining Food Supply Chain Management—A Study Based on a Literature Survey. J. Ind. Integr. Manag.
2021, 6, 71–91. [CrossRef]
7. Gultekin, B.; Demir, S.; Gunduz, M.A.; Cura, F.; Ozer, L. The logistics service providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: The
prominence and the cause-effect structure of uncertainties and risks. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 165, 107950. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Fulantelli, G.; Allegra, M.; Vitrano, A.Z.P. The Lack of Communication and the Need of IT for Supply-Chain Management
Strategies in SMEs. In Proceedings of the Informing Science & IT Education Conference, Cork, Ireland, 19–21 June 2002; pp. 19–21.
9. Njomane, L.; Telukdarie, A. Impact of COVID-19 food supply chain: Comparing the use of IoT in three South African supermarkets.
Technol. Soc. 2022, 71, 102051. [CrossRef]
10. Kumaraand, P.; Singh, R.K. Strategic framework for developing resilience in Agri-Food Supply Chains during COVID 19
pandemic. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2022, 25, 1401–1424.
11. Blackwell, R.D.; Miniard, P.W.; Engel, J.F. Consumer Behavior; Harcourt College Publishers: San Diego, CA, USA, 1994.
12. Hobbs, J.E. The COVID-19 pandemic and meat supply chains. Meat Sci. 2021, 181, 108459. [CrossRef]
13. Ogot, N. Metrics for identifying food security status. In Food Security and Nutrition; Galanakis, C.M., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 147–179.
14. Hamilton, R.; Thompson, D.; Bone, S.; Chaplin, L.N.; Griskevicius, V.; Goldsmith, K.; Hill, R.; John, D.R.; Mittal, C.; O’Guinn, T.;
et al. The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2019, 47, 532–550. [CrossRef]
15. Cullen, M.T. COVID-19 and the Risk to Food Supply Chains: How to Respond; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2020.
16. Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products.
Sustainable Development. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 20–31.
17. Rabbi, M.F.; Oláh, J.; Popp, J.; Máté, D.; Kovács, S. Food Security and the COVID-19 Crisis from a Consumer Buying Behaviour
Perspective—The Case of Bangladesh. Foods 2021, 10, 3073. [CrossRef]
18. Luckstead, J.; Nayga, R.M., Jr.; Snell, H.A. Labor Issues in the Food Supply Chain Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. Appl. Econ.
Perspect. Policy 2021, 43, 382–400. [CrossRef]
19. Smith, M.D.; Wesselbaum, D. COVID-19, Food Insecurity, and Migration. J. Nutr. 2020, 150, 2855–2858. [CrossRef]
20. Foote, N. No Evidence of COVID-19 Transmission through Food, Says EFSA; Euractiv: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; pp. 7–8.
21. Nekmahmud, M. Environmental marketing. In Tourism Marketing in Bangladesh; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
22. Nekmahmud, M.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Why not green marketing? Determinates of consumers’ intention to green purchase decision
in a new developing nation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7880. [CrossRef]
23. Nekmahmud, M.; Ramkissoon, H.; Fekete-farkas, M. Green purchase and sustainable consumption: A comparative study
between European and Non-European tourists. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 43, 100980. [CrossRef]
24. Van Rijswijk, W.; Frewer, L.J. Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability. Br. Food J. 2008,
110, 1034–1046. [CrossRef]
25. Haas, R.; Imami, D.; Miftari, I.; Ymeri, P.; Grunert, K.; Meixner, O. Consumer perception of food quality and safety in western
Balkan countries: Evidence from Albania and Kosovo. Foods 2021, 10, 160. [CrossRef]
26. Nelson, P. Information and consumer behavior. J. Political Econ. 1970, 78, 311–329. [CrossRef]
27. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food Safety and the Coronavirus Disease 2019; FDA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2020.
28. Seymour, N.; Yavelak, M.; Christian, C.; Chapman, B.; Danyluk, M. COVID-19 and Food Safety FAQ: Is Coronavirus a Concern with
Takeout; EDIS: Pyeongtaek, Republic of Korea, 2020.
29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Food Supply Chains and COVID-19: Impacts and Policy Lessons; OECD:
Paris, France, 2020.
30. Anderson, J.D.; Mitchell, J.L.; Maples, J.G. Invited Review: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for food supply chains. Appl.
Anim. Sci. 2021, 37, 738–747. [CrossRef]
31. Hobbs, J.E. Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. Can. D'agroeconomie 2020, 68, 171–176.
[CrossRef]
32. Davis, H.E.; Assaf, G.S.; McCorkell, L.; Wei, H.; Low, R.J.; Re, Y.; Redfield, S.; Austin, J.P.; Akrami, A. Characterizing long COVID
in an international cohort: 7 months of symptoms and their impact. eClinicalMedicine 2021, 38, 101019. [CrossRef]
33. Evans, R.A.; McAuley, H.; Harrison, E.M.; Shikotra, A.; Singapuri, A.; Sereno, M.; Elneima, O.; Docherty, A.B.; Lone, N.I.; Leavy,
O.C.; et al. Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): A UK multicentre,
prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2021, 9, 1275–1287. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Ziauddeen, N.; Gurdasani, D.; O’Hara, M.E.; Hastie, C.; Roderick, P.; Yao, G.; Alwan, N. Characteristics and impact of Long
Covid: Findings from an online survey. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0264331. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Ham, D.I. Long-Haulers and Labor Market Outcomes. In Opportunity and Inclusive Growth Institute Working Papers 060; Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2022.
36. Bach, K. Is ‘Long Covid’ Worsening the Labor Shortage; Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
37. Domash, A.; Summers, L.H. How Tight Are US Labor Markets; Working Paper 29739; National Bureau of Economic Research:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022.
38. Fischer, K.; Reade, J.J.; Schmal, W.B. The Long Shadow of an Infection: COVID-19 and Performance at Work; Working Paper; Dusseldorf
Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2021.
39. Aday, S.; Aday, M.S. Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Qual. Saf. 2020, 4, 167–180. [CrossRef]
40. Goda, G.S.; Soltas, E.J. The Impacts of Covid-19 Illnesses on Workers. In National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series;
National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; p. 30435.
41. Biswas, T.K.; Das, M.C. Selection of the barriers of supply chain management in Indian manufacturing sectors due to COVID-19
impacts. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl. 2020, 3, 1–2. [CrossRef]
42. Soffer. Can Food Manufacturers Turn the Raw Material Crisis to Their Advantage? Blog, Seebo. 2022. Available online:
https://blog.seebo.com/food-manufacturers-raw-materials-crisis/ (accessed on 18 October 2022).
43. Cutler, D.M. The Costs of Long COVID. In AMA Health Forum; American Medical Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2022.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Sustainability 15 08859

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 15 08859

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 8859. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118859 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Supplier Processor Distributor Retailer Consumer

3.1. Lack of Communication

3.1.1. Coordination between Stakeholders

3.1.2. Coordination between Stakeholders

Sustainability 2023, 15, 8859 5 of 21

3.2. Consumer Panic in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Figure 2. Consumers Panic Impact Flow Chart.

3.2.2. Food Stress

3.2.3. Food Insecurity

3.2.4. Food Quality and Safety

3.2.5. Demand Shock

3.3. Labor Shortages in COVID-19

COVID-19 Illnesses and Work Absences

3.4. Shortages of Raw Materials

3.4.1. The Labor Dilemma

3.4.2. Raw Material Scarcity

3.4.3. Movement Restriction

4.1. Questionnaire Development

Figure 3. Proposed Framework.

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

Sustainability 2023, 15, 8859 12 of 21

Figure 4. Proposed Conceptual Research Framework.

Table 2. Model Fit.

Baseline Test Difference Test

5.2. Additional Fit Measures

Table 3. Fit Indices.

Table 4. Other Fit Measures.

5.3. Parameter Estimates

Table 6. Factor Loadings.

Latent Indicator Estimate Std. Error z-Value p Lower Upper

Table 7. Factor Variances.

95% Confidence Interval

Table 8. Residual Variances.

95% Confidence Interval

5.4. Estimation of the Structural Model

Figure 5. Path Diagram.

You might also like